Suchergebnisse

V magistrskem delu obravnavamo različne politike internacionalizacije visokega šolstva v Sloveniji in na Nizozemskem. Glavni temelj naloge predstavlja analiza in primerjava strateških dokumentov internacionalizacije visokega šolstva obeh izbranih držav. V teoretičnem delu izpostavimo internacionalizacijo v zgodovinski perspektivi. Na kratko opišemo družbenoekonomski kontekst razvoja nizozemskih univerz ter obravnavamo nastanek in razvoj slovenskih in nizozemskih univerz. Osredotočimo se na njihovo poslanstvo ter z njim povezanim položajem jezika v raziskovalni in pedagoški dejavnosti. Opredelimo tudi termin internacionalizacije in navedemo različne definicije. Nato predstavimo oblike internacionalizacije: internacionalizacijo doma, internacionalizacijo kurikuluma ter internacionalizacijo v tujini. V okviru razvoja bolonjskega procesa predstavimo nastanek evropske gospodarske skupnosti, začetke samega procesa ter kritiko njegove neoliberalne zasnove. Raziščemo tudi zelo relevantno temo – transfer izobraževalnih politik. Zaključimo s predstavitvijo jezikovne problematike, to je vedno večja vloga angleščine v pedagoškem in raziskovalnem visokošolskem prostoru ter položaj nacionalnih jezikov. V okviru empiričnega dela najprej ugotavljamo podobnosti in razlike med nacionalnimi politikami internacionalizacije visokega šolstva v Sloveniji in na Nizozemskem ter med politikami na institucionalni ravni – opravimo torej primerjavo Univerze v Ljubljani in Univerze v Amsterdamu. Analiza nacionalnih strateških dokumentov dokazuje, da tako slovensko kot nizozemsko visoko šolstvo sledi podobnim ciljem internacionalizacije. Kot prvo bistveno razliko pa lahko izpostavimo težnjo Nizozemske po povezovanju visokošolskih institucij z gospodarstvom in posledično prevlado gospodarskih motivov za internacionalizacijo. Nasprotno pa internacionalizacijo slovenskega visokega šolstva usmerjajo predvsem politični motivi, saj želi država utrditi prepoznavno podobo nacionalnega visokega šolstva. S tem pa je povezana tudi druga pomembna razlika. V nizozemskih strateških dokumentih je poudarjena namera po konkurenčnosti in prepoznavnosti države na globalni ravni, medtem ko je v slovenskih strateških dokumentih v ospredju potreba po vzpostavitvi regionalne identitete. Nizozemska se torej usmerja v bolj globalno internacionalizacijo, Slovenija pa v regionalno. Državi sta si podobni v tem, da vidita internacionalizacijo kot poglavitni dejavnik pri razvoju svojega visokega šolstva, ki rezultira v izboljšanje njegove kakovosti. Analiza politike internacionalizacije dveh osrednjih univerz v obeh država pokaže, da je zaradi statusa mednarodne in dvojezične univerze Univerze v Amsterdamu internacionalizacija njena ključna značilnost, medtem ko je ljubljanska univerza pri svoji internacionalizaciji dokaj omejena. Zaradi svoje izrazite mednarodne usmerjenosti Univerza v Amsterdamu izvaja pouk v t. i. mednarodni predavalnici. Nizozemska in njene univerze so že – gledano z zgodovinske perspektive – veliko bolj mednarodno odprte. Slednje pa je prispevalo k temu, da Nizozemska spada med najbogatejše države na svetu. Prednost bogatih držav pa niso le zadostna finančna sredstva za implementacijo optimalne internacionalizacije, ampak tudi »privilegij« postavljanja trendov na področju internacionalizacije. Preučujemo tudi medsebojno skladnost strateških dokumentov v posamezni državi ter način odražaja ciljev bolonjskega procesa v ciljih strateških dokumentov. Ugotovimo, da je v nizozemskih strateških dokumentih v primerjavi s slovenskimi prisotno bistveno večje ujemanje v ključnih oziroma prioritetnih ciljih, kar je mogoče pripisati aktivni vključenosti nizozemskih univerz pri oblikovaju politik. Bolonjski cilji so izraženi v obeh državnih in obeh institucionalnih strategijah internacionalizacije. Izpostavili bi cilj pospeševanja mobilnosti, ki se pojavi v vseh štirih strategijah. Na koncu raziskujemo, kako državi urejata oziroma rešujeta vprašanje jezika visokega šolstva. Ugotovili smo, da v obeh državah zakona, ki urejata področje visokega šolstva, izpostavljata skrb za materinščino. Ta naloga spada v okvir visokošolskih zavodov. Univerza v Amsterdamu ima – za razliko od Univerze v Ljubljani – oblikovano svojo jezikovno strategijo, v kateri je pojasnjeno, na kakšen način se izbere oziroma določi jezik poučevanja, s čimer je odločitev o jeziku poučevanja olajšana. Kot je pokazala primerjava različnih dokumentov s področja visokega šolstva in strategij, je današnja internacionalizacija v različnih državah pod vplivom tako sodobnih procesov, konkretneje bolonjskega procesa, kot tudi različnih zgodovinskih dejavnikov oziroma okoliščin. Enake politike internacionalizacije se torej v različnih okoljih implementirajo različno. S tem tudi potrjujemo ugotovitev de Wita in F. Hunter (2015, str. 2), da ni modela internacionalizacije, ki bi ustrezal vsem. ; Internationalisation of Higher Education in Slovenia and the Netherlands After the Implementation of the Bologna Process In this thesis, we discuss the different internationalisation policies of higher education in Slovenia and the Netherlands. Analysing and comparing the strategic documents about the internationalisation of higher education in the chosen countries is the basis of the following thesis. In the theoretical part, we put internationalisation in a historical perspective. We concisely describe the socioeconomic context of the development of Dutch universities and analyse the origins and development of Slovene and Dutch universities. Furthermore, we focus on the mission of universities and their related position of language in research and teaching. We also define internationalisation and present its different definitions. Additionally, we introduce the forms of internationalisation: internationalisation at home, internationalisation of the curriculum, and internationalisation abroad. In the context of the development of the Bologna Process, we present the emergence of the European Economic Community, the beginnings of the process itself, and a critique of its neo-liberal concept. Moreover, we also explore the transfer of educational policies. We conclude by presenting the language issues, i.e., the growing role of English in teaching and research in higher education, and the position of national languages. In the empirical part, we first identify similarities and differences between national policies on the internationalisation of higher education in Slovenia and the Netherlands. Then we examine the policies at the institutional level by comparing the University of Ljubljana and the University of Amsterdam. Analysis of national strategy documents shows that both Slovenian and Dutch higher education pursue similar internationalisation objectives. However, the first significant difference is the Dutch tendency to connect higher education institutions with the economy. Consequently, economic motives for internationalisation prevail. In contrast, the internationalisation of Slovenian higher education is driven primarily by political motives, as the country wants to consolidate a recognisable national higher education. Nonetheless, there is another important difference. The Dutch strategy documents emphasise the intention to make the country competitive and visible on a global level, while the Slovenian strategy documents focus on the need to establish a regional identity. The Netherlands is therefore moving towards a more global internationalisation, whereas Slovenia moves towards a regional one. At the same time, they both perceive internationalisation as the crucial factor in developing higher education. Particularly, in the context of increasing its quality. The two countries are similar in the way they see internationalisation – as the major factor in the development of their higher education and as means to enhance its quality. An analysis of the internationalisation policies of the two central universities in both countries shows that, due to its status as an international and bilingual university, internationalisation is a leading feature of the University of Amsterdam. On the contrary, the University of Ljubljana is somewhat limited in its internationalisation. Due to its strong international orientation, the University of Amsterdam holds its classes in a so-called "international classroom." Historically viewed, The Netherlands and its universities have been much more internationally opened. This has contributed to the Netherlands being one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The advantage of rich countries is not only having sufficient financial resources to implement optimal internationalisation, but also the "privilege" of setting trends in the area of internationalisation. We also look at the coherence between the strategic documents in each country and how the objectives of the Bologna Process are reflected in the objectives of the strategic documents. We have found out that there is a significantly higher congruence in the key objectives in the Dutch strategic document compared to the Slovenian ones. The reason for that could be the active involvement of Dutch universities in policymaking. The Bologna objectives are reflected in both national and both institutional internationalisation strategies. We aim to highlight the objective of promoting mobility, which appears in all four strategies. Lastly, we explore the way of how countries are addressing the issue of the language of higher education. We have discovered that the laws governing higher education emphasise care for the mother tongue in both countries. The University of Amsterdam has constructed a language strategy that explains how the instruction language is chosen and determined. By doing so, the decision for the instruction language is less complicated. At the moment, the University of Ljubljana still does not have the same approach. By comparing different higher education documents and strategies, we have shown that contemporary changes (specifically the Bologna Process) and various historical factors have influenced internationalisation today. The same internationalisation policies are therefore implemented differently in various contexts. This also confirms the observation made by de Wit and F. Hunter (2015, p. 2) that there is "no one model that fits all".