Purposes and identities of higher education institutions, and relatedly the role of the faculty

Problem Durumu: Yüksek öğretim kurumlarının amaçları, kimlikleri, bu kurumlarda iletilen bilgi ve akademisyenlerin rolleri son zamanlarda birçok araştırmacı tarafından incelenmektedir. Bilgi, kültür merkezli olmaktan çıktığı ve daha çok kullanılabilirlik merkezli bir hale geldiği için, yüksek öğretim kurumları sanki klasik anlamda işe yararlılığını yitirmiş gibi algılanmaktadır. Üniversitelerin amaçları hakkındaki çağdaş inançlar, onların yönlerini klasik müfredatlardan işlevsel olanlara doğru döndürmelerine sebep olmuştur. Üniversiteler, politikaları, programları ve uygulamalarıyla, öğrencileri daha iyi bir iş edinmeye ya da kamusal, bölgesel ve yerel ekonomik ihtiyaçlara hazırlamak için, artık kamu yararından çok sanki kişisel çıkarlara hazırlıyor gibi düşünülmeye başlanmıştır. Araştırmanın Amacı: Bu makale, bir devlet üniversitesinin eğitim fakültesinde çalışan akademisyenlerin bakış açılarından, yüksek öğretim kurumlarının amaçları ve kimlikleri, bu kurumlarda üretilen ve iletilen bilgiyi ve bu konularla bağlantılı olarak akademisyenlerin rolleri hakkında yapılan bir çalışmanın sonuçlarını incelemektedir.

Yüksek öğretim kurumlarının amaçları, kimlikleri ve akademisyenlerin rolleri

Problem Statement: The purposes of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), their identities, the knowledge transmitted, and the roles of the academicians working in those institutions have been investigated recently by several researchers. HEIs are considered as if they have outlived their usefulness in the classic sense, because knowledge has acquired a more utility-oriented meaning today than culture-oriented. Modern beliefs about their purposes caused universities to steer towards functional curriculums, downplaying the classic ones. With its policies, programs, and practices designed to help students prepare for a better job or meet state, regional, and local economic needs, higher education is now perceived as a private benefit rather than as a public good. Purpose of the Study: This paper investigates the outcomes of a study describing the perspectives of academicians working in the faculty of education of a state university about the purposes and identities of HEIs, the knowledge that is created and transmitted in those institutions, and the roles of the faculty members in relation to the above-mentioned issues. Methods: One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with eighteen university academicians, all members of the faculty of education of a state university in Istanbul, after they were pre-tested on a sample of three people. The faculty members were interviewed by the author only, and the duration of each interview varied from forty to eighty-five minutes. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, then subjected to close examination. The analysis of the data employed was associated with the constant comparative method, to identify recurring themes within and across data sources. Results: Although a variety of viewpoints were found, the respondents agreed that major purposes of higher education institutions should be to promote “active citizenry” among their students. In addition to preparing students for the workplace, the knowledge that is created and shared should also contribute to the well-being and prosperity of humanity. Of special significance was identification of the widely held view that all higher education institutions should have an identity to be internalized by the academicians – the most important figures in the system – who pass it on to their students to become responsible citizens in that society. Conclusions and Recommendations: Without determining the purposes of HEIs, plans about what to learn are meaningless. In order to remain viable actors in a changing political, social, and economic environment, universities must redefine their roles in their societies. The purpose of higher education is not only the development of people, or of society, or of economy but people, society, and the economy all together; furthermore, higher education, in turn, develops with these three themes in mind. This requires interpersonal competence, multi-cultural understanding, skills in problem identification and problem solving, a sense of purpose, and the confidence that you can act in ways that make a difference.

PDF

___

Akademisyen ve rolleri (An academician and her/his roles). Retrieved June 12 2008 from http://www.akademikkariyer.net/i.aspx?s=&k=haber&hab=m&i=23.
Akerlind, G. S. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching, Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 364-375.
Arman, A. (2008, February 3). Nihai amacım öğrencilerimi daha iyi insanlar yapmak (My ultimate aim is to make my students good people), Hürriyet, p. 5.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (Milton Keynes, SRHE and Open University Press).
Beyer, B. K. (1997). Improving student thinking: a comprehensive approach (Boston, Allyn and Bacon).
Blackstone, T. (2001). Why learn? Higher education in a learning society, Higher Education Quarterly, 55(2), 175-184.
Bleiklie, I. (2005). Organizing higher education in a knowledge society, Higher Education, 49, 31-59.
Bleiklie, I., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2002). Changing knowledge regimes: universities in a new research environment, Higher Education, 44, 519-532.
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews, Quality  Quantity, 36, 391-409.
Bryce, T. & Humes, W. (2000). Scottish education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Chickering, A. W. (2002). Reclaiming our soul: democracy and higher education, Change, 35 (1), 39-45.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Paths taken, tasks ahead, Profession 2000, 32-39.
Chowaniec, J. (2005). Exploring identity, Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 265-270.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks, Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169-189.
Cornwell, G. H., & Stoddard, E. W. (2001). The future of liberal education and the hegemony of market values, Liberal Education, 87(3), 6-16.
Cowan, J. (1998). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).
Çakmakçı, G. (2009). Preparing teachers as researchers: Evaluating the quality of research reports prepared by student teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 35, 39-56.
Davis, M. (2003). Barriers to reflective practice: The changing nature of higher education, Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(3), 243-255.
Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging knowledge: The university in the knowledge society (Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press).
Demircioğlu, O. (2007). Gazi Üniversitesi Merkez Kütüphanesi: Bilgiyi hayata dönüştüren kütüphane (Gazi University Central Library: The library that transforms information to life), Bilgi Dünyası, 8(1): 167-173.
Eddy, E. D. (1957). Colleges for our land and time: The land-grant idea in American education. New York: Harper.
Erkoç, M. (2010). Personal communication with the Director of Student Affairs, 9 February.
Erzinçlioğlu, Z. (1999). British Universities: An ethical dilemma, Contemporary Review, 274, p. 143-147.
Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher education relevance in the 21st century, paper presented at the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education, 5-9 October, Paris, France.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L., (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research (Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company).
Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20-33.
Grubb, W. N., & Lazerson, M. (2005). Vocationalism in higher education: The triumph of the education gospel, The Journal of Higher Education, 76 (1), 1-25.
Gültekin, N., Çelik, A., & Nas, Z. (2008). Üniversitelerin kuruldukları kente katkıları (Contribution of universities to the cities they are founded in), Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 7(24), 264-269.
Kaya, Y. K. (1989). İnsan yetiştirme düzenimize yeni bir bakış: Eğitimde model arayışı. (A new view to our system of raising people: Searching for a model in education) (Ankara, Bilim Yayınları).
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching, Learning and Instruction, 7, 255-275.
Kempner, K., & Taylor, C. (1998). An alternative assessment to higher education outcomes: Differentiating by institutional type, Higher Education, 36, 301-321.
Kızıltepe, Z. (2008). Motivations and demotivations of university teachers, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 14(5–6), 515–530.
Küçüksüleymanoğlu, R. (2007). Burnout syndrome levels of education faculty academic staff, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 28, 101-112.
Kwiek, M. (2003). Academe in transition: Transformations in the Polish academic profession, Higher Education, 45, 455-476.
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006). A handbook for teacher research: From design to implementation. New York: Open University Press.
Lazerson, M. (1998). The disappointments of success: Higher education after World War II. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 559, 64- 76.
Lutz, F. W., & Field, R. W. (1998). Business valuing in academia, Higher Education, 36, 383-419.
McCollough, M. A.,  Gremier, D. D. (1999). Guaranteeing student satisfaction: An exercise in treating students as customers, Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 118-130.
Merriam, S. B. (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications in education (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Publishers).
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge, Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Nixon, J. (1996). Professional identity and the restructuring of higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 5-16.
Oğuz, A. (2004). Bilgi çağında yüksek öğretim programları (Higher education programs in the information age), Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 164 (2), 1-8.
Osborn, M., & Broadfoot, P. (1993). Becoming and being a teacher: The influence of the national context, European Journal of Education, 28(1), 105-116.
Özer, N.,  Demirtaş, H. (2010). Students’ perceptions regarding the fairness of learning environment in faculty of education. Eğitim Araştırmaları-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 126-145.
Özgüngör, S. (2010). Identifying dimensions of students’ ratings that best predict students’ self-efficacy, course value, and satisfaction. Eğitim Araştırmaları- Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 146-163.
Ranson, S. (1998). Inside the learning society (London, Cassell).
Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (1997). Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supply-side higher education, Social Text, 15(2), 9-38.
Rowland, S. (2001). Teaching for democracy in higher education, paper presented at Higher Education Close-Up conference, University of Lancaster, UK, 16-18 July.
Rowland, S. (2002). Overcoming fragmentation in professional life: The challenge for academic development, Higher Education Quarterly, 56(1), 52-64.
Sherman, R. R., & Webb, R. B. (1988). Qualitative Research in Education: A focus. In R. R. Sherman & R. B. Webb (eds.), Qualitative Research in Education: Focus and Methods, 2-22. Bristol, P.: Falmer Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Sönmez, V. (2003). Yüksek öğretimin yeniden yapılanması üzerine bir deneme (On the reconstruction of the higher education system), Eğitim Araştırmaları, 12, p. 4.
Tufan, O. (2008). Büyüyünce ne olacağım? (What shall I become when I grow up?). Retrieved July 24 2008 from http://www.dogrutercih.com/buyuyunce-neolacagim- 469_.html.
Twombly, S. B. (1997). Curricular reform and the changing social role of public higher education in Costa Rica, Higher Education, 33, 1-28.
Unwin, A. (2007).The professionalism of the higher education teacher: What’s ICT got to do with it?, Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 295-308.
Walker, C., Gleaves, A., & Grey, J. (2006). A study of the difficulties of care and support in new university teachers’ work, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 12(3), 347-363.