Açık Üniversite Hareketi: Mega Üniversitelerin Karşılaştırmalı Bir Vaka Çalışması

Öz

Açık ve uzaktan eğitimdeki artış ve yükseköğretim alanında açık üniversite hareketinin yükselişi, dünyanın farklı yerlerinde her biri 100.000'den fazla öğrenciye sahip açık mega üniversitelerin kurulmasıyla sonuçlanmıştır. Erişimin faydalarına ve düşük maliyetlere rağmen, bu tür kurumlara yönelik temel eleştiri kalite güvencesi ile ilgili olmuştur. Bu makalenin amacı 1) Türkiye'deki Anadolu Üniversitesi, Hindistan'daki Indira Gandhi National Open University ve İngiltere'deki Open University olmak üzere üç açık mega üniversiteyi resmi web sitelerinde göründükleri şekliyle, misyonları, vizyonları, sloganları, öğrenme ortamları, giriş şartları ve kalite güvence politikaları açısından karşılaştırmak; 2) açık üniversite hareketiyle uyumlarını ortaya çıkarmaktır. Bu nitel çalışma, karşılaştırmalı bir vaka çalışması yaklaşımı kullanır ve verileri sabit karşılaştırma yöntemiyle analiz eder. Başlıca bulgular, bu üniversitelerin kitleselleştirme yoluyla erişim stratejilerini belirlediklerini ve maliyetlerini düşürdüklerini ortaya koymuştur. Üniversiteler, dünya çapındaki öğrenci kitlelerini cezbetmek için web sitelerindeki kalite güvence politikalarıyla ilgileniyor görünmektedirler. Ortaya koyduğumuz soru, gerçek eğitim ortamlarında nitelik ve nicelik arasındaki dengeye ne ölçüde ulaşıldığıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• açık ve uzaktan eğitim
• açık üniversite hareketi
• mega üniversite
• kitleselleştirme
• eğitim politikaları

The Open University Movement: A Comparative Case Study of Mega Universities

Abstract

The increase in open and distance education and the rise of open university movement in the field of higher education have resulted in the establishment of open mega universities in different parts of the world with populations of more than 100,000 students each. Despite the benefits of access and low costs, the main criticism of this type of institution has been about quality assurance. The aim of this paper is 1) to compare and contrast three open mega universities namely Anadolu University in Turkey, Indira Gandhi National Open University in India, and Open University in Britain, in terms of their missions, visions, mottos, learning environments, entrance requirements, and quality assurance policies as they appeared on their official websites; and 2) to highlight their alignment with the open university movement. This qualitative study employs a comparative case study approach, and analyses data with the constant comparative method. Major findings suggested that these universities seemed to establish their access strategies and lower their costs through massification. They appeared to be concerned about quality assurance policies on their websites mainly to attract student masses around the world. The question we raise is the extent to which the balance between quality and quantity is reached in actual educational settings.

Keywords

• open and distance education
• open university movement
• mega university
• massification
• educational policies

References

1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States. Sloan Consortium: NJ.
2. Anadolu University. (2023a). Home Page. https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/
3. Anadolu University. (2023b). Vision & Mission. https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/universitemiz/anadolu-hakkinda/vizyon-and-misyon
4. Anadolu University. (2023c). Programs Abroad.  https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/en/open-education/programs-abroad
5. Anadolu University. (2023d). Learning Environments. https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/en/open-education/learning-environments
6. Anadolu University. (2023e). Entrance Requirements. https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/en/open-education/admission/new-student-admission
7. Anadolu University. (2023f). Quality Policies. https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/uploads/anadolu/ckfinder/web/files/kalite-politikasi_en.pdf
8. Anadolu University. (2023g). Second University (Admission without Entrance Examination). https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/en/open-education/admission/second-university-admission-without-entrance-examination

9. Baath, J.A. 1985. A note on the origin of distance education. ICDE Bulletin 7, 61-62. 
10. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2016). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.
11. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies. Educacao & Realidade, 42, 899–918.
12. Bates, T. (2005). Charting the evolution of lifelong learning and distance higher education: The role of research. In C. McIntosh, Perspectives on distance education: Lifelong 
13. learning and distance higher education (133-149). Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Bayne, S., Knox, J. & Ross, J. (2015). Open education: the need for a critical approach. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 247-250.
14. Burdman, P. (2012). Where to Begin? The Evolving Role of Placement Exams for Students  Starting College. Jobs for the Future. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537265.pdf
15. Candemir, Ö., İnceelli, A.& Ünal, F. (2002). A Review of the Literature on the Open Education Faculty in Turkey 1982-2002. U. Demiray (Ed.). Eskişehir: Anadolu University.
16. Çetinsaya, G. (2014). Büyüme, kalite, uluslararasılaşma: Türkiye yükseköğretimi için bir yol haritası. Yükseköğretim Kurulu.
17. Daniel, J. S. (1995). The mega-universities and the knowledge media: implications of new technologies for large distance teaching universities (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University).
18. Daniel, J. S. (1996). Mega-universities and knowledge media: Technology strategies for higher education. Routledge: London.
19. Daniel, J. S. (2017). Open Universities Look to the Future. Journal of Open Learning and Research Communication, 3, 7-11.
20. Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalić-Trumbić, S. (2009). Breaking higher education’s iron triangle: Access, cost, and quality. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(2), 30-35.
21. Daniel, J. & Mackintosh, C. (2003). Leading ODL Futures in the Eternal Triangle: The Mega-University Response to the Greatest Moral Challenge of Our Age. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (811-829), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
22. Demiray, E. & Curabay, S. (2010). Organizational Commitment of Anadolu University Open Education Faculty Students’. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 23, 39-50.
23. Elnikova, G. A., Nikulina, N. N., Gordienko, I. V., & Davityan, M. G. (2020). Distance education in universities: Lessons from the pandemic. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(1), 3253-3529.
24. Emil, S. (2020). Üniversitelerin Sanal Yüzü İlk Bakışta Ne Söyler? Türkiye Üniversitelerinin Kurumsal İnternet Sitelerinin Açılış Sayfaları Görsel ve Metinsel İçerik Analizi (What Do Universities’ Virtual Faces Tell at a Glance? A Visual and Textual Analysis of Turkish Universities’ Official Homepages). Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 10(1), 51-60.
25. Farnes, N. C. (2000). Distance Education for the Information Society: Policies, pedagogy and professional development. Analytical Survey. Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.
26. Fresen, J. W. (2018). Embracing distance education in a blended learning model: challenges and prospects. Distance Education, 39(2), 224–240. 
27. Gaskell, A. (2018). United Kingdom. In A. Qayyum and O. Zawacki-Richter (eds.), Open and Distance Education in Australia, Europe and the Americas. Springer Briefs in Open and Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0298-5_10
28. Gil-Jaurena, I., & Domínguez, D. (2018). Teachers’ roles in light of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Evolution and challenges in higher distance education. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 64(2), 197–219.
29. Gourley, B.M. (2008). An Open University for the 21st Century. In L.E.Weber & J.J. Duderstadt (Eds.) The Globalization of Higher Education. (207-216), London, Paris, Genève: Economica, Glion Colloquium Series.
30. Gür, B. S., Çelik, Z., Kurt, T., & Yurdakul, S. (2018). The outlook on higher education in Turkey 2017: Monitoring and evaluation report. EBSAM.
31. Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1999). Distance and campus universities: Tensions and interactions – A comparative study of five countries. Oxford: Pergamon Press & International Association of Universities.
32. Hanna, D. E. (2013). Emerging organizational models in higher education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (684-694). New York: Routledge.
33. Indira Gandhi National Open University. (2023a) Home Page. http://ignou.ac.in/
34. Indira Gandhi National Open University. (2023b). Vision & Mission. http://ignou.ac.in/ignou/aboutignou/profile/4
35. Indira Gandhi National Open University. (2023c). Total Quality Management. http://www.ignou.ac.in/upload/ignoudocs/DEC/Total%20Quality%20Management%20of%20Distance%20Education.pdf
36. Kanwar, A. S., Carr, A., Ortlieb, K., & Mohee, R. (2018). Opportunities and challenges for campus-based universities in Africa to translate into dual-mode delivery. Distance Education, 39(2), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1457944
37. Kondakci, Y. Bedenlier, S. and Aydin, C. H. (2019). Turkey. in O. Zawacki-Richter and A.  Qayyum (eds.), Open and Distance Education in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Springer Briefs in Open and Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5787-9_12
38. Latchem, C., & Jung, I. (2012). Quality assurance and accreditation in open and distance learning. Quality assurance and accreditation in distance education and e-learning, 13-22.
39. Latchem, C., Özkul, A. K., Aydın, C. K., & Mutlu, M. E. (2006). The open education system,  Anadolu University, Turkey: e-Transformation in a mega-university. Open Learning, 21(3), 221–235.
40. Lynch, M. (2020). E-Learning during a global pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 189-195.
41. Mathew, I. R. & Iloanya, J. E. (2016). Open And Distance Learning: Benefits and Challenges of Technology Usage for Online Teaching and Learning in Africa, presented at Pan-Commonwealth Forum, Botswana. Commonwealth of Learning and OpenUniversity of Malaysia.
42. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
43. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Nelson, S. J., & Thompson, G. W. (2005). Barriers perceived by administrators and faculty regarding the use of distance education technologies in pre-service programs for secondary agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(4), 36-48.
45. Open University (2023a). Open University main page. http://www.openuniversity.edu
46. Open University. (2023b). The Open University. Strategy. https://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/strategy
47. Open University. (2023c). Operating in an open world. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/open-education/content-section-8.4.4
48. Open University. (2023d). Fees. http://www.openuniversity.edu/study/fees?_ga=2.139874032.2142121034.1608032769-680313166.1608032769
49. Open University. (2023e). Quality and Standards. https://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/teaching-and-research/quality-and-standards
50. Panda S. and Garg, S. (2019). India. In S. Garg, Zawacki-Richter, O., & Qayyum, A. The National Higher Education System in India. Olaf Zawacki-Richter Adnan Qayyum (Editors), pp. 27-42.
51. Panda, S. & Mishra, S. (2007). E-learning in a Mega-Open University: Faculty attitude, barriers and motivators. Educational media international, 44 (4), 323-338.
52. Peters, M. A. (2008). The history and emergent paradigm of open education. In. M. A. Peters, & R. G. Britez (eds.), Open education and education for openness (3–15). Rotterdam: Sense.
53. Peters, O. (2010). Distance education in transition: Development and Issues. (5th ed). Oldenburg: Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Center for Lifelong Learning.
54. Peters, M. A. & Britez, R. G. (2008). Introduction. In M.A. Peters & R.G. Britez (Eds.), Open Education and Education for Openness (xvii-xxii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
55. Pregowska, A., Masztalerz, K., Garlińska, M., & Osial, M. (2021). A Worldwide Journey through Distance Education—From the Post Office to Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Realities, and Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(3), 118. MDPI AG. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030118
56. Ross, J., & Sheail, P. (2017). The ‘campus imaginary’: online students’ experience of the masters dissertation at a distance. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 839–854. 
57. Schejbal, (2012). In search of a new paradigm for higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 37, 373--386.
58. Southard, S., & Mooney, M. (2015). A comparative analysis of distance education quality assurance standards. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(1), 55.
59. Shale, D. (2011). Beyond boundaries: The Evolution of distance education. In M.F. Cleveland-Innes & D.R. Garrison (Eds.), An Introduction to distance education (91-108). New York, NY: Routledge.
60. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance:  Foundations of distance education (6th ed.). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.
61. Smith, W., & Bender, T. (2008). American higher education transformed 1940–2005. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
62. Tait, A. (2018). United Kingdom-Commentary. In A. Qayyum and O. Zawacki-Richter (eds.), Open and Distance Education in Australia, Europe and the Americas. Springer Briefs in Open and Distance Education.
63. Tait, A. (2008). What are open universities for?. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 23(2), 85-93.
64. Tekneci, P. D. (2016). Evolution of Turkish higher education system in the last decade. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 6(3), 277-287.
65. Times Higher Education World University Rankings. (2018). The open university. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/open-university
66. Toquero, C. M. (2021). Emergency remote education experiment amid COVID-19 pandemic. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, (15), 162-176.
67. UNESCO. (2002). Open and Distance Learning: Trends, Policy and Strategy Considerations. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001284/128463e.pdf
68. UNESCO, (2017). Six ways to ensure higher education leaves no one behind. Global Education Monitoring Report UNESCO International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP).  http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002478/247862E.pdf
69. Vasilevska, D., Rivza, B., Pivac, T., Alekneviciene V. & Parlinska, A. (2017). Analysis of the Demand for Distance Education at Eastern and Central European Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 19(1),106-116.
70. Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Sage.
71. Zawacki-Richter, O. and Qayyum, A. (2019). Open and Distance Education in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Springer Briefs in Open and Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5787-9_12
72. Yurdakul, S., & Şahin Demir, S. A. (2022). Yükseköğretime bakış 2022: İzleme ve değerlendirme raporu. EBSAM.