Erasmus Programına Katılan Türk Öğrencilerin Deneyimlerinden Hareketle Ortaya Çıkan Zorlukların ve Çelişkilerin Nitel Bir Analizi

Yıl 2021, , 63 - 73, 03.05.2021

Esin Aksay Aksezer , Kutlay Yağmur , Fons Van De Vıjver

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.20.730970

Cited By: 2

Öz

Uluslararasılaşma, özellikle Erasmus programı, son yıllarda Türkiye'deki yükseköğretim alanını ve bu alanın paydaşlarını etkileyen başlıca süreçlerdendir. Uygulandığı coğrafyada ve Türkiye'de en bilinen ve yaygın öğrenci hareketlilik programı olan Erasmus, başladığı yıldan itibaren artan sayıda kurum ve öğrenciyi dâhil ederek dikkatleri üzerine toplamış başarılı bir örnek olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Erasmus programının öğrencilere sağladığı sosyal, kültürel, akademik ve profesyonel faydalara ve yaşanan zorluklara; Bologna Süreci'nin Türk yükseköğretimi üzerindeki etkilerine yönelik konular daha önce yapılmış farklı nitelikteki çalışmalarda ele alınmıştır. Bu kapsamda, hazırlık aşamasında, misafir eden kurum ya da ülkede ve döndükten sonra yaşanan çeşitli akademik, sosyal, kültürel ve bürokratik zorluklara değinmek mümkündür. Ancak, yaşanan zorluklarla ilgili olarak, yeterince veya hiç ele alınmamış konular da bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma daha az ele alınmış konulara değinmeyi hedeflemektedir. Bu kapsamda ele alınan başlıklar, farklılıklar üzerinden geliştirilen politika ve uygulamalar, proje yönetimi alanında yaşanan sıkıntılar (kapsayıcı olmak, finansal konular, sonuçlar) ve tüketim yaklaşımının uluslararası deneyimlere yansımaları olarak özetlenebilir. Bu konular, Erasmus programının kapsayıcı olma, ortak bir anlayış geliştirme ve farklı açılardan gelişim sağlaması gibi genel hedeflere ulaşma konusunda çelişkili bir resim ortaya çıkartabildiğini göstermektedir. Dolayısıyla, bu başlıklarla program hedefleri ve sonuçları arasında ortaya çıkabilen farklılık ve zıtlıkların farkına varılmalı ve özellikle uygun öğrenci danışmanlığı, beklenti yönetimi ve daha esnek değerlendirme-yerleştirme yöntemlerinin geliştirilmesinin önemi değerlendirilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Erasmus, Türkiye, yükseköğretimde hareketlilik

A Qualitative Study of Erasmus Program Challenges and Paradoxes Based on the Experiences of Students from Turkey

Öz

Internationalization agenda, especially the Erasmus framework, has become a significant process affecting the Turkish higher education. Erasmus, as being the most influential and preferred mobility scheme, has attracted significant attention and witnessed increasing number of students in years. There are various studies on the outcomes of the Erasmus program in terms of social, cultural, and academic gains of students as well as associated challenges and influence of the Bologna Process on the Turkish higher education outlook. However, there are less visited concepts in terms of challenges that need further attention. This paper addresses these less visited subjects such as project management/implementation issues (diversity, funding, and outcomes), politics of difference, and consumerist approaches. The findings suggest that these issues may complicate program implementations and run the risk of hindering general program targets, leading to a paradoxical outlook such a becoming exclusive to certain group of students, emphasizing difference rather than mutual understanding, seeing the experience as a to-do list item. So, the tension between various issues such as consumerist approaches, politics of difference and project implementation issues and general program targets and outcomes must be acknowledged towards emphasizing the critical role of appropriate student advising and expectation management as well as development of flexible and diverse evaluation-placement methods for efficient and positive program implementation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Erasmus, higher education, mobility, Turkey

Kaynakça

• Aba, D. (2013). Internationalization of higher education and student mobility in Europe and the case of Turkey. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 42(2), 99–110.
• Altbach, P. G. (2013). The international imperative in higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Altbach, P. G. (2014). The complexities of global engagement. In L. E. Rumbley, R. Matross Helms, P. M. Peterson & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Global opportunities and challenges for higher education leaders (pp. 19–22). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5–25.
• Arslan, S. (2013). Perspectives of the Turkish participants on Erasmus exchange programme. The Online Journal of Counseling and Education, 2(2), 9–18.
• Aslan, B., & Jacobs, D. B. (2014). Erasmus student mobility: Some good practices according to views of Ankara University exchange students. Journal of Education and Future, 5, 57–72.
• Association of International Educators (NAFSA) (2020). Official website. Retrieved from: https://www.nafsa.org/about/about-international-education/internationalization (April 20, 2020).
• Bolen, M. (2001). Consumerism and U.S. study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(3), 182–200.
• Bozoğlu, O., Armağan, S., & Güven, E. (2016). What motivates Turkish undergraduate students to attend international student mobility programs and study abroad: Insights from a university. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 30(2), 86–94.
• British Council (2017). Next generation Türkiye (p. 8). Retrieved from: https://www.britishcouncil.org.tr/en/nextgeneration/turkey (April 20, 2020).
• Brubaker, C. (2017). Re-thinking re-entry: New approaches to supporting students after study abroad. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 50(2), 109–119.
• Bunce, L., Baird, A., & Jones, S. E. (2017). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in HigherEducation, 42(11), 1958–1978.
• Chan, W. Y. (2004). International cooperation in higher education: Theory and practice. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 32–55.
• Cole F. L. (1988) Content analysis: Process and application. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 2(1), 53–57.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
• de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Johnson, L., & van Liempd, H. G. (2013). The new dimension of internationalisation of higher education: An epilogue by the editors. In H. de Wit, F. Hunter,
• L. Johnson & H. G. van Liempd (Eds.), Possible futures: The next 25 years of the internationalisation of higher education (p. 231). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE).
• Demir, A., & Demir, S. (2009). The assessment of Erasmus program in terms of intercultural dialogue and interaction (a qualitative study with candidate teachers). The Journal of International Social Research, 2(9), 95–105.
• Doerr, N. M. (2016). Chronotopes of study abroad: The cultural other, immersion, and compartmentalized space–time. Journal of Cultural Geography, 33(1), 80–99.
• Doerr, N. M. (2017). Learning as othering: Narratives of learning, construction of difference and the discourse of immersion in study abroad. Intercultural Education, 28(1), 90–103.
• Erdem Mete, D. (2017). Turkish students’ Erasmus experiences: Challenge of facing the unknown. Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 141–152.
• Ersoy, A. (2013). Turkish teacher candidates’ challenges regarding cross-cultural experiences: The case of Erasmus exchange program. Education and Science, 38(168), 154–166.
• European Commission Website (2020). Erasmus in the spotlight. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/anniversary (April 20, 2020).
• European Stability Initiative (ESI) (2014). Turkish students, isolation and the Erasmus challenge. Background paper. Retrieved from: https://www.esiweb. org/sites/default/files/reports/pdf/Turkish%20Erasmus%20students %2024%20July%202014%20EN.pdf (April 20, 2020).
• Feyen, B., & Krzaklewska, E. (Eds.) (2013). The Erasmus phenomenon. Symbol of a new European generation? Frankfurt AM: Peter Lang.
• Genç İlter, B. (2013). How do mobility programs change EFL students’ points of view? Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, 181– 188.
• Harrison, L. M., & Risler, L. (2015). The role consumerism plays in student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(1), 67–76.
• Kasapoğlu Önder, R., & Balcı, A. (2010). The effects of the Erasmus study mobility program on Turkish students. [Article in Turkish] Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 93–116.
• Kaya, A. (2015). Critical voices against the Bologna Process in Turkey: Neo-liberal governance in higher education. New Perspectives on Turkey, 50, 105–133.
• Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.
• Kuhn, T. (2012). Why educational exchange programmes miss their mark: Cross-border mobility, education and european identity. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(6), 994–1010.
• Lo, S. (2006). Defining the peer advisor in the U.S. study abroad context. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(2), 173–184.
• Miller-Perrin, C., & Thompson, D. (2014). Outcomes of global education: External and internal change associated with study abroad. New Directions for Student Services, (146), 77–89.
• Oğuz, G. (2011). ERASMUS student mobility in higher education institutions: The European Union and Turkey. EU-CoE Report. Strasbourg; Council of Europe.
• Onursal-Beşgül, Ö. (2017). Translating norms from Europe to Turkey: Turkey in the Bologna process. Compare, 47(5), 742–755.
• Önen, S. (2017). An investigation into experiences of Erasmus students. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14-1(27), 339–367.
• Papatsiba, V. (2005). Political and individual rationales of student mobility: A case-study of ERASMUS and a French regional scheme for studies abroad. European Journal of Education, 40(2), 173–188.
• Pedro, E., & Franco, M. (2016) The importance of networks in the transnational mobility of higher education students: Attraction and satisfaction of foreign mobility students at a public university. Studies in Higher Education, 41(9), 1627–1655.
• Schmitt, N. (2014). Differences in Turkish identity construction. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
• Seeber, M., Meoli, M. & Cattaneo, M. (2020) How do European higher education institutions internationalize? Studies in Higher Education, 45(1), 145–162.
• Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26.
• Teichler, U. (2009). Student mobility and staff mobility in the European Higher Education Area beyond 2010. In B. M. Kehm, J. Huisman, & B. Stensaker (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area: Perspectives on a moving target (pp. 183–201). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Turkish National Agency (2009). The life-long learning programme (LLP) in Turkey: Impact assessment report (pp. 61–71). Ankara: The Centre for EU Education and Youth Programmes (Turkish National Agency).
• Twombly, S. B., Salisbury, M. H., Tumanut, S. D., & Klute, P. (2012). Study abroad in a new global Century: Renewing the promise, refining the purpose. ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(4), 1–152.
• Uyan Semerci, P., Erdoğan, E., & Sandal Önal, E. (2017). “Biz”liğin aynasından yansıyanlar. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Ünlü, İ. (2015). Teacher candidates’ Oopinions on Erasmus student exchange program. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(1), 223– 237.
• Wilson, I. (2011). What should we expect of ‘Erasmus generations’? JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5):1113–1140.
• Woodson, C. F. (2013). The effects of consumerism on access to higher education. The Vermont Connection, 34(1). Retrieved from: https:// scholarworks.uvm.edu/tvc/vol34/iss1/13 (April 20, 2020).
• Yağcı, Y. (2010). A different view of the Bologna process: The case of Turkey. European Journal of Education, 45(4), 588–600.
• Yaprak, T. (2013). Problems of the Erasmus programme and their solutions. Turkish Studies, 8(10), 763–770.
• Yıldırım, R., & İlin, G. (2017). Some reflections on cultural adaptation of Turkish Erasmus students of ELT department. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 42(2), 111–121.
• Yılmaz Fındık, L. (2016). Is higher education internationalizing in Turkey? European Scientific Journal, 12(13), 295–305.
• Young, G. E. (2014). Reentry: Supporting students in the final stage of study abroad. New Directions for Student Services, (146), 59–67.
• Zhou, J. (2016). A dynamic systems approach to internationalization of higher education. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 6(1).