ERASMUS INFORMAL MEETING INTENSIVE PROGRAMMES 22-23 September 2011 Athens-Greece

1. ERASMUS INFORMAL MEETING INTENSIVE PROGRAMMES 22-23 September 2011 Athens-Greece Results of the NA questionnaire for IP Elina Mavrogiorgou, IKY-Hellenic National L.L.P. Agency /Erasmus

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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’

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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 -

8. 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

9. Accommodation Usually accommodation is organized by the Coordinator Possible to give all money to students and guide them where to stay and eat

10. 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)

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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)

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. Same students every year? Usually no. It is only allowed as an exception.

22. 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

23. 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?)

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. III. IP Quality issues Academic 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)

32. Project management criteria 14 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.

33. IV. IP beyond 2013-the next generation What 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

34. 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.

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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)

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. Rule of 10 days: flexibility? 5 NA are positive The rest think 10 days should be the minimum

42. 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

43. IP connected with the key competencies 9 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

44. 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”

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. Benefits for students Strong 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

49. Use of ICT Tools Web based platforms E-learning platform E-visualization platforms Facebook IP Project websites Skype Moodle /Optima/ Wikis/ Second Life

50. Positive impact on teaching methods IP make the teachers be more open minded Teaching improved/enriched New ideas Encourage further cooperation Creative teaching methods