1

Student teacher exchange programmes and their contribution to critical international perspectives on education

Dr Chris Wilkins (caw11@le.ac.uk), Dr Hugh Busher (hugh.busher@le.ac.uk), Dr Tony Lawson (txl@le.ac.uk) , School of Education, University of Leicester, UK European Conference of Educational Research: Helsinki, Finland 25-27 August 2010 Abstract (160) Students and staff from three Universities in Turkey and Leicester University, England (UK) in 2008-2009 took part in an exchange programme about Citizenship Education in Turkey and Britain. It took place in the context of Turkey’s application for European Union membership and current contested discourses on the nature of European identity. Research of students’ perspectives was carried out by questionnaire and focus groups and of staff by reflections on practice. Students thought citizenship education helped to create ‘good citizens’ in their countries, but thought the nature of this citizenship was different between them. Turkish students thought citizenship education should emphasise national identity, whilst British students thought it should emphasise democracy, social justice, global citizenship and human rights. Students from both countries questioned the efficacy of the pedagogical approaches that they observed in each others’ countries, while noting the impact of central government agenda on education. Staff in the institutions thought the exchange programme was mainly beneficial in strengthening the academy. Key words: Introduction In 2008-2009 student teachers in three Universities in Turkey and Leicester University, England (UK) took part in an exchange programme focused on citizenship education in the two countries. The project was jointly funded by the European Union (EU) and the Turkish government. and led by a member of Uşak University, one of the three participating Turkish universities. As well as helping students to gain some limited experience of schooling in another country to allow them to reflect on their own practice as trainee teachers, the project also investigated students’ views of citizenship education and pedagogy and how this was affected by their experiences on the exchange programme. After the end of the programme in Autumn 2009, tutors were asked to reflect on their experiences on the exchange programme. This paper focuses on how , as a result of the exchange, students altered their perceptions of citizenship education and pedagogy, perceived the influence of power on the construction of school curricula and pedagogy, and questioned the construction of knowledge. In addition staff weighed up the value of exchange programmes. Understanding citizenship education in national and European contexts Education is both a site and a conduit for struggles (Foucault, 1976) through which teachers and students (re)construct their identities (Kearney, 2003). The construction of self-identity is central to the development of agency through which people interact with others individually and collectively (Giddens, 1991). The student teachers in the exchange programme were at a critical point in their

2

journey of identity as teachers, on the cusp of moving from being unwaged trainees to income earners. Constructions of self are also affected by local, national and supra-national policy contexts, such as fears of world climate change, the post-2008 global economic crisic, and the impact of globalization and regionalization at national and European levels (Dale in Dale and Robertson, 2009). The EU expansion eastward since 1989 has widened the range of ‘social models’, economic conditions, democratic structures and traditions of civil society held by EU member states. As EU membership changes, so both national and supranational educational policy developments will continue to develop in an increasingly fluid, dynamic way (Lawn, 2002). Schools are sites in which these different policy perspectives intersect to create educational policies and practices (Riley and Docking 2002) that reflect particular but contested values (Starratt, 2007). For example, the importance of schools and schooling in constructing society’s views on pluralism and social cohesion is acknowledged by the EU and its national governments (Dale in Dale and Robertson, 2009) despite the decline in the late twentieth century of civic engagement and participatory politics especially by young people (Citizenship Foundation, 1997). Since 1997 there have been shifts in national curriculum policy in England from highly prescriptive interventions, such as the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, to more flexible approaches, such as school self-evaluation and individualized learning programmes. However, the performative culture of New Labour education governance ensured almost complete compliance (Troman et al., 2007) as the impact of new initiatives was scrutinised through the lens of high stakes inspection. Through this education professionals were drawn into a panoptic self-surveillance to normalise a ‘coercive compliance’ with the state agenda (Wilkins and Wood, 2009). As yet it is not clear how changes in the British government in summer 2010 will alter public discourses about education processes. The educational reforms taking place currently in Turkey also reflect wider political changes. These reforms, such as the introduction of a new primary curriculum in 2004, have focused on replacing a ‘traditional behaviourist’ approach to curricula and pedagogy with a ‘constructivist’ one (Yanpar, 2009). It has placed less emphasis on creating good citizens and more on empowerment by equipping pupils with skills of enquiry, critical thinking, evaluation, cooperation, reflection and presentation (M.E.B., 2004). None the less, the dominant rhetoric driving these changes remains one of increasing academic attainment (frequently drawing upon international standardized studies such as PISA and TIMSS (M.E.B., 2008; Olkun and Aydoğdu, 2003), and represents a continuation of the aspirations of the founders of Turkish Republic to construct a modern secular, ‘western nation’ out of a multi-national, predominantly Islamic ‘eastern’ society (Lewis, 1991; Ortaylı, 1985). The contribution that exchange programmes can make to students’ learning Teacher education can be construed as state investment in subordinate ‘subjects’ in order to reproduce the material and social conditions of a hierarchically ordered society (Taylor and Robinson 2009). The social context of capitalism leads to an ideological function for schooling: learners became the ‘object’ of pedagogy, to be reproduced as workers of varying kinds and oppressed by a limiting education (Friere 1972). An alternative pedagogy provides learners with the ability to question given understandings and to act together to come to a new understanding of the social world to change it (Friere 1972). Social constructivist notions of pedagogy (Vygotsky, 1978) emphasise the social nature of teaching and

3

learning and promote a form of pedagogy in which the student is as active a participant as the teacher in the co-construction of knowledge. Experiential pedagogies focus on the need for learners to experience things directly in the construction of knowledge (Kolb 1976). The emphasis is on the processes of learning rather than on the knowledge that is the outcome of activity. Student exchange programmes fit into this latter understanding of pedagogy.

Methodology and methods An interpretative study was carried out to investigate students’ and tutors’ views of their experiences on the exchange programme. It used mixed methods of a questionnaire and focus group interviews to construct credible outcomes. Data was collected before the exchange visit during Autumn 2008 using a questionnaire to investigate students’ understandings of Turkish and British identity in a European context, and their views on the importance of citizenship education. The students who took part in the research were those engaged in learning to become teachers at Primary or Secondary school level. In the pre-visit phase in Turkey, as all teachers have to teach citizenship, all 581 undergraduate and postgraduate student teacher at Uşak University completed the questionnaire. The University of Leicester is an exclusively postgraduate teacher education, and 27 out of 119 Primary student teachers and 58 out of 176 Secondary student teachers chose to take part in this study. The different modes of engagement with the questionnaire by Turkish and British students might have affected the answers they gave. During the exchange visits in Spring 2009 British student teachers were taken to visit a modern private Primary school in the countryside near Uşak, and given a series of lectures on the Turkish education system. Turkish postgraduate student teachers were taken to visit a Secondary Sixth-form College in the centre of Leicester, and given a series of lectures on citizenship education. Focus group interviews were carried out with the 14 British and 14 Turkish students participating in the programme to probe in more depth issues that emerged from the questionnaire and students’ thinking about education in the two countries as they experienced it. The interviews were carried out in the participants’ first language, recorded digitally and later transcribed and, in the case of the Turkish focus group, translated into English by one of the moderators of the group, a Doctoral student at the University of Leicester. In the Summer 2009, four staff made additional notes on the benefits and weaknesses of the programme, making brief notes to supplement the project report that had to be submitted by the organiser from Uşak University. Analysis of the data from the participants in this projects falls into two main aspects. The quantitative data from the questionnaire was analysed using simple descriptive statistics to interrogate the proportion of each sample of students holding particular views, including none, either stated or unstated, for each question. This was to take account of those students who did not give an answer/express an opinion on any one question, but it does mean that indicators of what proportion of students held which view in answer to any one question in the questionnaire may be out of line with the total number of participants who answered that question. Qualitative data from the open-ended questions in the questionnaire and from the focus groups was analysed thematically. The data and methodology are reported in more detail elsewhere (Wilkins et al. 2010). Given the small number of responses from British Primary student teachers, after careful scrutiny of all the data gathered from the British students showed that generally the views of the Primary and Secondary student teachers were very similar, it was decided to amalgamate the findings from the two groups of British postgraduate students to present more clearly any trends in British postgraduate students’ views. However, where there are clear differences of emphasis, such as on

4

the importance of citizenship education, the distinction between British Primary and Secondary student teachers’ views is preserved.

Students’ perspectives on the exchange programme Students appeared to develop emergent criticisms of existing stereotypical views of the Other, as well as critical reflections on their own and the others’ practice during the course of the exchange. The focus groups, in particular, gave students from both countries the opportunity to express this. Their critical reflections are discussed here under four main subheadings: Different perceptions of citizenship education, different perspectives on pedagogy, the impact of policy contexts on educational practice, questions about epistemology and truth. Different perceptions of citizenship education Citizenship education and social justice Turkish and British students thought that Citizenship Education was of major importance for their countries (Table 1: Questionnaire data).

Table 1: Do you consider it important that Citizenship education should be included in the curriculum of schools on your country? Yes No Not sure No reply

Turkish Students (n=581)

549 (94%) 17 (3%) 8 (1%) 7

British students (n= 85)

66 (78%) 10 (12%) 8 (9%) 1

Turkish students attached most importance to the knowledge base of citizenship, teaching the rights and responsibilities of citizens (Table 2: Questionnaire data). In the focus group there was a broad consensus amongst Turkish students that citizenship education in schools largely focused on this:

In the past, social aspect of the citizenship was lacking … [but] it is also important to know the legal rights, for example even we do not know our consumers’ rights (Turkish focus group).

Table 2: The importance of education for Citizenship

Turkish Students (n=581) British students (n= 85)

citizenship rights and responsibilities 326 (56%)

make students aware of their cultural/own identity. 13 (15%)

culture, traditions, history and values 29 (5%)

Learn about global responsibilities / world affairs /other countries 12 (14%)

national identity 29 (5%)

Discourages prejudice/gives a better understanding of others. 9 (11%)

[school is a] crucial period [for this] 27 (5%)

Learn about being a good citizen/ about political processes 8 (9%)

human rights and democracy 17 (3%)

give students more information about Europe and their place in Europe 6 (7%)

BLANK 124 (21,34%) BLANK 0

British students considered ‘learning to be a good citizen’ (Table 2: Questionnaire data) important, too, but also wanted pupils to be aware of their global responsibilities and of countries other than their own alongside their own cultural identity. They thought that the practices of citizenship should

5

be embedded in teacher-student relationships in order to teach it, unlike practice in Turkish schools, as they perceived it.

In the UK we inform all our students of diversity and… embrac[e] it. I don’t think the Turkish have grasped the idea of doing and making their students aware of the wider, like global context (British focus group).

Education and human and/or citizens’ rights Turkish and British students perceived many similar benefits in teaching citizenship in schools (Table 3: Questionnaire data).

Table 3: Benefits of Citizenship Education for pupils

Idea Important Don’t Know Unimportant

Social Justice - freedom and fairness

TR (581): 530 (91%) Br(85): 71 (84%)

TR (581): 14 (2%) Br(85): 6 (7%)

TR (581): 13 (2%) Br(85): 0

Human Rights and responsibilities

TR (581): 538 (93%) Br(85): 76 (89%)

TR (581): 14 (2%) Br(85): 2 (2%)

TR (581): 7 (1%) Br(85): 0

Equal Rights for All TR (581): 525 (90%) Br(85): 73 (86%)

TR (581): 17 (3%) Br(85): 4 (5%)

TR (581): 16 (3%) Br(85): 0

Democracy TR (581): 521 (90%) Br(85): 66 (78%)

TR (581): 23 (4%) Br(85): 11 (13%)

TR (581): 13 (2%) Br(85): 0

Forms of Government – e.g. parliamentary democracy

TR (581): 398 (68%) Br(85): 50 (59%)

TR (581): 108 (19%) Br(85): 26 (31%)

TR (581): 50 (9%) Br(85): 0

Individual and collective action TR (581): 455 (78%) Br(85): 56 (66%)

TR (581): 60 (10%) Br(85): 18 (21%)

TR (581): 36 (6%) Br(85): 3 (4%)

The global dimension – inequalities, international relations, the UN

TR (581): 354 (61%) Br(85): 62 (73%)

TR (581): 117 (20%) Br(85): 15 (18%)

TR (581): 79 (14%) Br(85): 1 (1%)

Sustainable Development – poverty, environment, future

TR (581): 461 (79%) Br(85): 70 (82%)

TR (581): 59 (10%) Br(85): 7 (8%)

TR (581): 33 (6%) Br(85): 0

National identity TR (581): 511 (88%) Br(85): 58 (68%)

TR (581): 19 (3%) Br(85): 14 (16%)

TR (581): 22 (4%) Br(85): 3 (4%)

European interconnections - the nation and rest of Europe

TR (581): 247 (43%) Br(85): 58 (68%)

TR (581): 152 (26%) Br(85): 15 (18%)

TR (581): 152 (26%) Br(85): 4 (5%)

For example, the enactment of children’s rights in school was perceived by both Turkish and British students as linked to issues of equity and human rights, with freedom of speech and thought a common theme (Turkish and British focus groups). However, the Turkish students interpreted ‘school students’ rights’ in terms wider than education, with many specifically referring to social rights such has health services (Table 4: Questionnaire data). By contrast the British students focused narrowly on school students’ rights in school.

Table 4: The enactment of Citizenship in schools: Children’s rights

Turkish Students (n=581) British students (n= 85)

social rights as health services, education 108 (19%) Equal rights (ECM)/all children are citizens 34 (40%)

human rights and equality 67 (12%) Safety /protection 23 (27%)

free thought 29 (5%) Free education/ good education for all 23 (27%)

attain knowledge 8 (1%)

BLANK 369 (63%) BLANK 13 (15%)

Student voice, democracy and education

6

The enactment of student rights to participate as citizens in schools, as compared to the teaching about citizenship rights, drew a rather managerialist view from both British and Turkish students (Table 5: Questionnaire data).

Table 5: Routes for the enactment of student voice in schools

Turkish Students (n=581) Britishstudents (n= 85)

[not] any chance [of that] 74 (13%) School council meetings 41 (48%)

wish and complaint box 33 (6%) Talking to their teachers/staff members /classroom debates. 12 (14%)

complaint to manager and teacher 25 (4%) Parents evenings/via parents /via governors 7 (8%)

guidance service 11 (2%) Speak to people like the head teacher 4 (5%)

right of petition 8 (1%) Through suggestion boxes. 4 (5%)

[through] family 8 (1%) Through questionnaires/school magazine 3 (4%)

BLANK 422 (73%) BLANK 14 (16%)

Indeed, some Turkish student teachers thought school students in Turkey had little chance of any active involvement in the organisation of their schools. They compared this with school students they saw in England whom they thought had more freedom because they did not wear school uniform., perceiving uniform as a means of standardization through which teachers exerted control over their students. They also contrasted English school teachers with those in Turkey, considering the former more respectful of school students

[when] we wanted to take photograph of the [school] students and asked for permission from the teacher but she asked the students if they want[ed] to and 2 students put up their hand and said ‘please do not take our photograph’. The teacher suggested us not to take those two students’ photograph and we respected their choice (Turkish focus group).

They argued that this indicated a respect for personal differences, such as religious perspectives, that applied not only in school but in social life, too, which they thought necessary in a multi-cultural society like Britain. British student teachers thought that Turkish school students’ rights were compromised. For example, they thought gender issues were not openly and critically debated in Turkey and that women were as unwilling to address them as men.

the attitude that Turkish people generally hold in society was … clearly mirrored in their education, like gender issues they ignore, sexual orientation, homophobia … Even in the classroom they are just not addressed (British focus group).

How students are perceived by teachers, and vice versa, affects the relationships teachers and students construct with each other (Table 6: Questionnaire data).

Table 6: The impact of children’s rights on student-teacher relationships

Turkish Students (n=581) British students (n= 85)

Moderates classroom climate 36 (6%) Teachers need to be very careful / Students know their rights /Teaching is more challenging 19 (22%)

Equality 20 (3%) Teachers respect individuals and help each child achieve its potential (mutual respect) 14 (16%)

increase the quality of education 20 (3%) Makes teaching more dynamic and creates better relationships (mutual respect) as teachers engage with pupils voices 12 (14%)

7

awareness their rights 14 (2%) Develop cooperative relationships/ listen to their students/ Look after their welfare 10 (12%)

appreciate the students 8 (1%) Teachers must be inclusive of all children/ improve relationships with them 7 (8%)

BLANK 491 (84%) BLANK 31 (36%)

Turkish and British students perceived this similarly (Table 6: Questionnaire data), although the proportion of Turkish students answering was very small. While some British and Turkish respondents thought that school students’ rights positively led to more cooperative relationships between students and teachers, others thought that they were a constraint on teachers’ actions. On the other hand, as is discussed below, in the focus groups British and Turkish student teachers offered a much more nuanced view of teacher-student relationships in different contexts. Different perspectives on pedagogy: Investigating practice through exchange programmes Experience of visiting schools in the other country sometimes seemed to confirm stereotypical views of the other, and sometimes began to negate them. Some Turkish student teachers were fiercely critical of the constructivist approaches to pedagogy they observed in English schools because children did not seem to be able to answer straightforward questions that the teacher put to them (Turkish focus group). On the other hand, some Turkish students were appreciative of the respect teachers appeared to have for their school students in England (Turkish focus group) and acknowledge the contrast with practice in Turkey.

The basic difference between the UK and Turkey is the development of the ability of analysing and problem solving skills. What is important is whether students put forward and discuss their ideas … in the Turkish educational system students generally tend to be shy and have some doubts about their opinions (Turkish focus group)

British students also noted the different approaches to pedagogy in Turkish and English schools and were surprised to see active learning in the Turkish Primary school they visited. It led them to begin to theorise the causes of different teachers’ approaches to pedagogy, wondering whether these depended on teachers’ educational values and the resources available to them rather than on nationality (British focus group). Both British and Turkish students acknowledge the relevance of school culture in facilitating the relationships between teachers and school students, but acknowledged these could also be affected by size of school and of classes as well as by the values held and projected by staff and senior staff in schools (Turkish and British focus groups). The impact of policy contexts on educational practice: National identity and education The current Turkish government, although more ready to move away from the rigid secularism of previous governments and allow symbols of Islam in public arenas, is strongly in favour of membership of the EU to take forward the development of Turkish society (Olkun and Aydoğdu, 2003). Turkish university students generally welcomed this (Table 7: Questionnaire data), not least because it would help the EU to become a genuinely multi-faith community rather than a ‘Christian club’, but had some considerable concerns about its impact on Turkish society (Table 7).

8

Table 7: The impact on Turkey of joining the European Union

Positive views Turkish Students (n=581)

Negative views Turkish Students (n=581)

economic development 248 (43%) Cultural, social and religious deformation 188 (32%)

Free circulation 60 (10%) Damages national identity and freedom 147 (25%)

Improvement in social life 55 (9%) Unnecessary fixation and pressure 57 (10%)

Powerful governance 30 (5%) Exploitation 26 (4%)

Increases personal rights and freedom 25 (4%) Economic 18 (3%)

BLANK 158 (27%) BLANK 121 (21%)

To facilitate the EU membership project, the government has, since 2004, put in place a more liberal citizenship curriculum rather than the former one rooted narrowly in the relationship between individuals and the nation state (M.E.B., 2008). This emphasizes a constructivist pedagogy (Yanpar, 2009). Although Turkish students noted this, they thought the implementation of the new curriculum and new pedagogy was not effective.

We shifted to Constructivist educational model in 2004. However, neither teachers nor learners were able to get to that model … the model they use here in the UK is constructivist from top to bottom (Turkish focus group)

Contact with school education in England sparked off a fierce debate amongst the Turkish students about the efficacy of constructivist pedagogy for imparting what some perceived as necessary factual information in an essentially credentialist society in Turkey, where passing national examinations vitally affected school students’ career opportunities (Turkish focus group). Turkish and British students also recognized that levels of resourcing made a considerable difference to school processes in the two educations systems. Turkish students were surprised at the relatively small number of students per class (’15 to 24 maximum in the classes I saw,’ Turkish focus group). They thought it affected school student-teacher relationships because it allowed

the relationship between teachers and students [to be] based on students’ rights and demands, which is quite good (Turkish focus group).

rather than on a teacher’s need to control large numbers of students. One consequence of the small numbers per class in the private Primary school the British students visited was to allow school students in some classes to influence positively how learning took place in ways that would not be possible in Turkish public schools, even if their teachers espoused the same values, because class sizes would inhibit it (British focus group).

Well there was about 15 [students] per class [in the private school] or something like that … In most state schools there is about 55 odd per class (British Focus group).

England has a detailed and broad citizenship curriculum which was made mandatory in Secondary schools in 2002. Britain is also an established member of the EU, although important elements of its political elite frequently sound anti-European and concerned only with British interests. This latter perspective was not reflected in the views of British students who generally welcomed British involvement with Europe, albeit with some scepticism (Table 8: Questionnaire data).

Table 8: The impact on Britain of joining the European Union

Positive effects British students (n= 85)

Negative effects British students (n= 85)

Improvement of its economy / more trade 24 (28%) Increase of immigration 23 (27%)

Multiculturalism (cultural diversity) 16 (19%) More EU rules & policies /Reduced sovereignty

9

12 (14%)

Open borders/ more access to employment in other countries 14 (16%)

Increased taxation 2 (2%)

Greater cooperation with European countries 5 (6%) Increased pressure on public services 1 (1%)

BLANK 20 (24%) BLANK 20 (24%)

British students thought citizenship education helped students and teachers to build more equitable and mutually respecting relationships that recognized their global and European connections (Tables 2 & 4: Questionnaire data). Contact with Turkish schools ignited a debate in the British focus group that questioned stereotypical views of schooling in Turkey and educational practices in England. They noted that constructivist and didactic approaches to pedagogy could happen in both countries and their use might depend on factors such as teachers’ educational and social values, the (lack of) resources available for teaching, and the topic being taught. Questions of epistemology and truth: Constructing credible knowledge The views that British students gained of Turkish education came from two sources: discussion with the Turkish students and professors taking part in the exchange programme, and their visit to an atypical private Primary school near Uşak. ‘I know, from snippets with Turkish people, that state schools are nothing like [what] we saw yesterday,’ (British focus group). The atypicality of the school led them to question their construction of knowledge:

I don’t think I can make a judgment from seeing that school. It was so far removed from the schools I have been in to [in England] … the schools I have been in are [in] deprived [areas] (British Focus group)

They recognized that in part this atypicality was due to the resources available in the school, because of the fees charged, allowing teachers to work in a much more flexible way than they might in Turkish state schools, or in some schools in England.

Well there was about 15 [students] per class (British Focus group). Anyway in our country … it could be up to 70, but of course this is not the case in private schools (Turkish focus group).

Turkish students also queried whether they had sufficient time observing schooling to be able to form a reliable judgment about English school processes (Turkish focus group). Although some of these students also doubted that they had sufficient opportunity on the exchange visit to gain a view of British perspectives on Europeanness and European citizenship, others noted the opportunities they had to observe the multicultural nature of British society and schooling and how that contrasted with Turkey (Turkish focus group).

Staff perspectives During the course of the exchange programme and the continuing contacts between academic staff afterwards, these staff developed a more nuanced understanding of each others’ contexts and processes and the relevance of global and European citizenship to people in each country. Staff views were collected and analysed under four headings: Different perceptions of citizenship education, the impact of policy contexts on educational practice, questions about epistemology and truth, developing academic practice. Different perceptions of citizenship education

10

From a starting point of limited and vague knowledge about citizenship education in the Turkish/ English education systems before the exchange began, staff developed an understanding of the different underlying philosophies of citizenship education between England and Turkey. Turkey’s curriculum was more focused on promoting social citizenship (people’s social and economic rights) and that of England was more focused on citizenship actions. British staff noted that Turkey still did not recognise the rights of ethnic minority groups within their population, a view confirmed by one member of Turkish staff, and the rights of women seemed as much a matter of rhetoric generally as of practice for certain social groups. Indeed according to some Turkish staff and postgraduate students there were no ethnic minorities in Turkey - everybody was either Turkish or a foreigner - only religious minorities, whom they referred to as ‘ethnic minorities’, causing initial confusion for Britishparticipants. Consequently these issues were not discussed in Turkish citizenship education. However government policy and public discourses in the UK also present conflicting perspectives on social justice issues such as how to handle women’s rights in a multicultural society, or the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. Some Turkish staff and students on the other hand could not understand how British people were so sanguine about living in a multi-cultural city, and were surprised that different ethnic groups lived together in the same neighbourhood quite peacefully. A few thought that low-level racism was endemic in Britain and suggested constructing separate ghettos for each ethnic group was the only way to resolve this. Maintaining law and order was considered more important than upholding equity and human rights. The impact of policy contexts on educational practice: National identity and education Turkish and British staff realised as a result of the exchange that the stereotypes they held of each other’s countries were substantially incorrect. Turkish staff and students were surprised that pedagogy in England necessarily includes some strongly didactic elements, as well as constructivist ones, partly because of the tight control which central government in England exercises over the curriculum, the administration of schools and teachers’ work. Central government projects its power through its system of school inspection and its requirement that school examination results are published and compared with those of other schools in the country. British staff and students were surprised how in Turkey, despite the new Primary curriculum of 2004 that was introduced to facilitate membership of the EU, schooling was used to generate a sense of Turkish national identity amongst children. This includes, for example, the overt acknowledgment of Attaturk (statues, icons, written texts) in building the modern Turkish state and the daily recitation of the Turkish promise of allegiance. However, the culture of schools in England is heavily shaped by the performative demands made on them by central government. Unlike the National Curriculum of England, the Turkish education system seemed not to engage with postmodern dilemmas of shifting, multiple identities, although both countries host important ethnic and religious minorities. British staff noted that Turkish students were less willing than British students to engage in discussions on sensitive topics, such as gender and homophobia, especially in public fora, and wondered how this related to public discourses on such matters in Turkey. They were also surprised that some postgraduate Turkish students were not independent learners, expecting to learn only through authoritative lectures on Education and European Citizenship during the exchange, rather than constructing theory through reflecting on their experiences of both topics during the exchange programme.

11

Turkish and British staff and postgraduate students had the experience of working in different cultures in the towns and universities in which they were based for the exchange and reflecting on how these cultures affected their relationships with each other and with school students. Questions of epistemology and truth: Constructing credible knowledge Staff had a snapshot opportunity to investigate Citizenship education at a crucial time of change in Turkey and England. However the schools exchange participants visited were not representative of either system so participants only gained a very narrow view of each educational system. This raises questions about why such atypical examples of schooling were chosen and what were the real purposes of the exchange programme. However, the exchange programme did allow Turkish and British staff and students to gain insights into the dilemmas confronting both systems by visiting sites and by talking with each other in formal and informal arenas. Whilst their initial incomprehension and misunderstanding of the ‘other’ were discussed at first among the members of their own group, in due course, as trust grew between the two groups, a fruitful dialogue ensued across both groups. This was facilitated on both sides by participants being unwilling to be judgemental about ‘the other’ until they knew more and regarding each other as equals, if somewhat different. Developing academic practice Turkish and UK University teacher participants were united by a common need for outcomes (papers, relationships, new research projects) from the project. These were achieved in part by generating six joint publications or conference papers (Busher, H. Wilkins, C. Lawson, T. Acun, I. Göz, N.L., 2009, Busher, H. Wilkins, C. Warwick, P. Acun, I. Göz, N.L., 2009, Acun, I., Leman, N., Busher, H. & Wilkins, C., 2009, Busher, H. Wilkins C Lawson T, 2010a, Busher, H. Wilkins, C. Lawson, T., 2010b, Wilkins, C. Busher, H. Lawson, T. Acun, I. Göz, N. L., 2010) which were presented at various international conferences or published. However, they were constrained by limited time and money to underpin them. In part, however, extensive discussions between academics in the institutions showed up major differences in their preferred research agenda and research approaches which made progress difficult. Turkish academics tended to prefer large scale positivist approaches whilst the British academics tended to prefer small-scale interpretative approaches collecting qualitative data. However, the programme gave an opportunity for academic dialogue within each university which was fruitful in developing research, and for frank exchanges between participants from different institutions in informal settings that developed understanding of the ‘other’ and helped to strengthen the collaboration. Positive interpersonal relationships between the partners in this project helped facilitate its success. There is on-going collaboration through the development of a new journal at Uşak University. Members of the exchange team are members of the editorial board for that journal. There were, however, some micro-political barriers to continuing collaboration in addition to the differing research agendas already noted. These can be categorised as: status differences between the institutions; internal institutional barriers and affordances to collaboration; relationships between different institutions and their respective states. Some institutions and people enhanced their reputations considerably through engaging with this project, gaining EU funding, successfully organising it and international conferences that drew in key government speakers and sending personnel to various international conferences (Table 10). However, status differences between the institutions meant that some institutions were unwilling to

12

be other than the lead institution in future research bids. In part this was linked to expectations within institutions for people to be seen to be bidding for external research funding, in part to people having the prestige through their institution to bid for certain types of funding. In some institutions academic staff had difficulty gaining resources for continued dialogue and visits after the end of the exchange or support from senior staff to pursue further developments.

Conclusions Student exchange programmes give participants a partial view of each others’ countries. It helps participants to reflect critically on the processes of education they are experiencing and the material and social conditions of society that their education is intended to help them reproduce (Taylor and Robinson 2009). The partial view has to be carefully deconstructed, as partners in exchange schemes often have multiple agendas in developing their own institutions or personal positions as well as wanting to present their own countries in particular lights. This provides learners with the opportunity to question given understandings and to act together to come to a new understanding of the social world to change it (Friere 1972) but raises epistemological questions about truth and the trustworthiness of what exchange participants are told and shown. This exchange programme emphasized the social nature of teaching and learning and promoted a social constructivist form (Vygotsky, 1978) of pedagogy. The students and staff were equally active participants asin the co-construction of knowledge. Faced with different approaches to education that they experienced in each other’s countries, Turkish and British students questioned their own and others understandings of education and pedagogy, specifically in the arena of citizenship education. This led them to question the nature of schooling and the interpersonal relationships in it of teachers and students in particular policy contexts, illustrating how schools become sites in which central and institutional policy discourses and implementation (Riley and Docking 2002) and cultures intersect with individual contested values (Starratt, 2007). Such dialogues help people to question, modify as well as re-affirm their identities (Kearney, 2003), in this case as student teachers in the particular contexts of their own countries and society. The construction of self-identity is an on-going journey that is central to the development of agency through which people interact with others individually and collectively (Giddens, 1991). This study also shows how the constructions of self are affected by institutional, local, national and supra-national policy contexts, such as globalization and regionalization at European level (Dale in Dale and Robertson, 2009). The constructions of citizenship education and pedagogy that the postgraduate students were questioning were being shaped by national educational policies, such as the new Turkish Curriculum, 2004, and the English National Curriculum, that were shaped in part by supra-national policy contexts such as that of the EU and global commercial demands. The attitudes and actions of staff involved in this exchange were also affected by policies at these different levels.

References Busher, H. Wilkins, C. Lawson, T. Acun, I. Göz, N.L. (2009) Some British and Turkish university students’ perspectives of the teaching of Citizenship in European contexts, Paper given at the European Conference on Educational Research, Network 7 (Social Justice), Vienna, 28-30 September 2009

13

Busher, H. Wilkins, C. Warwick, P. Acun, I. Göz, N.L. (2009) Identifying with Europe? The views of some Turkish and British postgraduate students taking part in a university exchange programme, Paper given at the 1st International Symposium on European Union, Democracy, Citizenship and Citizenship Education,Symposium on ‘Understanding Europeaness and promoting European Citizenship in Turkey, University of Uşak, Turkey, 28 - 30 May 2009 Acun, I., Leman, N., Busher, H. & Wilkins, C. (2009) Perceptions of Turkish and British Student Teachers of Europeanness and the Role of Citizenship Education CiCe Thematic Network Conference: Human Rights and Citizenship Education: Malmö, Sweden, 21-23 May. Busher H, Wilkins C Lawson T (2010a) Reflecting on the Other: Critical perspectives of novice teachers on pedagogy and teacher pupil-relationships in particular geo-political contexts BERA 2010, 3-5 Sept 2010,Warwick, UK Busher, H. Wilkins, C. Lawson, T. (2010b) Student Teacher Exchange Programmes and their Contribution to Critical International Perspectives on Education, in the symposium Individual Effects of International Exchange in Higher Education, ECER 2010, 24 - 28 Aug, Helsinki, Finland Citizenship Foundation (1997) Citizenship and civic education. London: Citizenship Foundation. Dale, R. (2009) Introduction, in Globalisation and Europeanisation in education, R. Dale, and S. Robertson (ed.) 1-22. Oxford: Symposium Books. Foucault, M (1976) Truth and Power, in C. Gordon (ed) (1980) Power / Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings by Michel Foucault, 1972-1977 New York: Pantheon Books Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press Kearney, C. (2003) The Monkey’s mask: Identity, memory, narrative and voice. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Kolb, D. A. (1976) The Learning Style Inventory: Technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer. Lawn, M. (2002) Borderless education: Imagining a European education space in a time of brands and networks, in Fabricating Europe: The formation of an education space, A. Novoa, and M. Lawn (ed.) 19-34. Dortrecht: Kluwer. Lewis, B. (1991) Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu, 4.baskı, Ankara: TTK. M.E.B. (2004) İlköğretim Öğretim Programları. http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=18 M.E.B. (2008) ‘PISA 2009’. http://earged.meb.gov.tr/pisa/dil/tr/sunum.html Olkun, S., and T. Aydoğdu. (2003) Üçüncü Uluslararası Matematik ve Fen Araştırması (TIMSS) *Nedir? Neyi Sorgular? Örnek Geometri Soruları ve Etkinlikleri. İlköğretim 2, no. 1, 28-35. http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol2say1/index.htm Ortaylı, İ. (1985) Batılılaşma Sorunu, In Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Türkiye Ansiklopedisl 1, H. Berktay (ed)., 134-138. İstanbul: İletişim. Riley, K., and J. Docking. (2002) Perceptions of schooling among disadvantaged pupils. Paper presented at the BERA Annual Conference. September 2002, in Exeter, UK. Starratt, R. (2007) Leading a community of learners. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 35, no.2: 165-83. Taylor, C., and C. Robinson. 2009. Student voice: theorising power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture and Society 17 (2): 161-75. Troman, G., B. Jeffrey, and A. Raggl. (2007) Creativity and performativity policies in primary school cultures. Journal of Education Policy 22, no.5: 549-72. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilkins, C., H, Busher, T, Lawson, I, Acun & N.L, Göz 2010 European citizenship and EU expansion: Perspectives on Europeanness and Citizenship Education from Britain and Turkey, European Educational Research Journal, 9:4 pp 444-456 Wilkins, C., and P. Wood, (2009) Initial Teacher Education in the panopticon. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy 35, no. 3: 283 – 97.

14

Yanpar, T. (2009) Etkili ve Anlamı Öğrenme İçin Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar ve Yapılandırmacılık. In Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretimi, C. Öztürk (ed.), 52-74. Ankara: PegemA.