7-10-2011The impact of ERASMUS on quality in European HE 1 Enhancing Quality Through...

7-10-2011 The impact of ERASMUS on quality in European HE

1

The impact of ERASMUS The impact of ERASMUS on quality in European on quality in European HEHE

Enhancing Quality Through InternationalisationConference discussion groups

Lisbon

Hans Vossensteyn6-7 October 2011

7-10-2011The impact of ERASMUS on quality in European HE 2

TWO STUDIES ON ERASMUS

A 2007-2008 study for the European Commission:

THE IMPACT OF THE ERASMUS PROGRAMME ON EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION:

QUALITY, OPENNESS AND INTERNATIONALISATION

A 2009-2010 study for the European Parliament:

IMPROVING THE PARTICIPATION IN THE ERASMUS PROGRAMME


Impact of ERASMUS onEuropean Higher Education

Quality, Openness and Quality, Openness and InternationalisationInternationalisation


Main focus: Quality Improvement

ERASMUS’ERASMUS’ contribution to Quality contribution to Quality ImprovementImprovement

To what extent do institutions use their potential to fully To what extent do institutions use their potential to fully contribute to academic, economic and social development contribute to academic, economic and social development based on their own specific characteristics and qualitiesbased on their own specific characteristics and qualities

Conceptual FrameworkConceptual Framework

Impact levels and areas of Impact levels and areas of ERASMUSERASMUS

ERASMUS PROGRAMMECentralised actions Decentralised actions ToolsIntensive Programs / Thematic Networks / Student Mobility ECTS / EUC / Curriculum Development / Staff Mobility EPS / EILC /…

System level (policy) Institutional level Individuallevel

Quality improvement in HE in terms of:Teaching Research OpennessAcademic development Generating new knowledge ModernisationLabour market preparation Knowledge transfer InternationalisationSocial/personal development European dimension

Economic development

Europe NationalBologna PoliciesActivities Activities

Central DepartmentMission/profile Teaching/learningModernisation ResearchInternationalisation Student servicesQuality/HRM Openness & Student services modernisation

5


1.1. Literature reviewLiterature review

2.2. Surveys in 30 countriesSurveys in 30 countries2283 Central ERASMUS coordinators, 951 responses 2283 Central ERASMUS coordinators, 951 responses

(42%)(42%)2157 Institutional leaders, 752 responses (35%)2157 Institutional leaders, 752 responses (35%)6000 Decentral ERASMUS coordinators at 547 institutions6000 Decentral ERASMUS coordinators at 547 institutions

903 responses from 328 institutions (15% 903 responses from 328 institutions (15% resp. 60%)resp. 60%)

3.3. 20 Case studies20 Case studies (extent of progress in quality improvement, geographical (extent of progress in quality improvement, geographical spread, types of activities, types of institutions, …)spread, types of activities, types of institutions, …)

Study designStudy design


ERASMUS’ impactERASMUS’ impact

System levelSystem level

NNo Bologna without ERASMUS !o Bologna without ERASMUS !

1.1. Bologna process:Bologna process: 5 out of 6 action lines direct from 5 out of 6 action lines direct from ERASMUS: DS, ECTS, mobility, QA and European ERASMUS: DS, ECTS, mobility, QA and European Dimension;Dimension;Stocktaking exercises, Ministerial Conferences, EUA & Stocktaking exercises, Ministerial Conferences, EUA & ESU activities, …ESU activities, …

1.1. Quality assurance:Quality assurance: pilot projects, ENQA, QA pilot projects, ENQA, QA Standards & Guidelines, EQAR, Qrossroads database, Standards & Guidelines, EQAR, Qrossroads database, EQF (Sectoral QFs), Tuning, AHELO, …EQF (Sectoral QFs), Tuning, AHELO, …

2.2. Wider impact:Wider impact: Classification, Lisbon Strategy, Classification, Lisbon Strategy, Modernisation Agenda, Erasmus Belgica, Asian Modernisation Agenda, Erasmus Belgica, Asian counterpart programme, …counterpart programme, …



Institutional management levelInstitutional management level

EERASMUS high impact on institutional RASMUS high impact on institutional development:development:

1.1. Internationalisation:Internationalisation: Over 50% indicate a (strong) Over 50% indicate a (strong) role in internationalisation strategy, international role in internationalisation strategy, international profile, international networks, tendering, …profile, international networks, tendering, …

2.2. Professionalisation:Professionalisation: 40% address important role in 40% address important role in professionalisation of institutional management: professionalisation of institutional management: regular reflection and evaluation of institutional regular reflection and evaluation of institutional strategies, career developmentstrategies, career development

3.3. University – Enterprise relationships:University – Enterprise relationships: starting to starting to intensify, networks, research partnerships, LLL, …intensify, networks, research partnerships, LLL, …



Academic department levelAcademic department level

1.1. Teaching and Learning:Teaching and Learning:

1.1. 90% strong effect on internationalisation & 90% strong effect on internationalisation & modernisation of curriculamodernisation of curricula

2.2. Development of “soft skills” of studentsDevelopment of “soft skills” of students3.3. English/foreign language programsEnglish/foreign language programs4.4. Teaching methods inspired by Teaching methods inspired by

internationalisationinternationalisation5.5. Driver of transparency Driver of transparency




2.2. Research:Research:

1.1. 40%: high impact on participation in international 40%: high impact on participation in international projectsprojects

2.2. particularly at small institutionsparticularly at small institutions3.3. increased international conference attendanceincreased international conference attendance4.4. excellence & competitionexcellence & competition5.5. benchmark & learn from other institutions (QA)benchmark & learn from other institutions (QA)6.6. strengthen joint publicationsstrengthen joint publications7.7. international networks & development of research international networks & development of research

agendaagenda




3.3. Student services:Student services:

1.1. largest area of quality improvementlargest area of quality improvement2.2. counselling and facilities for mobile students & counselling and facilities for mobile students &

staffstaff3.3. international officesinternational offices4.4. improved information provision & in Englishimproved information provision & in English5.5. language traininglanguage training6.6. improved services to domestic students improved services to domestic students


ERASMUS’ impact strongERASMUS’ impact strong

But … areas for improvementBut … areas for improvement

1.1. Bureaucratic costs: time and administrative Bureaucratic costs: time and administrative procedures to tender for centralised actionsprocedures to tender for centralised actions

2.2. Decentral units lack interest & capacity to apply for Decentral units lack interest & capacity to apply for centralised actionscentralised actions

But … But … overall expectationoverall expectation::

Impact of ERASMUSImpact of ERASMUS will increase (75%)will increase (75%)


Main RecommendationsMain Recommendations

System levelSystem level

1.1. European level:European level:1.1. Better promote ERASMUSBetter promote ERASMUS2.2. Stimulate “internationalisation at home”Stimulate “internationalisation at home”3.3. Further push the internationalisation policy Further push the internationalisation policy

agenda agenda

2.2. National authorities:National authorities:1.1. Push & support internationalisation & ErasmusPush & support internationalisation & Erasmus2.2. Remove barriers (mobstacles, like visa, Remove barriers (mobstacles, like visa,

portability, recognition, …)portability, recognition, …)3.3. Uniform implementation of ECTS / DSUniform implementation of ECTS / DS4.4. Stimulate internationalisation and language Stimulate internationalisation and language

education in secondary educationeducation in secondary education


Main RecommendationsMain Recommendations

Institutional levelInstitutional level

1.1. Central Management Level:Central Management Level:1.1. Policy emphasis on internationalisation and Policy emphasis on internationalisation and

recognitionrecognition2.2. Leadership committmentLeadership committment3.3. Internationalisation at home with international Internationalisation at home with international

staffstaff4.4. Reward active staffReward active staff

2.2. Academic department level:Academic department level:1.1. Positively inform students on mobility in an early Positively inform students on mobility in an early

stagestage2.2. Remove mobstacles: recognition, language, Remove mobstacles: recognition, language,

calendars, …calendars, …3.3. Involve more staff in internationalisation Involve more staff in internationalisation 4.4. Use international staff & student experiencesUse international staff & student experiences5.5. Stimulate “soft skills” / intercultural skills in Stimulate “soft skills” / intercultural skills in

curriculacurricula


EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESEARCH PROJECT

IMPROVING THE PARTICIPATION IN ERASMUS


AIM OF THE STUDY

IMPROVING THE PARTICIPATION IN ERASMUS

Are there financial and other barriers that hinder ERASMUS participation?


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Desk research: literature review and existing statistics

Student survey: in 7 countries (CZ, FI, D, PL, ES, SE, UK)

with greatest variety in perceived financial barriers and

in ERASMUS participation 21,145 respondents (8,697 non-ERASMUS)

Case studies: in 4 countries (FI, NL, PL, ES)

site visit interviews with many stakeholders

(individual and in focus groups)


KEY FINDINGS: participation in ERASMUS

Continuous increase in ERASMUS participation Proportion of students active in ERASMUS is about 4% (but

strong variation per country) ERASMUS participation lower in New Member states but

grows fastest there

Reasons for mobility: personal development (‘soft skills’), financial and career benefits less important

ERASMUS students mostly from higher SES groups, traditional research universities and larger city areas


KEY FINDINGS: financial barriers

Financial constraints most important obstacle to mobility:

57% of non-E students find study abroad too expensive

29% reject E-grant because it does not cover costs

Main barrier is balance between expected costs and benefits

In countries with high mobility the labour market effect declines less mobility (mobility is a luxury)


KEY FINDINGS: financial barriers

Willingness to participate influenced by gross level of grant and uncertainties about costs, new environment, payment schedule, …

Potential number of students that do not study abroad for financial constraints varies between 980,000 and 1.5 million

Independent student support stimulates mobility

(universal grants)

Extra mobility grants signal importance of internationalisation


KEY FINDINGS: other potential barriers

Four other sets of other barriers to ERASMUS participation Conditions of the ERASMUS programme

Compatibility of HE systems

Non-awareness about the ERASMUS programme

Personal factors

Only 24% of students not interested to study abroad

34% of students not mobile because they fear their ‘foreign’ credits will not be recognised



62% of students want to choose hosting institutions outside the listed ERASMUS partners

41% of students fear to have too little language skills

46% not mobile for reasons of personal relationships & family

53% of students wishes more and better information

35% of ERASMUS-students administrative burden too high



ERASMUS image is more ‘social’ than ‘academic’

33% of ERASMUS students faced uncertainties about education system abroad, lack of education compatibility, and concerns about quality abroad

Factors regarded unimportant: Length of study visit & length of programmes

Work responsibilities at home

Lack of programmes in English

Lack of support in form of student services


RECOMMENDATIONS on financial barriers

Serious need for more ERASMUS grants (unmet demand)

Strong variation in importance of mobility barriers between countries mobility policies should be nationally targeted

Also need for national studies on ERASMUS participation

Countries with high participation suffer from fixed budgets: They disappoint large groups of students

Or lower ERASMUS grants

Or add national funding

Call for more central coordination to reallocate budgets among

higher and lower participation countries


NOT EFFICIENT ALLOCATIONOF ERASMUS BUDGETS


AVERAGE SURPLUS/DEFICIT COMPAREDTO NATIONAL ERASMUS BUDGETS (in %)


THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

Contact information:

Prof. dr. Hans (J.J.) Vossensteyn

University of Twente

Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS)

PO Box 217

7500 AE ENSCHEDE

The Netherlands

tel: +31 - (0)53 489 3809

e-: [email protected]

inet: www.utwente.nl/cheps


YOUR RECOMMENDATIONSTO IMPROVE ERASMUS?

What would be your recommendations as internationalisation experts to further improve ERASMUS programme?

EU policies …

National policies

…

Institutional policies …

7-10-2011The impact of ERASMUS on quality in European HE 1 Enhancing Quality Through...

Documents

Transcript of 7-10-2011The impact of ERASMUS on quality in European HE 1 Enhancing Quality Through...