2. MARCO TEÓRICO
2.3. Marco Conceptual
Table 2 gives an overview about the key information about the expert survey undertaken in spring 2005.
Table 2 Overview of the Field Phase of the Survey of ERASMUS
Experts
1 Target population Experts and actors in the field of Mobility, the ERASMUS Programme and Labour Market 2 Start of field phase March 2005
3 End of field phase May 2005
4 Sampling strategy No sampling; Selection of experts based on expertise, recommendations of National Agencies and literature and document research 5 Questionnaire (see ANNEX A.6) – Highly standardized, 14 pages, 89
questions
– Translated in English, French and German
– Online versions 6 Number of filled questionnaires 67 7 Gross response rate
(based on 190 experts who received the questionnaire)
35 %
8 Net response rate (based on 156 experts, 34 declined to participate)
43 %
The questionnaire was only sent to selected experts and actors. As a rule, the National Socrates Agencies were asked to recommend experts in their respective home country. The target group were representatives from the following types of institutions:
• National Socrates Agency
• Ministries of Education
• Conference of rectors/presidents/vice chancellors
• Umbrella organisations of employment agencies
• Companies
On a supra-national level, the project team identified relevant European bodies with the help of direct information from experts within the European Commission, of a directory of relevant European associations provided by the European University Association (EAU) and with the help of some other experts known to have a broad knowledge of the European higher education “scene”. In addition, an internet search was undertaken notably in order to identify relevant employers’ associations.
Mailing procedure: The experts’ survey was conducted online and the experts were addressed initially by email. However, experts were also offered to answer the questionnaire offline, but only few of them opted for this alternative. The questionnaire was presented in English, French and German. This, again, was undertaken to minimize costs based on the assumption that the experts surveyed were highly versatile in at least one of these languages. The experts were made available all three versions; thus, they could choose themselves.
The questionnaire covered student and teaching staff mobility. The content was similar to the later developed student and teacher questionnaire. Questions referred to competences of former mobile students/teachers compared to non-mobile students/teachers, the students´ transition to work, the subsequent career as well as the possibility to state suggestions for improvement. It comprised open and “closed” questions. Various closed questions were taken from similar prior surveys in order to facilitate the comparison of the results of this study with findings of previous studies.
Response rate: The questionnaire was mailed to 190 experts. Only 29 experts got the questionnaire about ERASMUS student mobility, 162 got a questionnaire consisting of questions regarding ERASMUS student and teacher mobility. Of these 190 experts 34 declined to answer the questionnaire (among them 4 belonged to the group which were only addressed regarding ERASMUS student mobility). 43 percent of the remaining 156 answered the questionnaire (67 of 156). Of the expert groups, the response rates were highest among experts from the National Agencies. Here, 90 percent answered the questionnaire:
Table 3 Response Rates by Type of Experts (Survey of ERASMUS
Experts) Sample size Number of responses Number of refusals to participate Number of filled ques- tionnaires Response rate in %* Corrected response rate in % ** (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Employer organisation 25 5 3 2 20 9 Employment umbrella or-
ganisations 7 2 1 1 29 17 Ministries 37 17 7 10 46 33 National agency 33 30 3 27 91 90 Rectors` conferences 26 11 7 4 42 21 Others 62 36 13 23 58 47 Total 190 101 34 67 53 43 * The response rate is based on the number of responses (2) in relation to the sample size.
** The corrected response rate is based on the number of filled questionnaires (4) in relation to the sample size reduced by the number of refusals (3).
In the following analysis the single countries have been grouped into four country groups to secure a statistical significant size of respondents. The experts of supra- national organisations were treated separately.
Northern Europe
Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland
Europe Austria, Belgium, Ireland Southern
Europe
Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greek, Cyprus, Malta Eastern
Europe
Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Slowenia
SUPRA Supra-national organisations (e.g. European Association of..)
3.3
Competences of Mobile Students Upon Return
Almost all of the 67 surveyed experts rate the mobile students’ competences upon return to the home institution of higher education as better or even much better than their non- mobile fellow students’. Of the 67 experts responding, between 73% and 99% each rated them superior in the five areas addressed:
• Foreign language proficiency (99%)
• Intercultural understanding and competences (97%)
• Knowledge of other countries (94%)
• Preparation for future employment and work (82%)
• Academic knowledge and skills (73%)
In contrast, only between one quarter and none rate the mobile students as on even terms with the non-mobile students, and hardly any expert rated the mobile students as worse.
Figure 1 Competences of ERASMUS Mobile Students Upon Return as Compared to Non-Mobile Students in the View of
ERASMUS Experts (percent)
82 73 97 99 94 5 25 17 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Preparation for future employment and work
Academic knowledge and skills
Intercultural understanding and competencies Foreign language proficiency Knowledge of other countries C o mp eten ce s Percent of experts
Worse No difference Better and much better
Question A1: At the time of return, how do you rate mobile students as compared to non-mobile students in the following areas? (n=67); 5-point scale from 1 = "Much worse" over 3 = "no difference" to 5 = "Much better" Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.
Mobile students are considered superior to non-mobile students almost consistently with regard to foreign language proficiency, intercultural understanding and knowledge of other countries, i.e. areas directly linked to international experience. It is worth noting that most experts also consider the general academic and professional competences of mobile students as better than those of their non-mobile fellow students. The expert ratings hardly differ by country of origin. Two exceptions are worth noting, as Table 3 shows. Foreign language proficiency was extremely highly assessed by experts from Eastern European countries. Experts from Northern Europe less frequently assessed mobile students as superior to non-mobile students with regard to general academic knowledge and skills.
In this expert survey, 38% of respondents rate the mobile students’ knowledge of other countries as much better and 56% as somewhat better than those of non-mobile students. Only three of the respondents observe no difference in this respect and one person rates the knowledge as somewhat worse on the part of the mobile students. In the comments provided to these rating, several experts point out that living and studying in another country and socialising with its citizens will enhance the knowledge about culture, society and economy of the host country and at the same time of other countries as well. However, some experts are more critical and point out that enhancement of the knowledge on other countries might vary according to areas of knowledge and might depend on specific circumstances, such as the length of the stay
or the personality of the mobile student and that those students not studying abroad might have similar opportunities of acquiring knowledge of other countries.
Overall, the surveyed experts rate the impact of an ERASMUS supported study period abroad on the knowledge on other countries as very positive and confirm hereby previous studies on ERASMUS. However, critical comments refer to the need of differentiation, as the learning process and its outcomes can not be generalised and as to a certain degree similar knowledge can be gained at the home university.
3.3.1 Foreign Language Proficiency
Almost half of the experts surveyed rate the foreign language proficiency of formerly mobile students upon return as much better (51%) and as somewhat better (48%) than that of their fellow non-mobile students. Only one expert observes no difference in this respect, and not a single expert rates the foreign language proficiency of mobile students as inferior. Experts point out that living in another country and using a foreign language every day contributes significantly to the improvement of foreign language proficiency beyond mere study.
It can be summarized that the experts assess the impact of an ERASMUS study period abroad as quite strong and confirm, hereby, the results of prior studies. As explanatory factors, they mainly mention the need to use the foreign language in the daily and academic life which has a much stronger impact on the language proficiency than just studying a language. Still, the critical aspects should not be neglected. It is important to distinguish between the gain in foreign language proficiency (mainly in a lingua franca) in general and the language of the host country.1
3.3.2 Intercultural Understanding and Competences
Again, about half of the experts surveyed in this study rate the intercultural understanding and competences of formerly mobile students as much better (50%) or somewhat better (47%) than those of their non-mobile fellow students. Only one respondent notes no difference in this respect. One respondent even rates the cultural understanding of mobile students as substantially worse than that of non-mobile students. The experts see a positive impact of an ERASMUS supported stay abroad on the intercultural understanding and competences. They argue that living in another country, in another cultural system, getting along with people from different cultures raises the tolerance and intercultural understanding, which is not possible by staying in the home country. But equally important are the few comments which point out that there may also occur negative effects as e.g. confirming prejudices and intolerance which is known in the literature as cultural shock.2 These negative side-effects show the necessity of a good preparation before and counselling during the stay.
1
The results of the survey of the 1998/99 cohort shows that around 35% used some other language during their ERAMUS stay besides of the host and the home country language, in: Maiworm, F., Teichler. U., The Students` Experience, in: Teichler, U. (edit.), ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme - Findings of an Evaluation Study, ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education, Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaft mbH, Bonn 2002, p. 103.
2
Müller, S., Die Psyche des Managers als Determinante des Exporterfolges, M&P Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung, Mannheim, 1991, p.48.
3.3.3 Academic Knowledge and Skills
In contrast to the three areas of international competences addressed, a superiority of mobile students to non-mobile students in general academic and professional competences is not so obvious. Therefore, it is worth noting that 16% of the experts surveyed in this study rate the academic knowledge and skills of formerly mobile students after their return as much better and 57% as somewhat better than those of their non-mobile fellow students. Only one quarter of the respondents rate the academic knowledge and skills of formerly mobile students as equal to those of non-mobile students and only one of them rates them as somewhat worse.
Comments of the experts surveyed on the professional competences are more diverse than comments on other areas of competences. Some experts notably perceive a growth of “soft skills”, such as problem-solving ability, openness and flexibility. Some experts point out explicitly that professional competences reinforced by a temporary study period in another European country are appreciated by employers. Additionally, formerly mobile students are seen as better prepared for job search due to a greater maturity.
Most experts see a positive impact of the ERASMUS study period abroad and, hereby, confirm the results of previous studies. Still, the comments in the open part of the question show that different arguments lie behind this assessment. One group of comments refer to the external effect of a study period abroad on the employer. Other comments take a different perspective and emphasize the impact on the students’ personality which leads to an advantage in the job search. Therewith, the experts agree with the results of earlier student surveys, in which students rated their study abroad experience as worthwhile for career prospects. Still, 17% of the experts do not see a difference. Unfortunately, no open comments give further explanations for these assessments. Suggestions for improvement of the impact on future employment and work refer to the planned merger of the LEONARDO and ERASMUS programme which foster the practical and working experiences abroad.
3.3.4 Areas in which ERASMUS Students lag behind in comparison to
non-mobile students
The surveyed experts were explicitly asked whether they consider the formerly mobile students as inferior upon return in some respects to the non-mobile students. Almost all respondents do not rate the mobile students as inferior with respect to any area of competences addressed. Many of them deny the question emphatically.
However, some experts address the fact that some mobile students face problems of recognition and credit transfer and a substantial number of them prolong their overall period of study as a consequence of temporary study abroad even if it is also argued that this is more than compensated by the positive experience during the ERASMUS stay. Recognition problems are one of the main topics in each ERASMUS evaluation. The student and employer questionnaire will further deepen this problem by asking in detail if there was a prolongation because of recognition problems and the duration of that prolongation.
3.3.5 Factors Affecting the Immediate Impact of an ERASMUS Period Abroad
Most experts respond affirmatively to the question addressing factors possibly explaining differential impact of the temporary study period of another country. Some respondents perceive students’ individual characteristics as crucial, for example motivation, openness, outgoing personality, etc. Overall, the answers mainly repeat the categories individual characteristics, field of study and institution of higher education
given as example in the question. All answers confirm that these categories have to be considered in a differentiated view. Only a few answers state further factors which have an influence on the success of a study period abroad as for example the possibilities of making contacts in the accommodation.