Content uploaded by Dury Bayram
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dury Bayram on Jun 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Dury Bayram
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dury Bayram on Jun 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Dury Bayram
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dury Bayram on Jun 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Education and Future, year: 2014, issue: 5, 57-72
Erasmus Student Mobility: Some Good Practices According to
Views of Ankara University Exchange Students
Berna Aslan* Dürdane Bayram Jacobs**
ABSTRACT
In this case study, opinions of Ankara University Erasmus mobility
students were analyzed about their experiences at host Erasmus universities.
The aim of the study is to learn the experiences of Ankara University mobility
students, find out the reasons of attending Erasmus mobility, the good examples
they experienced and discuss whether it changes according to a host country. It
is a case study examining the views of Ankara University Erasmus mobility
students. A case study research method is used in many situations. It is used
very often in education, social sciences, political science, sociology,
anthropology, etc. The positive feature of case study is that the researchers can
have the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events (Yin, 2009).
All data were collected with digital questionnaires. Based on empirical data, the
research focuses on the added value of Erasmus student mobility. The
qualitative analysis was conducted using MAXQDA 11 program.
Results showed that language learning and living in a different culture are
the main reasons of participating in Erasmus mobility. Good practices were
discussed according to academic, social and psychical dimensions. In academic
dimension, students liked mostly courses, instructors, academic development
opportunities and language learning opportunities. In social dimension good
guidance, attitudes toward students, flexible bureaucracy and multicultural
learning environments are most liked attributes of host universities. In physical
dimension students indicated their positive views about accommodation,
technical facilities, facilities for study and facilities for handicapped students.
Ankara University students indicated numerous good implications at their host
universities and the programme seems to achieve its goal. Although the
programme seems to achieve its goal further researches are needed to analyse its
effect on students’ future life.
Keywords: Erasmus, student mobility, higher education, good practices,
views of mobility students.
* Assist. Prof. Dr., Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Development,
Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: baslan@ankara.edu.tr
** Dr., Stiching voor Educatie-, Cultuur- en Migratie Onderzoek (SECMO), Waalre, Netherlands.
E-mail: durdane@secmo.nl
Berna Aslan, Dürdane Bayram Jacobs
58
Erasmus Öğrenci Hareketliliği: Ankara Üniversitesi Değişim
Öğrencilerinin Görüşlerine Göre Bazı İyi Uygulamalar
ÖZ
Bu durum çalışmasında Ankara Üniversitesi Erasmus değişim programına katılan
öğrencilerin görüşlerine göre yurtdışındaki üniversitelerdeki iyi uygulamalar belirlenerek
değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmanın amacı Ankara Üniversitesi değişim programına katılan
öğrencilerin deneyimlerini öğrenmek, bu programa neden katıldıklarını, yaşadıkları iyi
uygulamaları tespit etmek ve uygulamalar arasındaki farklılığın gidilen ülkelere göre değişip
değişmediğini belirlemektir. Aşağıdaki araştırma sorularına yanıt aranmıştır: Öğrencilerin
Erasmus programına katılma nedenleri nelerdir? Gidilen üniversitelerdeki iyi uygulamalar
nelerdir? İyi uygulamalar gidilen ülkeye göre farklılaşmakta mıdır?
Araştırma durum çalışması niteliğindedir. Durum çalışmaları eğitim, sosyoloji,
antropoloji gibi sosyal bilimlerin farklı alanlarında kullanılabilir. Durum çalışmasının olumlu
yanı araştırmacıların gerçek yaşam koşullarına ilişkin anlamlı ve bütünsel bir bakış açısı
kazanabilmesidir (Yin, 2009). Bu çalışmada da Ankara Üniversitesi Erasmus programı
değişim programına katılan öğrencilerin görüşlerine dayalı olarak programın Türk öğrenciler
açısından iyi uygulamalar olarak adlandırılabilecek boyutları belirlenmiştir. Veriler
öğrencilere uyrulanan anket ve açık uçlu sorularla toplanmıştır. Araştırmada Ankara
Üniversitesinin 11 farklı fakültesi, 4 enstitsü ve 1 meslek yüksekokulundan Erasmus değişim
programına katılmış olan 65 kız (%68.4), 30 erkek (%31.6) toplam 95 öğrencinin görüşleri
alınmıştır. Araştırmaya katılan öğrencilerin % 56.8’i (n: 54) sosyal bilimler, %43.2’si fen
bilimleri (n: 41) öğrencileridir. Öğrencilerin %80’i lisans, %20’si lisansüstü programlarda
kayıtlıdır. Araştırmada MAXQDA 11 programı kullanılarak veriler analiz edilmiştir.
Araştırma sonuçları öğrencilerin Erasmus programına katılmalarının ana amacının dil
öğrenme ve farklı bir kültürde yaşama isteği olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Araştırmada
gidilen üniversitelerdeki iyi uygulamalar akademik, sosyal ve fiziki boyutlar açısından
icelenmiştir. Akademik açıdan bakıldığında öğrenciler dersler, öğretim üyeleri, akademik
gelişim olanakları ve dil öğrenme olanaklarına ilişkin olumlu görüşleri belirtmişlerdir.
Sosyal boyutta gidilen üniversitedeki yönlendirme ve danışmanlık hizmetlerinin iyiliği,
öğrencilere karşı tutumlar, esnek bürokrasi ve çokkültürlü öğrenme ortamları iyi
uygulamalar olarak gösterilmiştir. Fiziki boyutta teknik olanaklar, çalışma ortamları ve
engelli öğrenciler için sağlanan olanaklar iyi uygulamalar olarak belirtilmiştir. Ankara
Üniversitesi öğrencileri gittikleri Erasmus üniversitelerine ilişkin çok farklı iyi uygulama
örnekleri belirtmişleridir. Bu boyutları ile bakıldığında Erasmus programının amacına
ulaştığı söylenebilir. Ancak programın öğrencilerin iş yaşamına etkilerine ilişkin çalışmalara
ihtiyaç vardır.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Erasmus, öğrenci hareketliliği, yükseköğretim, iyi uygulamalar,
öğrenci görüşleri.
Journal of Education and Future
59
INTRODUCTION
In the age of a globalization, education and mainly higher education is
globalizing like other social fields. For globalizing of education, cross-border
education is an important mode. When student, teacher, curriculum or
teaching/learning materials reach other countries, globalizing starts (Absalom, 1990).
As a result of globalization there is a competition between the countries. Societies
are internationalizing at a rapid speed as a step of globalization. In this rapid
internationalization, many nations try to educate and train their pupils in a better
way. Therefore, they concentrated on improving their education systems
(BayramJacobs, 2005). The promotion of education and training is a major pillar of
the European development policy, too. Today the major source of economic growth
is knowledge. The capacity to produce and absorb knowledge is a key factor for the
growth of knowledge economy. In order to encourage growth, it is necessary to
expand higher education (Varghese, 2008). World Bank (1999) stated also that in
the process of producing and disturbing knowledge-based goods higher education
has an important role.
European Union has many programmes in different areas to support the
collaboration of member and candidate countries. One of these programmes, in the
field of education, is Lifelong Learning (LLP) Programme. LLP aims to contribute to
development of education and training sector across Europe. It has various activities
to stimulate people and institutions to take part in different learning experiences. LLP
has four sub-programmes: Erasmus, Comenius, Leonardo da Vinci and Grundtvig.
The Erasmus Programme, which started in 1987, has been one of the first initiatives
to implement the fundamentals of the European Space for Higher Education and lies
at the heart of the Bologna Process.
Erasmus programme funds co-operation between higher education institutions in
European countries (EU Education and Training, 2011a). The institutions can have
co-operation by preparing projects, networks, student mobility, student placement
(internship) and staff mobility. European Commission Education and Training was
announced the Erasmus programme as a European success because of the fact that it
has Europe-wide reach. Many European universities and more than 2.2 million
students have participated in the programme (EU Education and Training, 2011b).
International mobility emerged in the 1980s. That time this mobility was not for
everybody but only for brilliant students (Wachter, 2003). In addition to brilliant
students, wealthy and adventurous students studied abroad. In 1990s higher
education institutions have started more international and European activities and it
is known that Socrates programme (former programme of LLP) has played an
important role in that (Maiworm, 2001). Erasmus mobility programme which was
launched in 1987 intensified the Commission’s involvement in higher education
(Keeling, 2006). In Lisbon meeting (2000) it was declared that the aim is to make
Europe the most “dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” by 2010
(European Council, 2000). With Erasmus programme the quantity and the quality of
student mobility has changed. Not only the brilliant and wealthy students but also the
students from lower socio-economic backgrounds could cross the borders with the
help of Erasmus programme. Student mobility is stated as the key element of
Erasmus programme. The aim of Erasmus is to increase the mobility of students in
Berna Aslan, Dürdane Bayram Jacobs
60
Europe and by this way to strengthen the interaction between European citizens
(Maiworm, 2001). Mobility of students in higher education has increased
enormously after 1987 (Berndtson, 2003) and the familiar pattern of student mobility
is from developing to developed countries (Varghese, 2008).
It is aimed in the Erasmus programme that the academic and administrative
support at host and home institutions should be effective for the mobility student
(Maiworm, 2001). In order to raise international and intercultural aspects of their
programs the universities are interested in student mobility. Some universities have
specific programs for mobility students (Stronkhorst, 2005).
A common European identity is promoted by European student mobility
(Fligstein, 2008 and Green, 2007). “The quantitative and qualitative improvement of
the knowledge of the languages of the European Union” (European Parliament and
Council, 1995:13) is one of the objectives of the Erasmus programme. Through EU
cooperation in the field of education and training the EU states agreed on common
objectives. These objectives are supported three strategic goals: the quality and
efficiency of education and training systems of EU states, access for all and being
open to the wider world (Pepin, 2007).
Aim of the Research
Although there are several researches (Maiworm & Teichler, 1996; Dalichow
and Teichler, 1986; Bruce, 1989; Berning, 1992, Teichler, 2001, Boyaci, 2011) done
during the years about the effect of Erasmus student mobility, still it is decided to do
this research at Ankara University. Ankara University which is located in the capital
city Ankara is one of the biggest public universities of Turkey. Totally 2056 students
of Ankara University benefitted from student mobility grant to study one or two
semesters in a European university since 2004. Also 689 students benefitted from
placement grant (Ankara University, 2013). Since Turkey is not a European member
but a candidate country and it has different cultural, educational, religious and
economic structure than European countries (especially western European countries),
it is expected that this study will contribute the existing literature by giving views
and evaluations from a different setting. The aim of the study is to learn the
experiences of Ankara University mobility students, find out the reasons of attending
Erasmus mobility, the good examples they experienced and discuss whether it
changes according to a host country. Due to the limited number of studies on
qualitative analyses of Turkish students’ Erasmus experiences (Aydin, 2012; Demir
& Demir, 2009) it is important to see their experiences and views and good
implications of European universities.
METHOD AND DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH
It is a case study examining the views of Ankara University Erasmus mobility
students. A case study research method is used in many situations. It is used very
often in education, social sciences, political science, sociology, anthropology, etc.
The positive feature of case study is that the researchers can have the holistic and
meaningful characteristics of real-life events (Yin, 2009). Ankara University students
Journal of Education and Future
61
who are crossing national boundaries are the focus of this study. All data were
collected with digital questionnaires. Based on empirical data, the research focuses
on the added value of Erasmus student mobility. The qualitative analysis was
conducted using MAXQDA 11 program. The following research questions were
investigated with the views of students:
What are the main reasons of participating in Erasmus programme?
What good practices are implicated at host universities?
Do good practices differ according to a host country?
Participants
In the study data were gathered from 95 Erasmus mobility students, 65 female
(68.4%) and 30 male (31.6%), at Ankara University. Data collected from 11
faculties, 4 graduate institutions and 1 vocational high school. In general 56.8% of
the students are from social science fields (f= 54), 43.2 % of students are from
natural science fields (f= 41). 80% of the students are at undergraduate level (f= 76)
while 20% of them are at graduate level, 11.6 % of them are master students (f= 11)
and %8.4 of them are doctoral students (f= 8).
Figure 1. Host countries of the Erasmus students
As seen in Figure 1, participants of this study have Erasmus student mobility
experiences in 20 different European countries. Among these countries there are west
European, east European, Mediterranean and Scandinavian countries. From the other
point of view, students had experiences in relatively old and new European countries.
Berna Aslan, Dürdane Bayram Jacobs
62
FINDINGS
The objectives of Erasmus student mobility are stated as follows:
To enable students to benefit educationally, linguistically and culturally from
the experience of learning in other European countries;
To promote co-operation between institutions and to enrich the educational
environment of host institutions;
To contribute to the development of a pool of well-qualified, open-minded
and internationally experienced young people as future professionals (EU
Education and Training, 2013a).
One of the aims of Erasmus mobility is to make students to learn about the other
cultures, languages and other education systems of Europe. Erasmus mobility
students of Ankara University from wide socio-economic backgrounds found a
chance to improve their knowledge about Europe in general, European countries,
cultures, higher education systems and languages with the help of Erasmus
programme. This study aims to find out the experiences of students about different
issues. First of all their reasons of participation to the programme were studied and
then good practices at host universities were analysed and discussed within
academic, social and physical dimensions.
The Reasons of Participating in Erasmus Mobility Programme
Main reasons of attending Erasmus student mobility were listed in Table 1
below. Among the 11 possible reasons listed the most chosen one is “to improve
foreign language knowledge and skills” (93.7% f= 89). In their research Dogancay-
Aktuna (1998) and Kirkgöz (2009) investigated the spread of English language in
Turkey. They underlined the importance of language teaching politics in Turkey.
Although many reforms have been implemented starting from primary education
level (Kirkgoz, 2007), language learning is still a problem for many Turkish students
due to great disparity between the quality and the quantity of English language
teaching in different strata of the society (Doğançay-Aktuna & Kiziltepe, 2005). On
the other hand foreign language knowledge is an important prerequisite for making
research in Turkish universities (Doğançay-Aktuna & Kiziltepe, 2005; Kirkgoz,
2007). So not surprisingly, students’ first reason of attending Erasmus mobility is to
improve their foreign language skills. The second important reason is “to
acquaintance with foreign culture” (86.3%, f= 82) and third biggest reason is “to get
new experiences” (83.2%, f= 79). Spending funny time was also stated as one of the
reasons of applying for Erasmus student mobility. If we consider the age of the
students, this is not a surprising statement. Although there are academic development
and personal development among the reasons, these are not stated as frequently as
improving foreign language skills and acquaintance with another culture. In one
hand, students want to have a nice time, meet new people, learn about another culture
and be free, on the other hand they want to improve their foreign language skills,
have personal and professional development and increase future job opportunities.
Journal of Education and Future
63
Therefore, what students mentioned about their reasons of applying mobility,
overlaps completely with the objectives of Erasmus student mobility.
Table 1. Reasons of applying to Erasmus student mobility
Reasons
f
%
to improve foreign language knowledge and skills
89
93.7
to acquaintance with foreign culture
82
86.3
to get new experiences
79
83.2
to academic development
77
81.1
to personal development
75
78.9
to increase job opportunities in the future
66
69.5
to meet with new people
61
64.2
to live in a foreign country
60
63.2
to get education in a different system
54
56.8
to spend funny time
49
51.6
to be free
32
33.7
When we analyse the results according to degree of education; students at
undergraduate level applied the programme to improve their foreign language level
while graduate students aim academic development. Master students applied for
academic development and for improving their language skills while doctoral
students applied for academic as well as personal development. Therefore, while the
level of education increases the students concentrated more on academic
development than improving foreign language skills. Another reason of that could
be, until post-graduate level they have improved their foreign language skills. So,
their expectations move to academic direction.
This result is consistent with the findings of Demir and Demir (2009)’s study.
According to Demir & Demir (2009) Turkish students attend Erasmus programme
mainly to learn foreign language and to live in a foreign culture. Learning a different
culture is a reason for exchange not only for Turkish students but also for foreign
Erasmus students who come to Turkey (Mirici et al., 2009).
EU Education and Training (2011b) states that the studies about Erasmus show
that a period spent abroad improves students’ foreign language and intercultural
skills, self-awareness and self-reliance as well as academic and professional
development. It is also mentioned that many employers appreciated a period abroad
and this helps students in their job prospects.
The Good Practices at Host Universities
The opinions of the students were asked about the good practices at host
Erasmus universities. Findings about good practices were grouped into two main
themes; school environment and out of school environment (see Figure 2). School
environment or school climate includes physical, social and academic dimensions.
According to Loukas (2007) academic dimension includes the quality of instruction,
teacher expectations for student achievement and monitoring student progress. Social
dimension includes quality of interpersonal relationships between and among
Berna Aslan, Dürdane Bayram Jacobs
64
students, teachers, and staff; equitable and fair treatment of students by teachers and
staff; degree of competition and social comparison between students; and degree to
which students, teachers, and staff contribute to decision-making at the school. The
appearance of the school building and its classrooms, school size and ratio of
students to teachers in the classroom, order and organization of classrooms in the
school, availability of resources and safety and comfort are the elements of physical
dimension.
Some of the indicated good practices are not directly related to students’
university or facilities and we grouped these features in “out of school environment”
dimension.
In figure 2, good practices at Erasmus universities are summarized. Students
stated their satisfaction about flexible bureaucracy, positive attitudes, social activities
and tutoring at their host universities in general.
Figure 2. Good practices in Erasmus Universities
Journal of Education and Future
65
1) Academic Dimension
Within academic dimension we will discuss courses, academic staff, academic
development opportunities and language training.
Students were asked to evaluate the courses at their host universities and most of
them found the courses adequate (see Table 3). 54.73% of students (f=52) stated
some good practices about courses. They mainly underlined five good points of
courses; practicing opportunities, flexible exams, teamwork, flexible attendance and
elective course opportunities.
Practicing opportunities are most liked attribute of the courses and 10% of
students indicate its good effect on their learning process.
“Proper and accurate practicing opportunities in courses, contribution of each
student to practices and evaluation of these practices are the biggest
contribution of Erasmus experience to me” (Student 2- female, UG*)
“Not only theory but also practice highlighted in education and I liked this.
Although I may not say for all courses, in general, I learned too much from
laboratory courses and they reinforced the theoretical topics learned in the
courses.” (Student 3-female, UG).
About the courses another good point is their integration with social projects.
Some students indicated their satisfaction with practicing opportunities of some
theoretical knowledge with social projects.
Exam types are another good point stated about courses. Some students
mentioned project or homework studies as good implications. Large number of
elective courses is underlined, too.
In this dimension (academic dimension) another important point is academic
staff. 28.42 % of students (f=27) pointed up the positive attitudes of academic staff in
academic dimension. Most of them especially mentioned instructors’ polite and
friendly attitudes towards them.
“Qualified academic staff, their professional attitudes in courses and ability to
behave professionally (without personal beliefs), their helpful and problem
solving attitudes although they are busy with at least one project except for
their courses, is one of good practice at my Erasmus university” (Student 1-
male, PG )
In general 80% of the students evaluated academic staff as good or very good
(f=76) (see Table 2).
* UG: Undergraduate
PG: Post-graduate
Berna Aslan, Dürdane Bayram Jacobs
66
Table 2. General evaluation of Erasmus experience
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very
Poor
Total
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Courses
22
23.2
50
52.6
16
16.8
5
5.3
2
2.1
95
100
Academic staff
35
36.8
41
43.2
15
15.8
4
4.2
95
100
Academic
organizations
(conference,
seminar etc.)
20
21.1
41
43.2
22
23.2
9
9.5
3
3.2
95
100
Language
courses at
university
23
24.2
28
29.5
21
22.1
19
20
4
4.2
95
100
Social activities
in host university
32
33.7
47
49.5
9
9.5
5
5.3
2
2.1
95
100
City and general
atmosphere at
university
43
45.3
36
37.9
11
11.6
3
3.2
2
2.1
95
100
Some students mentioned the academic development opportunities at their host
university. One student indicated:
“My host university has bilateral agreement with Chicago Kent University Law
School and Erasmus students could have certificate from that university if they
succeed 360 hours courses with free of charge although their students can get
this certificate with a fee.” (Student 9, male, UG)
Moreover many of the students indicate that they have learned to do academic
research and gain independent research skills during their stay.
Erasmus programme is a good opportunity for improving language skills and
knowledge (Bogain, 2012). Commission provides language learning opportunities of
less taught languages for selected Erasmus students. The Erasmus Intensive
Language Courses (EILC) are specialised courses in less widely used and less taught
languages organised in the countries where these languages are used as language of
instruction at higher education institutions. The languages of English, German,
French and Spanish (Castilian) are not eligible for EILC (EU Education and
Training, 2013b).
Erasmus students have opportunity to study the EILC for two to six weeks (with
a minimum of 60 teaching hours in total, and at least 15 teaching hours a week) with
the aim of being prepared for the Erasmus mobility period abroad (EU Education and
Training, 2013b). Aim of this preparation is to continue education at host university
in their teaching languages. Although in Erasmus programme students are expected
to attend regular courses at their host university in their languages, in practice there
are English taught courses for Erasmus students. This is a very common practice at
EU universities for mobility students.
In this study students asked about the language of instruction at their host
universities. It is found that although the language of instruction at host universities
are different than English (16 different languages), for Erasmus students courses
were offered mostly in English (54.7 %, f= 52) or German languages (22.1 %, f= 21)
(See figure 3).
Journal of Education and Future
67
1,1
1,1
1,1
1,1
5,3
5,3
8,4
22,1
54,7
Portuguese
Hungarian
Polish
Greek
Spanish
French
Italian
German
English
Figure 3. Language of Instruction for Erasmus Students
When they were asked to evaluate language courses in general, approximately
half of the students evaluated language courses positively while 24.2% of them find
them inadequate (see Table 2).
2) Social Dimension
Social dimension includes social activities at the university, guidance, staff/
student affairs, attitudes towards students and flexible bureaucracy and multicultural
education environment.
Students were asked about the adequacy of guidance before and during their
Erasmus experience. 80% of them (f: 76) stated their satisfaction about the guidance
processes at their Erasmus host university. On the other hand, only 42.1% of them (f:
40) stated they got enough guidance before going to host university.
About guidance there are two important implications as tutoring and orientation.
In some universities there are tutors who help students during their courses.
One student stated that;
“There were tutors for helping us during the courses and it was very
helpful for me” (Student 6- female, UG)
Berna Aslan, Dürdane Bayram Jacobs
68
Also an effective orientation programme helps students to get information about
institution, facilities, rules and opportunities. 11 students (11,58 %) mentioned
orientation programs as good practice at host university.
“Orientation programme was really useful” (Student 7- male, UG)
“Orientation programme was good planned” (Student 8- female, UG)
Social activities are one of the liked attributes in this dimension. Another liked
attributes of host universities are attitudes towards students. Problem solving, valuing
students, flexibilities for students and openness to communication are some positive
implications at host universities.
Multicultural education environment is also liked by students for communicating
with different people to learn from different culture.
Social benefits of Erasmus programme are one of the most important and
emphasized features of the programme in all Bologna Process documents (Önder &
Balcı, 2010). Findings indicated that the participants seem to achieve the main aims
of Erasmus programme.
3) Physical Dimension
Accommodation: Related to accommodation, four students mentioned positive
experiences while many of others (27.36 %, n= 26) stated problems. One of the
Erasmus students stated:
“The only problem I faced is accommodation problem. I settled in the university
dormitory two months later than my arrival and I had to stay in a dormitory
which is very far away, during the two months. I used public transportation to
go to university” (Student 2- female, UG)
Most of the students settled in dormitories (55.8 %, n= 53) while some of them
preferred renting a house (35.8, n=34) or living in a room in a house of local people
(8.4 %, n= 8).
The problems about accommodation were also mentioned in the study of Bracht
et al. (2006). In their study it is reported that Erasmus students had problems mostly
related to accommodation.
Facilities for study: Students indicated the good conditions of host universities
related to physical dimension. Libraries and laboratories are liked attributes of these
Erasmus universities. One student indicated:
“I liked the library which is the second biggest one of Germany. It is open until
2 a.m. at midnight.” (Student 10- female, UG)
Also good laboratory facilities are liked by many students from applied sciences.
Technical facilities: Students indicated good technical facilities at their host
universities. Some of the good technical facilities are smart cards which students
Journal of Education and Future
69
used while entering faculty; board systems where all announcements, course notes
and contexts can be found on the internet; electronic billboards where courses,
instructors and places indicated during a semester. At universities where smartcard
used students’ attendance to course could be checked easily.
One of the students indicated the importance of fast communication;
“Having a special account on website and sharing all course notes and
announcements via website is handy. This provides students freedom and
opportunity for individual study. Students could be mobile while getting
informed about all developments at faculty” (Student 11, female, UG)
Different Good Practices in Different Countries
95 students have different experiences in 20 different European countries (see
Figure 1). We tried to synthesize different experiences and make a collective analyse
from their Erasmus experiences.
Most of the students have studied at German universities (24,2 %, f= 23).
Poland (9,5%, f= 9) and Spain (9,5%, f= 9) are the other preferred countries
following Germany. In all countries, the most stated good practice in academic
dimension is about academic staff. As the most satisfactory part, the students stated
that the teachers were kind, tolerant, precise and working according to a plan. The
Erasmus mobility students in Germany highlighted much about the kind attitudes of
teachers. Students who have been in Spain, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK
stated positive opinions about the academic staff, too. Except Poland, all the other
mentioned countries are old members of European Union and have a rich history in
higher education.
In social dimension, the most stated good practices are good and different kind
of social activities. The students who went to Germany, Poland, Belgium, France,
England, Estonia, and Italy mentioned about different kind of social activities.
In physical dimension, technical facilities are the most mentioned positive
attributes of European universities. This was mostly stated by students who have
been in Germany, England, Finland and Spain. Sharing course materials online,
using digital platforms for announcements and messages, using electronic card for
entrance of school facilities and courses are some of the appreciated technical
facilities of these universities.
CONCLUSION
Several studies showed that Erasmus student mobility has a significant effect on
the host country language competence of students (Sigalas, 2009; Otero &
McCoshan, 2006; Maiworm & Teichler, 2002). The findings of this study confirmed
the above mentioned finding of previous studies. Improving the language
competency is one of the most mentioned good practices in host universities.
We can conclude that Erasmus programme achieves its objectives of learning the
languages of EU and learning other cultures. Students mostly prefer a host country
whose language is widely known and which they have learned (Maiworm &
Berna Aslan, Dürdane Bayram Jacobs
70
Teichler, 1996). The study in another country and culture helped Erasmus students to
familiarise themselves with another European culture. Also they had chance to
practise their foreign language skills.
In general, students indicated the positive effects of Erasmus experience on their
personal and professional developments. They underlined the positive improvement
on their self-responsibility and feeling of freedom after Erasmus experience which
was helpful for their self-reliance.
Another good practice students mentioned is using technology actively for
communication, for classes and for management purposes. We are living in the age
of technology. Nowadays everybody has their own mobile telephones, tablets or
computers. It is a part of our life checking e-mails everyday, surfing on internet or
using search motors on internet to find address, telephone number, train/bus schedule
or a map of a place we want to go. Thus it is the easy way of communication for
mobility students.
Erasmus provides various opportunities for students but it is found that
application and bureaucratic procedures take time and students complained mainly
about them.
“I faced with many bureaucratic problems and this decrease my motivation”
(Student 5, female, PG).
“Although it was mentioned in the invitation letter of Host University that my
study period there will be 13 September – 29 January, the embassy gave the
visa for 13 August – 13 September.” (Student 12, male, UG)
Although they faced with many problems, all of them underlined that they liked
the programme and suggest it strongly to other students. One of them mentioned
that:
“If a man from Thailand who lived in Scandinavian countries, says that the best
salad in the world is çoban salad (a kind of Turkish salad); an Italian prefers to
have a Turkish breakfast instead of scone and cappuccino; a Brazilian says you
dance like a Latin women with admire, you organize a theatre performance with
people from different nations and perform it successfully, it means that you are
successful. Fears and timidities take root from taboos. Break down your taboos,
feel that you are a world citizen but don’t miss your identity, then you can be
remembered…” (Student 4, female, UG)
In brief Ankara University Erasmus students indicated numerous good
implications at their host universities and the programme seems to achieve its goal.
Although the programme seems to achieve its goal further researches are needed to
analyse its effect on students’ future life. Some researchers have underlined the
positive impact of Erasmus experience on finding job opportunities (Gozalez,
Mesanza and Mariel, 2011). However, there is no research about the impact of the
programme on the Turkish Erasmus students’ job prospect. Therefore researches are
needed about it.
Journal of Education and Future
71
REFERENCES
Absalom, R. (1990). Practical rather than declamatory co-operation: Erasmus in 1990, an
appraisal, European Journal of Education, 25 (1), pp. 39-54.
Ankara University EU Programmes Office (2013). Erasmus Statistics Available at
http://erasmus.ankara.edu.tr/hakkimizda-2/sayilarla. (Accessed 16.09.2013)
Aydin, S. (2012). "I am not the same after my Erasmus": A Qualitative Research. Qualitative
Report, 17, pp. 1-23.
Bayram Jacobs, D. (2005). The Comparison of Physics Teacher Training Programmes in
Turkey and Some European Countries (England, Germany, Italy and France). Non-
published Master Thesis, Ankara University.
Berndtson, E. (2003). Student and teacher mobility in Europe: Opinions and attitudes among
European political scientists, ECPR 2003 General Conference, Marburg, Germany,
September 18-21.
Bogain, A. (2012). Erasmus language students in a British university: A case study.
Language Learning Journal, 40 (3), pp. 359-374.
Boyaci, A. (2011). Erasmus exchange students’ comparative views on classroom
management in Turkey and in their country (Anadolu University Case), Education and
Science, 36 (159), pp. 270-282.
Bracht, O., Engel, C., Janson, K., Over, A., Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006). The
Professional Value of Erasmus Mobility. (Kassel, Germany: International Centre for
Higher Education Research, University of Kassel).
Demir, A., & Demir, S. (2009). The assessment of Erasmus programme in terms of
intercultural dialogue and interaction (A qualitative study with candidate Teachers), The
Journal of International Social Research, 2(9), pp. 95-105.
Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (1998). The spread of English in Turkey and its current sociolinguistic
profile, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19 (1), pp. 24-39.
Doğançay-Aktuna, S., & Kiziltepe, Z. (2005). English in Turkey, World Englishes, 24 (2),
pp. 253-265.
European Council (2000). Presidency Conclusions (March), Lisbon, Portugal. Available
at http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/PRESIDNCY-CONCLUSIONS- Lisbon.pdf.
Accessed 10.04.2013.
EU Education and Training (2011a). The Lifelong Learning Programme: education and
training opportunities for all. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-
programme/doc78_en.htm. (Accessed 29.06.2011).
EU Education and Training (2011b). The ERASMUS Programme – studying in Europe and
more. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-
programme/doc80_en.htm. Accessed 29.06.2011
EU Education and Training (2013a). Erasmus Student Mobility for Studies. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/study_en.htm. (Accessed 05.09.2013).
EU Education and Training (2013b). Intensive Language Courses. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc902_en.htm ). (Accessed 09.09.2013).
European Parliament and Council (1995). Decision No. 819/95/EC of the European
Parliament and Council of 14 March 1995 establishing the community Action
Programme “Socrates”. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 087,
20.04.1995, pp. 10-24.
Fligstein, N. (2008). The EU, European Identity and the Future of Europe (Oxford, Oxford
University Press).
Green, D. (2007). The Europeans: Political Identity in an Emerging Polity (Boulder, Lynne
Rienner).
Berna Aslan, Dürdane Bayram Jacobs
72
González, C. R., Mesanza, R. B., & Mariel, P. (2011). The determinants of international
student mobility flows: An empirical study on the Erasmus programme, Higher
Education, 62(4), pp.413-430.
Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna Process and the Lisbon research agenda: the European
Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse, European Journal of
Education, 41( 2), pp.203-223.
Kirkgoz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their
implementations, A Journal of Language Teaching and Research (RELC Journal), 38
(2), pp. 216-228.
Kirkgöz, Y. (2009). Globalization and English language policy in Turkey, Educational
Policy, 23 (5), pp. 663-684.
Loukas, A. (2007). What is school climate? Leadership Compass, 5 (1). Available at
http://www.naesp.org/Leadership_Compass_Archives.aspx. (Accessed 12.09.2013)
Maiworm, F., & Teichler, U. (1996). Study Abroad and Early Career : Experiences of
Former Erasmus Students ( London, J. Kingsley Publishers).
Maiworm, F. (2001). Erasmus: continuity and change in the 1990s, European Journal of
Education, 36 (4), pp. 459-472.
Maiwrorm & Teichler, U. (2002). The students’ experience, in Teichler, U. (ed.), Erasmus in
the Socrates Programme (Bonn, Lemmens).
Mirici, İ. H., İlter Genç, B., Saka, Ö. (2009). Educational Exchanges and Erasmus Intensive
Language Courses: A Case Study For Turkish Courses, Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(152), 148.
Önder, K. R., & Balci, A. (2010). Erasmus öğrenci öğrenim hareketliliği programının 2007
yılı programdan yararlanan Türk öğrencileri üzerindeki etkileri. [The impact of Erasmus
student mobility for studies programme (SMS) on the Turkish students who benefited
from the programme in 2007], Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi 9(2), 93.
Pepin, L. (2007). The History of EU Cooperation in the Field of Education and Training:
how lifelong learning became a strategic objective, European Journal of
Education, 42, 2, pp.121-132.
Sigalas, E. (2009). Does Erasmus Student Mobility promote a European Identity?. Web:
www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/conweb.
Stronkhorst, R. (2005). Learning Outcomes of International Mobility at Two Dutch
Institutions of Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 4,
292-315.
Teichler, U. (1996). Student Mobility in the Framework of Erasmus: findings of an
evaluation study. European Journal of Education, Vol. 31, No. 2.
Varghese, N., V. (2008). Globalization of Higher Education and Cross-Border Student
Mobility. International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris.
Web:http://unesco.org/iiep/en/publications/pubs.htm
Wachter, B. (2003). Internalisation at home in context. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 7 (1), 5-11.
World Bank (1999). World Development Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yin, K.,R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: SAGE
Publications.
