6.4.1 Representativeness of the responding teachers
The big countries such as Spain, UK, France, Italy and Germany have response rates be- tween two and eight percent. Only eight countries have response rates higher than 6%. Besides some exceptions, the response rate is in all countries very low.
If one compares the data from our sample with some validated basic information about the teachers taking part in the program in 2000/01, it becomes clear that, despite the very low rate of return, there is a relatively high measure of agreement.
• Home countries: In our sample the distribution of mobile staff according to home countries (in 2000/ 01) deviates from the basic population - although in just over three quarters of all the countries the difference is clearly smaller than 1 percent. A difference of more than 1 percent between the basic population and our sample is in only eight countries. In three of these countries - United Kingdom, Spain and Germany - the difference amounts to 4.2 to 4.5 percent, otherwise here too mostly lower than 3 percent.
• Host countries: Our sample deviates by more than 1 percent from the basic population in only six host countries (2000/ 01), and in only one of these cases - Italy - just over 3 percent.
• Teaching subjects: The respondents were grouped according to a total of 15 specialist areas. The most numerous respondents to our survey were teaching staff from 'Engineering/Technology', 'Languages/Philological Sciences' and 'Business Studies/Management Sciences/Economics'. Representatives of these subject areas occupy the first three places also in the basic population, albeit in slightly altered sequence. With respect to representatives of other disciplines deviations - mostly less obvious - in the ranking sequence can be observed.
• Clear differences of three to four percent between the basic population and our data can be observed in only two subject areas - in 'Social Sciences' and 'Engineering/Technology'. Slight deviations up to one percent are observable in the following subject areas: 'Geography/Geology', 'Natural Sciences', 'Communication/Information sciences', 'Law', 'Mathematics/Informatics' and 'Business Studies'.
• Sex: Distribution according to sex in our sample corresponds almost exactly to that in the basic population
6.4.2 Profile of the ERASMUS Teaching Staff
The ERASMUS-supported mobile teachers were 47 years old on average in the academic year 2000/01, i.e. the year when they taught abroad. Actually, the average age was more or less identically to that of the mobile teachers 1990/91 (46%) and 1998/99 (47%) who had responded to previous surveys (Teichler 2002, p. 139).
Almost seventy percent of the recent respondents were between 36 and 55 years old in 2000/01. Thirteen percent were younger and 18 percent older. Mobile teachers from Central and Eastern Europe (46 years) were on average two years younger than those from Western Europe (48 years).
88 percent of the teachers informing about their professional position both in 2000/01 and five years later were full professors or in other senior academic positions while teaching abroad, and only 12 percent were in junior positions. Among the 1998/99 respondents 18 percent had been in junior positions.
About 67 percent of those surveyed recently are men and 33 percent women. In 1990/91, only 18 percent of the mobile teachers had been women, and up to 1998/99 this proportion had risen to 31 percent. Among the recent respondents, 36 percent from Central and Eastern Europe were women as compared to 32 percent of their Western European colleagues. Of the recent respondents, about half of those initially in junior positions were raised to senior positions, and about one sixth of those in other senior positions moved towards full professor positions within five years.
Most recent respondents were in a stable full-time position. Actually, only 2 percent of the Central and Eastern European teachers and 4 percent of the Western European teachers were employed part-time at the time the survey was conducted. 18 percent of Central and Eastern European respondents and 8 percent of Western European teachers had a short-term contract.
17 percent of the respondents taught Engineering, 12 percent Languages/Philology and less than 10 percent each other fields. Among the teachers from Central and Eastern European countries, the proportion of those teaching Engineering was substantially higher than among Western European teachers (see Table 68).
Table 68 Teaching Subject of ERASMUS-Supported Mobile Teachers by Home Region 2005 (percent)
Home region 2005 Total Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
Agricultural Sciences 2 0 2 Architecture, urban and regional planning 2 1 1
Art and design 3 4 3
Business studies, management sciences, economics 9 10 9 Education, teacher training 9 10 9 Engineering, technology 13 31 17 Geography, geology 3 5 3
Humanities 8 1 7
Languages, philological sciences 13 9 12
Law 5 0 4
Mathematics, informatics 6 10 6 Medical Sciences 3 6 4 Natural Sciences 6 7 6
Social Sciences 7 1 6
Communications and information sciences 2 1 2
Other 10 4 9
Total 100 100 100
Count (n) (595) (136) (731) Question A3: In which of the following group of subject areas are you predominantly teaching?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Teaching staff survey 2005.
6.4.3 Mobility Flows of ERASMUS Teaching Staff
The mobile teachers surveyed had taught in 29 countries before they were mobile in the framework of ERASMUS in the academic year 2000/01. Five years later, 67 of the 755 respondents (9%), i.e. were employed in a country different from that prior to the ERASMUS mobility period abroad.
Table 69 Home Countries of Responding Teachers 2000/ 01 – 2005/
06 (percent) 2000/ 01 2005/ 06 Country n % n % Austria 42 6 42 6 Belgium 43 6 41 5 Bulgaria 7 1 7 1 Cyprus 3 0 1 0 Czech Republic 14 2 12 2 Denmark 11 1 11 1 Estonia 1 0 0 0 Finland 47 6 56 7 France 87 12 85 11 Germany 139 18 140 19 Greece 17 2 15 2 Hungary 25 3 20 3 Iceland 1 0 1 0 Ireland 8 1 9 1 Italy 43 6 49 6
Latvia 5 1 5 1 Liechtenstein 2 0 1 0 Lithuania 4 1 6 1 Luxembourg 1 0 0 0 Netherlands 11 1 11 1 Norway 14 2 14 2 Poland 28 4 28 4 Portugal 42 6 42 6 Romania 50 7 53 7 Slovakia 9 1 9 1 Slovenia 1 0 0 0 Spain 38 5 35 5 Sweden 24 3 24 3 Switzerland 0 0 1 0 United Kingdom 38 5 37 5 Total 755 100 755 100
Question A1.2: “Where are you currently employed? – Country”
Question A2.2: “Where were you employed immediately prior to your ERASMUS teaching period in the academic year 2000/ 01?”
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.
Actually,
• 49 of those professionally mobile had taught in Western European countries prior to the ERASMUS support period of teaching abroad, and 74 percent of them moved to other Western European countries;
• 18 of those professionally mobile had taught in Central and Western European countries, and only slightly higher proportion of them, i.e. 89 percent, moved to Western European countries.
As documented in Table 77 below, six percent of the respondents reported that the teaching period abroad influenced their decision to become professionally active in another European country. This allows us to conclude that more than half of the border- crossing mobility of the teachers over a period of five years was triggered by their temporary teaching mobility in the framework of ERASMUS.
Most temporary teaching staff mobility in 2000/01 – according to the respondents - was realised within Western Europe. About three quarters of the respondents came from Western European countries, and about three quarters of them taught for some period in another Western European countries. Yet, given the overall size of the countries, a remarkably high proportion of respondents from Western Europe, one quarter, taught temporarily in Central and Eastern Europe. In contrast, almost all teachers from Central and Eastern Europe spent their teaching period abroad in Western Europe; only three percent moved to another European country.
As one might expect, the largest numbers of the respondents taught during the ERASMUS-supported period in the academic year in one of the large Western European countries: France (15%), Germany (14%), Spain and the United Kingdom (9% each). The mobility flows of mobile teachers, however, concentrated to a lesser extent on a few large countries than the flow of mobile students.
• one fifth of all teachers going to France came from Romania and almost the same number from Germany (185). Most of those going to France taught Engineering (21%), Foreign Languages (15%) and Natural Sciences (12%);
• Germany was the preferred target country for teachers from France (13%), Poland (12%) and Italy (9%). About one quarter of the respondents going to Germany taught Engineering and a fifth Foreign Languages;
• Spain notably was chosen by teachers from France (14%) and Germany (12%) as well as from Austria, Italy and Romania (10% each). A large proportion of those temporarily going to Spain taught Foreign Languages (17%) and Business Studies (13%);
• many of those going to United Kingdom as a country of temporary teaching abroad came from Germany (34%), i.e. the country with the largest number of mobile teachers among the respondents. Sizeable proportions of those going to the United Kingdom taught Engineering, Education (19% each) and Business Studies (11%).
6.5
Motives for Teaching Abroad and Actual Activities
The decision to teach for some time abroad with support of ERASMUS often was taken because prior contacts existed. Prior institutional contacts with the host institutions were named by 81 percent and prior individual contacts with staff of the host institution by 85 percent of the respondents. 73 percent of the teachers stated that they decided to teach abroad in order to make their expertise to the host university. Table 70 shows that altogether a broad range of motives played a role for the teachers’ decision to spend a period in another European country.
Table 70 Teachers' Reasons for Teaching Abroad in the Framework of ERASMUS by Home Country (percent; responses 1 and 2)
Home Country 2000/01 Total
AT BE CZ DK FI FR DE GR HU IT NL NO PL PT RO ES SE UK CEE OT Existence of cooperative rela-
tions between the study pro-
grammes/faculties involved 83 67 86 90 85 72 85 82 68 80 100 86 74 79 96 74 75 92 85 67 81 Existence of co-operative rela-
tions beyond your programme
/faculty 48 42 79 56 46 47 38 59 46 56 82 43 65 54 70 38 48 45 59 67 50 Good personal relations to,
or prior co-operation with staff
of the host institution 78 80 71 90 79 86 83 88 84 88 91 79 85 80 85 89 83 97 100 87 85 Recommendations of colleagues
of your study area 41 46 36 40 28 36 23 59 48 30 60 29 42 46 62 17 35 44 39 33 37 The high academic standard
of the host institution 66 49 64 50 40 41 45 76 54 66 40 36 70 69 94 50 33 70 80 67 56 Innovative teaching strategies
of the host institution 45 36 36 20 32 28 32 65 52 28 36 36 62 51 79 26 26 41 75 20 40 Your general interest in a visit
to the host country 78 61 43 70 67 54 79 76 63 49 70 71 57 50 56 57 67 84 52 53 64 Your good command of the
language of the host country 23 38 57 20 36 43 43 59 58 38 30 64 69 45 63 42 42 42 58 27 44 Making your knowledge avai-
lable to a higher education
institution abroad 85 78 86 50 57 63 80 71 78 62 82 62 78 67 88 58 63 86 79 47 73 Being able to link the teaching
period abroad with research
activities abroad 46 38 57 40 43 54 56 82 58 68 36 62 67 56 81 57 38 56 71 47 56 Count (n) (41) (41) (14) (10) (47) (86) (136) (17) (25) (42) (11) (14) (28) (42) (48) (38) (24) (38) (27) (15) (744)
Question B3: Regarding the ERASMUS programme: How important were the following aspects for your decision to teach abroad in the framework of ERASMUS in the academic year 2000/01? 5-point scale from 1 = 'Very important' to 5 = 'Not important at all'. Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.
Altogether, mobile teachers from Central and Eastern European countries named a much longer list of important aspects for them to teach abroad than teachers from Western European countries. Teachers from Central European countries more frequently aimed to go abroad not only, because they hoped to get acquainted with innovative teaching practices (66% as compared to 34% of the Western European teachers) and because they appreciated the high academic standard of the host institution (77% as compared to 52%), but also, because they were convinced to have a good command of the language of the host country (62% as compared to 40%).
Table 71 compares the responses by the region of origin and by the region of destination. The data presented suggest that the motives vary clearly according to the host region in many respects and somewhat less frequently according to the home region. In some cases, the combination of home and host region is most indicative.
Table 71 Teachers' Reasons for Teaching Abroad in the Framework
of ERASMUS by Direction of Mobility (percent; responses 1 and 2)
Direction of mobility 2000/01 Total
West - West East - East West - East East - West Existence of co-operative relations between
the study programmes/faculties involved 81 67 72 86 80 Existence of co-operative relations beyond
your programme/faculty 47 67 47 63 50 Good personal relations to, or prior
co-operation with staff of the host institution 83 67 85 88 84 Recommendations of colleagues of your study area 32 0 29 53 35 The high academic standard of the host institution 54 0 42 78 56 Innovative teaching strategies of the host institution 36 0 22 69 40 Your general interest in a visit to the host country 71 67 60 58 66 Your good command of the language
of the host country 43 33 15 66 43 Making your knowledge available to a higher
education institution abroad 71 100 71 80 73 Being able to link the teaching period abroad
with research activities abroad 53 33 48 66 54
Other 63 50 67 60 63
Count (n) (329) (3) (101) (103) (536) Question B3: Regarding the ERASMUS programme: How important were the following aspects for your decision to teach abroad in the framework of ERASMUS in the academic year 2000/01? 5-point scale from 1 = 'Very important' to 5 = 'Not important at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.
For example,
• a good command of the language of the host country was important for the decision to teach abroad notably for teachers spending the ERASMUS- supported teaching period in Western European countries. But this motive was more frequently named by teachers from Central and Eastern European
countries going to Western European countries (66%) than by teachers from Western European countries going to other Western European countries (43%).
• Innovative teaching strategies at the host institutions were most frequently expected as an attraction in Western European countries. But again, this motive was more frequently named by teachers from Central and Eastern European countries going to Western European countries (69%) than by teachers from Western European countries going to other Western European countries (36%). In comparison, innovative teaching methods at Central and Eastern European institutions were named as an important aspect only by 22 percent of the Western European teachers and by none of the small group of Central and Eastern European teachers going there.
• Similarly, a high academic standard of the host institution was often seen as an attraction to go to Western European countries. But teachers coming from Central and Eastern European countries going to Western European countries (78%) more frequently named this reason as important than teachers from Western European countries going to other Western European countries (54%). A high academic quality of the host institution was named as important by some teachers from Western European countries going to Central and Eastern countries (42%), but by none of the teachers from Central and Eastern European countries going to other Central and Eastern European countries.
Prior contacts were as well more frequently named as factors contributing to teaching mobility among those respondents who spent the teaching period abroad in Western European countries than among those going to Central and Eastern European countries. This holds true with one exception: Personal contacts to teaching staff at the host institution was also named as a major reason by Western European teachers going to Central and Eastern Europe.