Reflections of Incoming Erasmus+ Exchange Students at a Turkish University Context

Yıl 2019, , 323 - 339, 31.07.2019

Sabriye Şener , Süleyman Gün

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.599613

Cited By: 1

Öz

This study aims to shed light on the preferences and problems of Erasmus+ exchange programme students before and during the mobility process. The research was organized in qualitative research method phenomenological design. The participants of the study were 21 incoming Erasmus+ students having studied at a state university in Turkey at 2015-2016 academic year. The required data were collected with a survey in open-ended questionnaire format. The collected data were analyzed with descriptive content analysis technique. Students’ answers were described, organized and explained to interpret the context. Participants’ preferences gave information about the reasons for choosing the country and the university while their impressions were covering the firstimpressions after arriving in Turkey, information about Turkey, Turkish culture, Turkish university, and expectations about education. The findings also gave information about the problems or difficulties and previous experiences of the participants. Lastly, some implications and suggestions were derived from the statements of Erasmus+ programme students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Erasmus+ students, exchange students, student mobility, target culture

Kaynakça

• Abu Jalalah, F. (1993). The cultural dimension of teaching English as a foreign language in an Arab Gulf state. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Durham.
• Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.) Contemporary Field Research, Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown.CoHE,
• Turkish Council of Higher Education (2000). The Law on Higher Education. Retrieved on August 10, 2018 from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/30217/the_law_on_higher_education_mart_2000.pdf/bb86b67f-2aea-4773-8c21-43c10384f883CoHE,
• Turkish Council of Higher Education (2018). Bologna Process. Retrieved on September 01, 2018 from http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/uluslararasi-iliskiler/bologna-sureci
• Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (5th Ed.). London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• European Commission (2016). Erasmus+ EU programme for education, training, youth and sport. Retrieved on October 16, 2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/about_en
• Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality. On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 237–59.
• House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language, C. Gnutz-mann (ed.), 73 –89. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
• İçbay, M. A., & Kocayörük, E. (2011). Being an exchange student in Turkey: Adaptation to a new culture. International Journal of Progressive Education, 7(3), 27-39.
• Jackson, J. (2011). Host language proficiency, intercultural sensitivity, and study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 21, 167-188.
• Konevas, L., & Duoba K. (2007). The role of student mobility in the development of human capital in Europe, Economics and Management, 12, 585-591.
• Lipowski, M. (2012). Experience of Erasmus students studying in Poland. In Knowledge and Learning: Global Empowerment; Proceedings of the Management, Knowledge and Learning International Conference 2012 (pp. 751-758). International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (Second Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 1(2), 13-22.
• Paige, R. M., Jorstad, H. L., Siaya, L., Klein, F., & Colby, J. (2003). Culture learning in language education: A review of the literature. In D. L. Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. A Volume in Research in Second Language Learning (pp. 173-236). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
• Schoeck, R. J. (1991). Erasmus of Europe: The Making of a Humanist. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11,133–58.
• Şahin, C. A. (2017). Turkish Erasmus students' level of cross-cultural adaptations. Researcher: Social Science Studies, 5(8), 38-48.
• Teichler, U. (1996). Student mobility in the framework of ERASMUS: Findings of an evaluation study. European Journal of Education, 31(2), 153-179.
• Teichler, U., & Jahr, V. (2001). Mobility during the course of study and after graduation. European journal of education, 36(4), 443-458.
• Tekin, U., & Hiç Gencer, A. (2013). Effects of the Erasmus Programme on Turkish universities and university students. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(1), 109-122.
• Užpalienė, D., & Vaičiūnienė, V. (2012). ERASMUS Students Experiences in Linguistic Diversity and Multicultural Communication. Verbum, 3(3), 101-113.Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Yıldırım, R., & İlin, G. (2013). Some reflections on cultural adaptation of Turkish Erasmus students of ELT department. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(2), 111-121.