ERASMUS INFORMAL MEETINGERASMUS INFORMAL MEETING

INTENSIVE PROGRAMMESINTENSIVE PROGRAMMES

22-23 September 201122-23 September 2011

Athens-GreeceAthens-Greece

Results of the NA questionnaire for IPResults of the NA questionnaire for IP

Elina Mavrogiorgou, IKY-Hellenic National Elina Mavrogiorgou, IKY-Hellenic National L.L.P. Agency /L.L.P. Agency /ErasmusErasmus

General information

The IP questionnaire was created by the Greek NA with the collaboration of DE, AU, FI NA.

FR, TR NA and the Commission also sent their comments concerning the questionnaire.

The FI NA prepared an electronic tool for answering the questionnaire.

18 NA have participated in the survey. A complementary questionnaire was also created

for IP coordinators. 178 coordinators from19 countries have answered this questionnaire.

I. IP ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Data bases/tools used:

LLP LINK

Excel sheets

Access

E-application + e-final report

Ulysses software (developed by the French NA)

Improvements proposed:

-LLP more user friendly

-Easier budget export-import

-Have access to the project titles/the partners

-IP e-application + e-Final Report

-Possibility to print out the main project information easily

-amendments managed in LLP link-specific table

-copy previous versions for the renewal applications

-structure of the application identical to the structure of the LLP link

-copy paste the whole daily program

-financial data: should follow the logic of the application form

-Insert the ERASMUS Code as search criterion

-insert the automatic calculation of the average of the two experts’ assessments

-test the check “renewal” under the section ‘Submission data’

Other data bases proposed:

-Data base used by the Turkish / Polish NA (coordinators apply on-line, the NA keeps track of their applications, of the outcomes)

-IP data transferred automatically in other data bases

-ADAM / EST data base already used for Comenius, Grundtvig and Leonardo partnerships

But: multiplication of tools: efficient?

Best practice examples:

-Turkish, Polish data base

-Ulysse data base (FR)

-Final report tool in Access (GR)

Low subsistence costs for students-huge gap between teacher-student subsistence costs

-Student subsistence costs do not cover real costs

-A real problem especially in big cities

Danger: students from disadvantaged groups are reluctant to participate / One coordinator has decided to stop the IP

-imbalance may be covered by the organizing costs/by researching for cheaper means (ex. change to a cheaper location)/by using part of the teachers' subsistence costs (if they agree)

Suggestion: increase the student subsistence costs

Co-financing

-25% of the travel costs may be covered by the partner institutions

-coordinating institutions offer low cost meals at the student restaurant/rooms in students’ dormitories

Examples:

-Vilnius-Capital of Europe (co-financing offered in a subject related IP)

-Private companies (telecommunication companies/ natural product companies in greek IP)

-State budget, local government, associations, communities, research institutions

-In kind (transportation, refreshments, experts costs covered by the companies)

Suggestion: co-financing column should be added in the final report form

-

Travel costs for students-Grant agreements between institutions-students

-Adapted Erasmus mobility agreement used

Different approaches (decision with the partners):

-Project coordinator distributes money to the partners in advance (agreement signed between partners), they refund their students

-Partner IP pay for their students' expenses, they send an invoice to the IP coordinator.

-The IP coordinator pays the travel costs in advance to students or buy tickets for all

-Reimburse at least one way or total of the travel expenses during the IP

-Reimburse after the IP completion (boarding passes requested) either partners or every student separately

-A travel agency is responsible for buying the tickets for all participants

Accommodation

Usually accommodation is organized by the Coordinator

Possible to give all money to students and guide them where to stay and eat

Amendments

-Financial amendments:rare

-Extra budget for student with special needs

-Money transfer from on heading to the other (travel to subsistence)

-Amendment issued after reducing the grant according to interim report given by the beneficiary (left funds are used for Erasmus Mobility)

-Changes in the number of participants

-Decrease of the grant before the IP implementation, in case of lower number of participants

-Change the location/country (in case subsistence costs are lower)

Monitoring visits Before and during the IP

-During on the spot checks/ system checks (not always connected / monitoring is not an audit visit)

More interesting: during the action

Selection criteria for monitoring IP

-First / second year IP

-Problematic cases according to the Final Report

-Good practice IP

-Location

-New IP that received the lowest score during the quality assessment

-Projects with financial support above average

-NA with small number of IP monitor all projects

Methods used for monitoring IP

-Interviews

-Discussion with the coordinator

-Observation (attending courses)

-Group discussion with the IP participants

-Send questionnaire before the visit

DOCUMENTATION USED:

-Notification letter

-Agenda

-Questionnaire for the Coordinators/students/teachers (some NA have available questionnaires in English)

-Collection of material

-Draft report-feedback-final report

Information on IP quality and Impact given by coordinators

-More ideas, creativity, links between partners

-Improvement of the quality: comparison between different educational systems/ teaching methods/learning content

-ICT used

Innovation: important component

-Teachers need to work in a multinational environment

-Task distribution-financial arrangement

-Spin-offs : articles/publications

Evaluation of the final report-6 NA use external experts

TOOLS USED:

-Quality assessment sheet based on EACEA example

-Check list

-Comparison of application and final report

(not always the case)

-External expert used for an overall judgment

RUFUNDING ASKED:

Usually no. (Italy, yes-total refunding)

-Only if there is a breach of the agreement

-First step: NA asks for a revision of the Final Report

-Might affect the chances to get a renewal application selected

Evaluation of the final report (2)

-Renewal applications not usually rejected

-May be rejected due to bad assessment of the Final report

-Changes in the number of participants:

Remark in the closing letter (generally the difference is already explained in the Final Report)

Minimum requirements for the IP website

-Logo of the NA/ DG EAC

-Agenda

-Project funded by the EU

-Practical information

-Courses offered

Relevant information is given to the IP coordinators during the Project Management meeting (GR)

Minimum requirements for the IP dissemination

-According to what is foreseen in the IP grant agreement

-Results should reach persons outside the IP community – visibility of the website + access to the courses content

Recommendation in the closing letter if there is a discrepancy between the final report results and the application.

Minimum requirements for the IP outputs

-Only in line with the grant agreement and the IP application

-Checking of the outputs promised in the application form

More information is asked, if needed

Students final reports

Not all NA ask the coordinator to send all the student final reports, but are assessed during and audit or a systems check.

A small number of NA ask the coordinator to send a summary+ a statistical analysis of the students final report.

IP Desk checks

Usually only problem cases are desk checked /if an institution is selected for a systems/desk check.

The Italian and the Greek NA desk check all final reports.

Same students every year?

Usually no.

It is only allowed as an exception.

IP Final report form-suggestions

-More specific-detailed questions

-Common European assessment sheet + handbook for the IP final report

Best practice:

Austrian NA: rating system-can detect easily best practice IP

II. Impact of the IPEvaluation sheets: a good tool?

-Useful tool for the IP improvement

-Specific questionnaires are also needed (prepared by the IP partnership)

Suggestion: impact study done both at national and European level

But: Coordinators feel some of the questions are not relevant or cannot be answered right after the IP

-Some coordinators adapt the evaluation sheet to their specific needs.

Evaluation tool on line: good idea (who is going to organize it?)

IP inclusion to the curricula

Data collected on the final report level

Best practice:

-Special dissemination questionnaire, additional to the final report

-Excel sheet: must be handed in with the Final report

IP is in some cases included to the curriculum as an elective course

In one case, an IP will be implemented in the new English Module of the coordinating HEI

IP impact on Institutional level

-Mobility promotion tool

-New level of trust between the partner institutions

-international team work-improvement of teaching methods, learn from students/learn from each other

-a kick off for further cooperation, research projects, networks, joint degrees

-Joint master programs

-CD projects

-Erasmus Mundus Masters

-EU Canada projects

-FP7 projects

Recognition

-PhD students

Certificate,recognized as an elective course (ECTS?)

Not always the same number of ECTS (usually 5 ECTS /differences between partner institutions)

Even if the coordinating Institution recognizes the IP course, it is not always the case for the partner institutions

IP after the 3 year funding

-following only during monitoring or systems checks

-Asking best practice IP coordinators in a personal level

Need for a long term strategy?

-A sustainable strategy should be obligatory

-At least ensure that the new content created can become a part of the teaching program

-Small IP can be used as a tool to enhance mobility

IP duration

3-5 years

Should bear in mind that there are IP for 15 years! (same partnership-different topic)

Stronger emphasis should be given to dissemination

Extension of the financing period but cutting funds down

-NA support the idea

-Could reduce the number of traveling IP

But: the majority not in favor: difficult to find additional funding

Platform for IP coordinators ?

-Good idea (coordinators’ reaction very positive) but face to face contact is also very important

-Needs good organization

-Information should be transferred directly from the LLP link: administrator of the platform is needed, coordinators don’t have the time for that.

-Some IP have their own internet platforms or are part of subject related networks

Best practice example:ADAM/EST data base

Suggestions on the IP impact

Application forms-published earlier

-Contact seminars for coordinators

-Thematic meetings for coordinators

-IP portal/platform: link the coordinators-exchange of experience

-informal meetings

-Teachers should stay minimum 3 days

-Defining clearly the learning outcomes

III. IP Quality issuesAcademic criteria

14 points:

-added value for students/teachers

-Learning outcomes (academic skills, soft skills)

13 points:

-innovative character-creative thinking

11 points:

Improvement of new teaching methods

9 points: recognition

7 points: participation of external experts

Assessing CV: usually no (only 3 positive answers)

Project management criteria14 points:

Team work of the partners-real effective collaboration

11 points:

Dissemination strategy-web page-use of social networks

10 points:

partnerships-financial management

Balanced participation of students

Other: Experienced coordinator, cooperation within the partner institutions, support by HEI representatives, cooperation within Units/departments of the same HEI.

IV. IP beyond 2013-the next generationWhat to change?

-simplify financial rules and budget allocation

-increase subsistence cost for students

-lump sums

-one budget heading including travel and subsistence cost

-IP funding for 3 years with no renewal application

-participation of laboratory assistants as teachers

using rate of the IP grant

-Improve IP monitoring

-The road map for IP should be thought again

What to keep?

Keep the structure and format

IP application form-Simplification of the IP application form

-Renewals based on Final reports

Explanatory column inserted instead of footnotes and texts between.

-The summary of the activities: part of the final report + application form

Automatic calculation of the budget (e-form)

All NA are very positive about the creation of a common IP e-form, which should be compatible with existing e-forms already created by some NA.

Simplification of the grant calculation

Suggestions:

-lump sum for subsistence costs –no difference between teachers/students

-lump sum for travel costs (but real costs should be taken into consideration when deciding about the lump sum)

-lump sum for all the project based on the number of mobilities

Some NA fear that lump sum will increase the unused funds

Partner Institutions from 3rd countries

Good but expensive idea

A maximum amount should be set

Or

3rd countries could participate on a self-financing base

Or

Invent a sub-activity under other Programmes (Tempus) to support 3rd country participants

Problem: 3rd countries don’t have EUC : quality assurance needed- responsibility of the partnership

Coordinators are in favor for the participation of Bologna Countries

Not more than 25% of the total number of partners

IP taking place in 3rd countries?

The majority of NA is against, but many coordinators like the idea

Too expensive

Against the philosophy of the Programme

Would become an ERASMUS MUNDUS action

Visa problems

Should be allowed only in limited cases for justified reasons (subject related)

IP: decentralized partnership/mobility project/ERASMUS cluster?

10 NA:

decentralized partnership

4 NA:

mobility project

3 NA:

ERASMUS cluster (but possibility to apply for IP independently)

Other: decentralized specific mobility activity, alternative to individual mobility

Enterprises involved?

Experts are already invited speakers

Should not have a partner status

Added value for improving employability and entrepreneurial skills

But: insisting in connecting every academic activity to the market is not always creative

Can be enriching depending on the IP subject

Quality standards for participating enterprises?

Experts should be paid like teachers

Reworking the IP final report form

-Add an online tool (questionnaire) for students/teachers

-analysis of the students final report

-more concrete questions

-describe the learning outcomes more in detail

Focus on impact and dissemination activities:

-list of the main impact for students/teachers

-Add question on the sustainability of the project

-Interview the coordinators 2 years after the action

Rule of 10 days: flexibility?

5 NA are positive

The rest think 10 days should be the minimum

Feedback from the coordinators

final report : time consuming

Much less bureaucracy comparing to how IP were administrated as a centralized action

Too much work, not enough funding for students/organization but students learn a lot

A very good experience overall

IP connected with the key competencies9 points:

Expression and communication in foreign languages

7 points:

Social and civic competence

Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship

6 points:

Learning to learn

2 points:

Intercultural skills

V. General questionsHow multidisciplinary or inter-disciplinary are IP?

A crucial element: already in the quality assessment criteria

Multidisciplinarity ensures a better understanding of the subject, but the deeper learning may be lost if the theme of the IP is too general in order to fit into many different subject areas.

Interdisciplinarity also a plus: different teaching cultures of the same topic compared, combined

The best IP are both multidisciplinary and inter-disciplinary

It varies, depending on the subject.

Intercultural approach is also an important IP component “Europe in the classroom”

How innovative are IP?“An IP is as innovative as are its partners”

Need for a good definition for “innovative”

One teaching method may be standard in one area, but innovative in some other

Positive aspects:

IP allow teachers to take risks, to try something new

Share of best practices

Mix theory + workshops

Working with an international group of students

Use of e-learning platform

Lab exercises / in wild nature

Working in real cases

Field work

Faster way of gaining knowledge

Developing soft skills

IP enhance the quality of ERASMUS mobility?Establish + strengthen networks of cooperation

Possibility to be mobile for more students, who cannot participate in a standard

ERASMUS mobility

Benefits for teachers

Teaching staff improves professional teaching experience –exchange of ideas-teaching in a foreign language-add prestige

Discuss the latest research results/on state of art subjects in their field

Self assessment of teaching methods

Work with international groups

International recognition

Benefits for studentsStrong impact on young researchers

Learn something they can’t in their university, but needed for their research

They learn a lot : about new approaches on their subject, about linked subjects, new topics, latest research

Improved language skills

Professionalism

Work intensively and in depth

Building confidence/networking

Creative thinking

Many opportunities to study abroad after the IP

Learn how to work in a group of people coming from different cultures-overcoming stereotypes

Use of ICT ToolsWeb based platformsE-learning platformE-visualization platformsFacebookIP Project websitesSkypeMoodle /Optima/ Wikis/ Second Life

Positive impact on teaching methods

IP make the teachers be more open minded

Teaching improved/enriched

New ideas

Encourage further cooperation

Creative teaching methods

Ideal number of partners

Average number : 5 partners

No more than 10