Why do students from ASEAN countries choose Turkish universities - Thesis Proposal Example

Module Why do from ASEAN countries choose Turkish universities to pursue their higher education? INTRODUCTION In the present global scene, students in all nations, whether developed or developing, wish to acquire university degrees in order to be able to compete successfully in the job market. Students in the Association of South Eastern Nations, which include Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei, Laos, Burma, and Cambodia, have the option of applying to some thirty tertiary institutions that are situated in the ten nations. This is in tune with the trends encouraged by globalization which support the importance of comprehending foreign cultures, traditions, habits, religions and organizational structures. The acquisition of higher education plays an important role in expanding a student’s understanding of these factors. The Popularity of Turkey as an Educational Destination for University Students While the ASEAN countries have made some effort to try and incorporate teaching approaches that are more attuned to globalization, they are well behind nations such as Turkey in terms of popularity with students (Mai). One of the reasons why Turkey is so popular with students from the ASEAN countries is because its system of education is based on interactive teaching approaches, and not just lecturing (Berry, 3). The systems of education in all ASEAN countries are basically identical (Arslan, 139). For instance, Malaysia’s system of education allowed the teaching of students in tertiary institutions to be conducted in the language of Malay (Akbulut, Şendağ, Birinci, Kliçer, Şahin, and Odabaşi, 464). It also implemented changes that used affirmative action to favor Malaysians over the Chinese and Indian nationals (Aypay, 118). English is recognized all over the world as the de facto global lingo, and so these changes resulted in adverse effects (Ekici, 84). Not only did the number of foreign students applying to study in Malaysia drastically reduce, but even Malaysian students started applying, in large numbers, to study in nations such as Turkey (Barton and Corbitt, 564). This resulted in the decline of the quality of the Malaysian educational system (Brock and Pe Symaco, 29). According to the ‘Programme for International Student Assessment’, which was conducted by the OECD, Malaysia was ranked as number 52, out of the 65 nations that were assessed (Leisyte, 634). Malaysia is not the only ASEAN nation that was ranked so lowly. Indonesia was ranked as 64th, out of the 65 assessed nations (Kirkpatrick, 17). ASEAN nations such as Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore basically have the same educational systems as Malaysia (Kittisowan, Piboonthanakiat, and Orutsahakij, 34). One of the reasons for this low score may be because of the teaching methods that are used in tertiary institutions in most of the ASEAN countries (Eser and Birkan, 78). In Indonesia, the test scores of students are stressed over understanding the basic subject matter (Guglar and Chaisse, 55). For instance, in Indonesia, students can only proceed to institutions of higher learning when they attain certain test scores (Cong, 339). In the educational systems in universities in nations such as Britain and the United States, which most Turkish universities have emulated, there is more emphasis on reflection, analyzing, and solving problems rather than on getting certain test scores (Bumen, 275). These latter methods stimulate creativity as well as a deeper understanding of the subject (Liu and Szabo, 9). The Turkish educational culture tends to emphasize more on the subject matter, and is therefore favored by students from the ASEAN nations (Hatakenaka, 17). GLOBALIZATION Another reason why Turkey has become so popular with students from the ASEAN nations is due to its efforts to build a knowledge based economy (Beycioglu, 202). Globalization has inspired the emergence of a situation in which investments, skilled labor, and products are expected to be more mobile (Dayioglu and Turut- Asik, 276). Turkey has, in the recent past, redesigned its regional activities to be centered around the factors that make up a knowledge economy (Keyman and Koyuncu, 106). This means that knowledge in Turkey tends to be internalized and disseminated in the nation’s economy (Bilge and Akman, 227). To create such an economy, it is necessary for a country to have well educated and creative workers who will not merely regurgitate information learnt, but use the concepts they understood to create new things that are more suited to the knowledge economy (Li, 7). Turkey has, to a great extent, understood that the marketization of university education is a factor that can determine the success of a tertiary institution in attracting high level students (Atilgan, 17). Its universities are extensively engaged in marketing themselves in nations all over the world in order to attract scholars, motivated young students, and scientists (Frankema and Lindblad, 304). This marketing initiative can be viewed as a form of neo-liberalism (Ninnes and Hellstén, 39). In the neo-liberal approach, the most important factors include marketing abilities, commodifying education, and testing performance through standardized means (Okur and Dikici, 132). This approach emphasizes more on applied teaching methods, as well as research studies in order to cater to the particular demands of a knowledge based market (Kuzu, 99). Due to these developments, Turkish universities have actively sought to market themselves in a special way to potential students (Akbaba-Altun, 177). Most of the students in the ASEAN nations would prefer to study in countries that are hailed as being the most appropriate for the purpose of changing the way students approach learning (Deterding and Kirkpatrick, 399). However, there are barriers such as the cost of learning in Western institutions that discourage them from applying to foreign institutions in Europe and America (Ozbilgin and Healy, 370). In addition, the recession that was experienced in places like the United States and Europe means that there will be fewer job opportunities after completing degrees (Kelecioğlu, 66). Being mindful of these facts, Turkey has marketed itself in the ASEAN nations by emphasizing on the presence of two of its universities in the list of the world’s most esteemed institutions of higher learning (Aşkar, Usluel, and Mumcu, 147). In addition, Turkey is not just a more cost effective option, but is also closely associated with European nations and their standards of excellence (Russell, ODwyer, Bebell, and Tao, 399). Turkey has already applied for EU membership (Gülbahar, 33). Its cosmopolitan culture supports characteristics that are usually associated with Western nations (Yi, Jackson, Park, and Probst, 352). Moreover, Turkey has a sizable Muslim population which does not support fundamentalism (Bullock, 230). This is the right mix for the guardians of students in many ASEAN nations who wish for their children to benefit from an excellent institution in a culturally appropriate setting (Brinkerhoff, 28). In addition, Turkey has amenities that support cultural separations of gender, which are supported by communities in many ASEAN nations (Vekiri and Chronaki, 1397). Turkish students are usually also quite successful in the global job market (Şahin, 98). This serves as a testimony to the scholastic rigor that characterizes Turkish universities (Akpinar and Bayramoğlu, 54). It is also a well known fact that the aging of the American and European populations, along with the continued globalization of the world’s finance, as well as business sectors is likely to result in an increase in demand of students from recognized institutions such as exist in Turkey (Dagli, Silman,and Birol, 1289). RESEARCH DESIGN Research Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of globalization in the popularity of Turkey as an educational destination for university students in the ASEAN countries (Thompson and Thianthai, 4). This study also seeks to compare the learning processes in tertiary institutions in the ASEAN countries with those in Turkey (Kahveci, Şahin, and Genç, 79). This research will allow stakeholders such as the chancellors and lecturers of higher education institutions in Turkey as well as the ASEAN nations to collect important information, conduct discussions, and set benchmarks for educational performance (Montomery and Canaan, 740). Problem Statement There are many students from the ASEAN nations who apply to study in universities in Turkey (Yücel, Acun, Tarman, and Mete, 2). In addition, universities in the ASEAN nations do not generate as many quantitatively competent scholars and scientists as Turkish universities do (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 281). There is a need to determine why the existing disparities exist. Purpose Finding out about the reasons why Turkey is preferred as an educational institution will help universities in tertiary institutions in the ASEAN nations as well as other locations to understand how to improve their offerings in terms of marketing as well as teaching methods (Cavas, Cavas, Karaoglan, and Kisla, 28). For instance, teachers and lecturers in universities in the ASEAN nations can learn how to use more interactive methods, such as project-based learning, in order to engage their students more, and retain them at the local universities (Caner and Okten, 1074). Hypothesis Globalization has, in many ways become a significant objective of higher education. Universities all over the world do not just have to market themselves in competitive ways, but also have to significantly change their teaching styles in order to attract new students or even retain local ones. Research Questions What role has globalization played in the choice of students from ASEAN countries to opt for Turkish universities? Are there any major differences between teaching styles in universities in the ASEAN countries and those in Turkey? Does the incorporation of more global approaches in teaching methods contribute to greater academic achievement as well as understanding of the contemporary world among modern students? To what extent can these factors be influenced by student initiatives or administrative changes? METHODOLOGY All the participants will be contacted through e-mail in regards to the possibility of taking part in the research. 29 universities will be invited to take part in the research, with each institution providing three suggestions about the most important factors that have influenced students from ASEAN countries who apply to study in Turkish institutions. There will be an online survey with 69 questions created. The questions will be centered on the importance of globalization in the students’ choice of university, and the different teaching methods that are used (Rasmussen, 41). Even though the questions will be in English, the respondents will be allowed to answer in whichever languages they are most comfortable with. The research will be carried out over six months (Tansel and Bircan, 305). The questionnaire will have open-ended questions which encourage respondents to explore any controversial subjects they wish to mention. LIMITATIONS The questionnaires may not be enough to adequately explore the contextual and cultural dimensions of the universities involved. The views of the academic managerial and administrative staff may not be the ones supported by the students who actually choose to study abroad (Redding, 416). The respondents could also give superficial answers or not give the needed information in order not to reveal any incriminating information that might affect them in a negative way. Works Cited Akbaba-Altun, Sadegül. “Complexity of Integrating Computer Technologies into Education in Turkey.” Educational Technology & Society 9(2006): 176-187. Akbulut, Yavuz., Serkan Şendağ, Gürkay Birinci, Kerem Kliçer, Mehmet Şahin, and Hatice Odabaşi. “Exploring the types and reasons of internet triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students.” Computers and Education 51.1(2008): 463-473. Akpinar, Yavuz, and Yusuf Bayramoğlu. “Promoting teachers’ positive attitude towards web use: a study in website development.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 7.3(2008): 46-55. Arslan, Mehmet. “Structure and Functions of the Continuing Education Centers at Turkish Universities.” Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 9.3(2008): 138-148. Aşkar, Petek, Yasemin Usluel, and Filiz Mumcu. “Logistic regression modeling for predicting task-related ICT use in teaching.” Educational Technology and Society 9.2(2006): 141-151. Atilgan, Hakan. Measurement and Evaluation in Education (In Turkish). Ankara: Ertem Publishing, 2006. Aypay, Ahmet. “Information and communication technology (ICT) usage and achievement of Turkish students in Pisa 2006.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 9.2(2010): 116-124. Barton, Siew, Mee, and Brian Corbitt. “Academic Social Networks Affecting the Adoption of E Learning in Turkey”. International Journal on E-Learning, 8.4(2009): 561-575. Berry, Frances. “The changing climate for public affairs education.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 17.1(2011): 1–6. Beycioglu, Kadir. “A cyber-philosophical issue in education: Unethical computer using behavior-The case of prospective teachers.” Computers & Education 53.2(2009): 201-208. Bilge, Filiz, and Yasemin Akman. “Job Satisfaction of Academics: Reflections about Turkey.” International Journal of Educational Reform 16.2(2007): 225-236. Brinkerhoff, Jonathan. “Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices.” International Society for Technology in Education 39.1(2006): 22-43. Brock, Collin, and Lorraine Pe Symaco. Education in South-East Asia (Oxford Series in Comparative Education). New York: Symposium Books, 2011. Bullock, David. “Moving from theory to practice: an examination of the factors that pre-service teachers encounter as they attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during field placement experiences.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 12.2(2004): 211–237. Bumen, Nilay. “Possible effects of professional development on Turkish teachers self-efficacy and classroom practice.” Professional Development in Education, 35.2(2009): 261-278. Caner, Asena, and Cagla Okten. “Risk and career choice: Evidence from Turkey.” Economics of Education Review 29(2010): 1060–1075. Cong, Cao. “Chinas Brain Drain at the High End: Why Government Policies have Failed to Attract First-Rate Academics to Return.” Asian Population Studies 4.3 (2008): 331–45. Cavas, Bulent, Pinas Cavas, Bahar Karaoglan, and Tarik Kisla. “A study on science teachers attitudes toward information and communication technologies in education.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 8.2(2009): 20-32. Dagli, Gökmen, Fatoş Silman,and Cem Birol. “A qualitative research on the university administrators capacity to use management knowledge tools (The Case of TRNC Universities).” Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 9.3(2009): 1269-1290. Dayioglu, Meltem, and Serap Turut- Asik. “Gender Differences in Academic Performance in a Large Public University in Turkey.” Higher Education 53(2007): 255-277. Deterding, David, and Andy Kirkpatrick. “Emerging South-East Asian English and intelligibility.” World English 25.3/4(2006): 391–410. Ekici, Gülay. “An investigation of the attitudes of students’ toward the student selection examination (SSE) through a number of variables (In Turkish).” Hacettepe University Journal of Education 28(2005): 82-90. Ertmer, Peggy, and Anne Ottenbreit-Leftwich. “Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 42.3(2010): 255-284. Eser, Zeliher, and Ibrahim Birkan. “Marketing education in Turkey: A comparative study between state and private universities.” Journal of Teaching in International Business 16.2(2004): 75-101. Frankema, Ewout, and Thomas Lindblad. “Technological development and economic growth in Indonesia and Thailand since 1950.”ASEAN Economic Bulletin 23.3(2006): 303- 324. Guglar, Philippe, and Julien Chaisse. Competitiveness of the ASEAN Countries: Corporate and Regulatory Drivers (New Horizons in International Business). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub., 2010. Gülbahar, Yasemin. “ICT usage in higher education: A case study on pre-service teachers and instructors.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 7.1(2008): 32-37. Hatakenaka, Sachi. “Development of third stream activity- Lessons from international experience.” Higher Education Policy Institute, United Kingdom. Kahveci, Ajda, Neşe Şahin, and Şebnem Genç. “Computer perceptions of secondary school teachers and impacting demographics: A Turkish perspective.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 10.1(2011): 71-80. Kelecioğlu, Hülya. “In the two staged exam system, the relationships between student selection exam points and student placement exam points (In Turkish).” Education and Science 29(2004): 60-70. Keyman, Fuat, and Berrin Koyuncu. “Globalization, Alternative Modernities, and the Political Economy of Turkey.” Review of International Political Economy 12.1(2005): 105 - 128. Kirkpatrick, Andy. The communicative strategies of ASEAN speakers of English as a lingua franca. In D. Prescott. English in Southeast Asia: Varieties, Literacy and Literatures. Newcastle. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007. Kittisowan, Chatchawal, Nuttanee Piboonthanakiat, and Salisa Orutsahakij. “AEC Implication: Effect Towards Thailand’s Unemployment Rate.” Linnaeus University: School of Business and Economics. Kuzu, Apda. “Problems related to computer ethics: Origins of the problems and suggested solutions.” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 8.2(2009): 91-110. Leisyte, Liudvika. “The balance between teaching and research in Dutch and English universities in the context of university governance reforms.” Higher Education 58.5(2009): 619-635. Li, He. “Returned students and political change in China.” Asian Perspective, 30.2(2006): 5-29. Liu, Yuliang, and Zsuzsanna Szabo. “Teachers attitudes toward technology integration in schools: a four-year study.” Teachers & Teaching 15.1(2009): 5-23. Mai, Trong. “The Harmonization of Higher Education in ASEAN toward Mutual Recognition of Qualification.” Paper presented in ASEAN Education Forum, 2007. Montomery, Laura, and Joyce Canaan. “Conceptualizing higher education students as social actors in a globalizing world: a special issue.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 17.6(2004): 739-748. Ninnes, Peter, and Meeri Hellstén. Internationalizing Higher Education: Critical Explorations of Pedagogy and Policy. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005. Okur, Muzaffer, and Ramazan Dikici. “Evaluation of the success of mathematics teacher candidates in 2001-2004 university entrance examination in Turkey.” Journal of Quality Measurement and Analysis 2.1(2006):131-142. Ozbilgin, Mustafa, and Geraldine Healy. “The gendered nature of career development of university professors: The case of Turkey”. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64.2(2004): 358-371. Rasmussen, Palle. Globalization and Europeanization in education. Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Redding, Peter. “The evolving interpretations of customers in higher education: empowering the elusive.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 29.5(2005): 409-417. Russell, Michael, Laura ODwyer, Damian Bebell, and Wei Tao. “How teachers uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 37.4(2007): 393-417. Şahin, Ismail. “Development of survey of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK).” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 10.1(2011): 97-105. Tansel, Aysit, and Fatma Bircan. “Demand for education in Turkey: A Tobit analysis of private tutoring expenditures.” Economics of Education Review 25(2006): 303-313. Thompson, Eric, and Chulanee Thianthai. Attitudes and Awareness Towards ASEAN: Findings of a Ten-Nation Survey. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008. Vekiri, Ioanna, and Anna Chronaki. “Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school.” Computers & Education 51.4(2008): 1392–1404. Yi, Yi., Joyce Jackson, Jae Park, and Janice Probst. “Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view.” Information & Management 43(2006): 350-363 Yücel, Cemil, Ismail Acun, Bulent Tarman, and Tugba Mete. “A model to explore Turkish teachers’ ICT integration stages.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 9.4(2010): 1-9. Read More