Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus Appendix E June 2007 Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services LLP
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - SECTION PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. SURVEY RESPONSES (STATISTICS) 2 2.1 Action 1 - European higher education institutions 2 2.2 Action 1 - European higher education institutions (rejected applicants) 2.3 Action 2 - students from third countries 2.4 Action 2 - scholars from third countries 2.5 Action 3 - students from EU countries 2.6 Action 3 - scholars from EU countries 2.7 Action 3 - Partnerships (HEIs from EU countries) 7 8 12 16 22 24 2.8 Action 3 - Partnerships (HEIs from third countries) 3. ASSESSMENT OF OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES TO SURVEY 32 28
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - 1. INTRODUCTION This appendix contains a complete list of statistical data for each of the surveys carried out by CSES in respect of the Interim Evaluation of the Erasmus Mundus programme. An important dimension of the evaluation involved carrying out survey work with programme beneficiaries. An overview of the survey structure across the different types of participants in the programme - higher education institutions, students and scholars - is provided below: Survey Questionnaire Response % of total targeted Action 1 co-ordinators/partners 95 36.8 Action 1 non-selected applicants 33 24.8 Action 2 students from third countries 615 31.7 Action 2 scholars from third countries 84 NA Action 3 partner institutions 11 15.7 Action 3 EU students 125 NA Action 3 EU scholars 27 NA Total 990 As can be seen, seven separate surveys were carried out, with a total of almost 1000 survey responses received. Separate surveys were conducted with higher education institutions, students and scholars. Additionally, surveys were differentiated depending on whether the beneficiary was from the EU or a third country, since there are key differences between the different Actions for these target groups such as the amount of financing, duration of mobility periods, etc. Given the wealth of useful findings that have emerged through the survey, the survey findings from each survey are set out in full in this paper, which has been designed as a standalone document. The survey findings are potentially of interest to a number of programme stakeholders, including policy makers and National Structures as well as those that have participated in Erasmus Mundus directly, including higher education institutions, students and scholars. In particular, those who have completed questionnaires may be interested in the views of other programme participants on a range of key issues. 1
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - 2. SURVEY RESPONSES (STATISTICS) 2.1.1 Action 1 - European higher education institutions Higher education institutions participating in a consortium involved in delivering Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses were asked various questions concerning their views on the effectiveness of Action 1 and their experiences of participating in the programme. The statistical results are set out in full below (the most interesting responses have been analysed in detail in the main evaluation report): Is your institution a co-ordinating institution or a partner institution? Co-ordinating Institution 31 34.1 Partner Institution 60 65.9 Total 91 100.0 In which academic year did you first receive funding to run an EM Masters Course? Academic Year No. % 2004/05 32 35.2 2005/06 32 35.2 2006/07 27 29.7 Total 91 100.0 How did you first become aware of the Erasmus Mundus programme? Please mark all that apply Website 16 17.6 At a conference or exhibition 10 11.0 Recommendation from an academic institution 50 54.9 National contact point 14 15.4 Personal recommendation 32 35.2 Other advertisement 3 3.3 2
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - What were the main factors that Quite Small Not influenced your decision to apply to Important important importance important participate in Action 1? No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhance course quality through joint working with other European universities 62 68.1 24 26.4 2 2.2 3 3.3 Enhance teaching and learning practice within the EM course - through the involvement of students from other EU countries and third countries Increase staff development opportunities through transnational co-operation Enhance the international profile of your institution Attract more international students to this course Attract more international students to other courses in your institution Association with the brand image of Erasmus Mundus Develop a wider co-operation with higher education institutions outside Europe (through eventual participation in Action 3) Attract more funds to your institution through additional tuition fees 51 56.0 26 28.6 11 12.1 3 3.3 24 26.4 39 42.9 21 23.1 7 7.7 66 72.5 18 19.8 4 4.4 2 2.2 67 73.6 16 17.6 4 4.4 3 3.3 16 17.6 29 31.9 28 30.8 16 17.6 42 46.2 30 33.0 17 18.7 2 2.2 42 46.2 26 28.6 16 17.6 7 7.7 13 14.3 31 34.1 23 25.3 24 26.4 In the process of preparing for participation in Erasmus Mundus Action 1, how easy or difficult did you find each Very easy Quite easy Quite difficult Very difficult of the following elements No. % No. % No. % No. % Putting together a consortium to participate in Erasmus Mundus? 34 37.4 36 39.6 18 19.8 2 2.2 Obtaining funding for an Erasmus Mundus course? 6 6.6 32 35.2 39 42.9 11 12.1 Completing the application form? 8 8.8 43 47.3 33 36.3 3 3.3 Ensuring integration of the consortium and the course content? 14 15.4 38 41.8 34 37.4 5 5.5 Developing appropriate course content for an Erasmus Mundus course? 22 24.2 50 54.9 17 18.7 1 1.1 Identifying academic staff with appropriate skills (foreign language skills, other skills) to deliver course content? 42 46.2 34 37.4 13 14.3 1 1.1 Degree recognition by partners and/or competent authorities? 7 7.7 27 29.7 27 29.7 30 33.0 Setting a common tuition fee? 12 13.2 32 35.2 23 25.3 23 25.3 Setting joint criteria for selection and examination? 23 25.3 45 49.5 19 20.9 4 4.4 3
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - Please tell us about the extent of involvement of the National Contact Substantial Quite a lot Some Small Point in the process No. % No. % No. % No. % In making the application 3 3.3 18 19.8 20 22.0 49 53.8 After the application 8 8.8 31 34.1 19 20.9 32 35.2 In your opinion, is Erasmus Mundus Action 1 relevant to the needs of higher education institutions? Relevancy No. % Highly relevant 72 80.0 Quite relevant 12 13.3 Somewhat relevant 6 6.7 Not relevant at all 0 0.0 Total 90 100.0 In your opinion, does Erasmus Mundus Action 1 add value to higher education institutions? A lot 68 74.7 Quite a lot 22 24.2 A little 1 1.1 No value at all 0 0.0 Total 91 100.0 With regard to programme management, how well has the programme been managed by the European Commission and the Executive Agency for Education and Culture? Please rate the quality of the management of the programme Excellent Quite satisfactory Not very good Unsatisfactory Don't know Management No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Providing information 24 26.4 45 49.5 7 7.7 4 4.4 11 12.1 Dealing with contracts 18 19.8 39 42.9 6 6.6 2 2.2 26 28.6 Dealing with payments 20 22.0 30 33.0 12 13.2 6 6.6 23 25.3 In dealing with the reporting procedures 21 23.1 30 33.0 7 7.7 4 4.4 29 31.9 4
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - With regard to impacts, how far has participation in Action 1 helped make Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree progress towards the following objectives No. % No. % No. % No. % Strengthened the European/international dimension of the activities of your 51 56.0 37 40.7 3 3.3 0 0.0 institutions? Promoted academic excellence in your institutions? 35 38.5 46 50.5 9 9.9 1 1.1 Developed intercultural understanding? 53 58.2 31 34.1 7 7.7 0 0.0 Improved services to students in your institutions? 17 18.7 45 49.5 23 25.3 6 6.6 Improved the quality of this course? 36 39.6 46 50.5 8 8.8 0 0.0 Improved the quality of other Masters courses within participating institutions? Better prepared students for the challenges of competing in a global economy and an ever more internationalised work environment? 15 16.5 37 40.7 26 28.6 11 12.1 54 59.3 29 31.9 7 7.7 1 1.1 How adequate do you feel the financial provision for the development of joint courses under Action 1 has been? Please rate the adequacy of financial provision Excellent 7 7.9 Quite satisfactory 29 32.6 Not very good 30 33.7 Unsatisfactory 23 25.8 Total 89 100.0 How adequate do you feel the financial provision for the support of third-country scholars and students participating under Action 2 in Erasmus Mundus courses has been? Please rate the adequacy of financial provision Students Scholars No. % Excellent 60 69.0 57 65.5 Quite satisfactory 20 23.0 23 26.4 Not very good 5 5.7 6 6.9 Unsatisfactory 2 2.3 1 1.1 Total 87 100.0 87 100.0 Do you think your Erasmus Mundus Masters Course will be financially sustainable once the Erasmus Mundus funding has ended Totally sustainable 3 3.4 Somewhat sustainable 36 40.9 Not very sustainable 36 40.9 Not at all sustainable 13 14.8 Total 88 100.0 5
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - How well has the Erasmus Mundus consortium functioned? Excellent 55 60.4 Quite satisfactory 36 39.6 Not very good 0 0.0 Unsatisfactory 0 0.0 Total 91 100.0 In your view, have there been more benefits in the operation of an Erasmus Mundus course for the co-ordinating institution than for the partner institutions? Benefits co-ordinator more 6 6.7 Benefits co-ordinator a little more 52 57.8 Benefits partner a little more 28 31.1 Benefits partner more 4 4.4 Total 90 100.0 What problems, if any, did you encounter during the process of the implementation Very easy Quite easy Quite difficult Very difficult of an Erasmus Mundus Action 1 course? No. % No. % No. % No. % Implementing the Commission s required integrated approach 21 23.1 48 52.7 18 19.8 2 2.2 Attracting the right number of students from third countries 33 36.3 33 36.3 20 22.0 5 5.5 Attracting the right quality of students from third countries 25 27.5 42 46.2 17 18.7 7 7.7 Getting visas for students from third countries 6 6.6 19 20.9 30 33.0 35 38.5 Attracting students from EU countries to participate in the EM course 5 5.5 15 16.5 21 23.1 49 53.8 Identifying academic staff with appropriate skills (foreign language skills, other skills) to deliver course content? 51 56.0 33 36.3 6 6.6 1 1.1 Clarity of information/guidance from National Contact Points or the European 14 15.4 49 53.8 21 23.1 2 2.2 Commission or the Executive Agency Communication/negotiation with partner institutions 41 45.1 43 47.3 4 4.4 2 2.2 Linguistic issues 41 45.1 38 41.8 11 12.1 1 1.1 Issues relating to mutual recognition of qualifications 12 13.2 36 39.6 31 34.1 11 12.1 Issues of course funding 8 8.8 36 39.6 35 38.5 7 7.7 6
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - Do you think Erasmus Mundus Action 1 overlaps with actions under other Community programmes in the field of higher education? Yes 4 4.4 No 78 85.7 No response 9 9.9 Total 91 100.0 Is your consortium currently running an Action 3 partnership with higher education institutions outside the EU? Yes 37 40.7 No 54 59.3 Total 91 100.0 2.2 Action 1 - European higher education institutions (rejected applicants) A survey of those higher education institutions that had applied for assistance but which had not been successful was also carried out. The results are set out below: What were the main factors that influenced your decision to apply to participate in Action 1 of Erasmus Important Quite important Small importance Not important Mundus? No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhance course quality through joint working with other European universities 24 75.0 5 15.6 2 6.3 1 3.1 Enhance teaching and learning practice within the EM course - through the involvement of students and scholars from other EU countries and third countries Increase staff development opportunities through transnational co-operation Enhance the international profile of your institution Attract more international students to other courses in your institution Association with the brand image of Erasmus Mundus Develop a wider co-operation with higher education institutions outside Europe (through eventual participation in Action 3) Attract more funds to your institution through additional tuition fees 20 62.5 6 18.8 4 12.5 2 6.3 13 40.6 13 40.6 4 12.5 1 3.1 18 56.3 10 31.3 3 9.4 1 3.1 15 46.9 9 28.1 6 18.8 2 6.3 14 43.8 9 28.1 6 18.8 3 9.4 17 53.1 9 28.1 1 3.1 4 12.5 10 31.3 7 21.9 11 34.4 4 12.5 7
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - Please tell us what happened to the course when you heard you had not been accepted for Erasmus Mundus No. % It had little effect on the course and we continued as planned 9 28.1 We changed the course and have reapplied or will reapply to Erasmus Mundus in a subsequent call for proposals 17 53.1 We have reapplied or will reapply to Erasmus Mundus without changing the course in a subsequent call for proposals 8 25.0 We continued the course at a reduced level 6 18.8 We abandoned plans for the course 2 6.3 2.3 Action 2 - students from third countries Students from third countries in receipt of an EM scholarship under Action 2 were also asked a range of questions with regard to their views and experiences of participating in the programme and whether their perceptions of European higher education had changed as a result of participation in the programme. The statistical results from this survey are set out in full below (again, the most interesting responses have been analysed in detail in the main evaluation report): In which academic year did you start your Erasmus Mundus programme (please tick all that apply)? Academic Year No. % 2004/05 10 1.6 2005/06 178 28.9 2006/07 441 71.7 How did you first become aware of the Erasmus Mundus programme (please tick all that apply)? Website 269 43.7 Recommendation from an academic institution 144 23.4 Personal recommendation 219 35.6 Advertisement 54 8.8 In choosing a masters programme, what areas of the world did you Highly attractive Quite attractive Not very attractive Unattractive No response consider? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Europe 481 78.2 121 19.7 8 1.3 1 0.2 4 0.7 North America 321 52.2 175 28.5 39 6.3 19 3.1 61 9.9 South America 22 3.6 80 13.0 143 23.3 215 35.0 155 25.2 Asia 36 5.9 150 24.4 180 29.3 129 21.0 120 19.5 Australasia 74 12.0 226 36.7 122 19.8 85 13.8 108 17.6 Africa 13 2.1 39 6.3 94 15.3 323 52.5 146 23.7 8
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - What were the main factors that Quite Small Not influenced your decision to apply Important important importance important to participate in Erasmus No response Mundus? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhancement of future career prospects 487 79.2 98 15.9 20 3.3 4 0.7 6 1.0 Quality of European higher education 395 64.2 186 30.2 18 2.9 5 0.8 11 1.8 Quality of Erasmus Mundus course 306 49.8 227 36.9 48 7.8 9 1.5 25 4.1 Unique characteristics of Erasmus Mundus course 393 63.9 158 25.7 35 5.7 12 2.0 17 2.8 Availability of grant 507 82.4 73 11.9 18 2.9 8 1.3 9 1.5 Cost 228 37.1 200 32.5 87 14.1 42 6.8 58 9.4 Did not obtain first choice elsewhere 28 4.6 80 13.0 116 18.9 301 48.9 90 14.6 Improvement of language skills 218 35.4 207 33.7 94 15.3 71 11.5 25 4.1 The challenge of living and studying in another country 328 53.3 179 29.1 57 9.3 27 4.4 24 3.9 Opportunity to come into contact with another culture 400 65.0 146 23.7 38 6.2 10 1.6 21 3.4 Opportunity to study at a prestigious university abroad 377 61.3 160 26.0 40 6.5 14 2.3 24 3.9 Development of personal skills 415 67.5 139 22.6 34 5.5 8 1.3 19 3.1 Once you had been accepted, were there any barriers to participating in Erasmus Easy Quite easy Minor barrier Major barrier Mundus? No. % No. % No. % No. % Obtaining a visa or residence permit for a period of study in the European Union 221 35.9 138 22.4 111 18.0 132 21.5 Accreditation of your existing qualification 353 57.4 149 24.2 44 7.2 28 4.6 Translation of qualifications 335 54.5 144 23.4 58 9.4 35 5.7 Linguistic barriers 234 38.0 196 31.9 100 16.3 53 8.6 Cultural barriers 260 42.3 227 36.9 70 11.4 23 3.7 Other 45 7.3 6 1.0 18 2.9 64 10.4 What sort of help did you receive from your Masters programme before you Substantial Quite a lot A little None started the course? No. % No. % No. % No. % Languages 125 20.3 122 19.8 84 13.7 245 39.8 Cultural 89 14.5 143 23.3 156 25.4 184 29.9 Help with visas 273 44.4 165 26.8 95 15.4 61 9.9 Help with accommodation, etc. 314 51.1 144 23.4 90 14.6 60 9.8 Help with residence permits 271 44.1 147 23.9 80 13.0 88 14.3 Help with travel 105 17.1 127 20.7 132 21.5 220 35.8 Introductory academic courses 185 30.1 162 26.3 106 17.2 124 20.2 9
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - Please tell us about the course and study environment at the university you are studying at as part of EM. How would Excellent Quite good Not too good Low you rate the quality of the following? No. % No. % No. % No. % Course content 271 44.1 266 43.3 59 9.6 18 2.9 Teaching 214 34.8 319 51.9 62 10.1 17 2.8 Study environment 290 47.2 247 40.2 60 9.8 14 2.3 Research services and facilities 260 42.3 225 36.6 84 13.7 33 5.4 How would you rate the quality of the following student facilities at the university you are studying at (or most Excellent Quite good Not too good Low recently studied at) as part of EM? No. % No. % No. % No. % Accommodation 221 35.9 224 36.4 95 15.4 60 9.8 Cultural facilities 147 23.9 267 43.4 155 25.2 34 5.5 Sports facilities 162 26.3 213 34.6 136 22.1 85 13.8 Placements 111 18.0 227 36.9 127 20.7 84 13.7 Careers 92 15.0 201 32.7 165 26.8 92 15.0 To what extent did you perceive the EM course as having been well integrated between the different European higher education institutions that run the course and deliver course content? Very well integrated 155 25.2 Quite well integrated 273 44.4 Not much integration 104 16.9 Not integrated at all 27 4.4 No response 56 9.1 Total 615 100.0 Looking back on your participation, what in your view were the main benefits of Substantial Quite a lot Some Not at all participating in the EM programme? No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhancement of future career prospects 301 48.9 212 34.5 55 8.9 21 3.4 Quality of European higher education 283 46.0 252 41.0 42 6.8 11 1.8 Quality of Erasmus Mundus course 262 42.6 260 42.3 50 8.1 15 2.4 Unique characteristics of Erasmus Mundus courses 334 54.3 197 32.0 41 6.7 11 1.8 Improvement of language skills 241 39.2 239 38.9 71 11.5 29 4.7 The challenge of living and studying in another country 345 56.1 199 32.4 30 4.9 7 1.1 Opportunity to come into contact with another culture 383 62.3 159 25.9 35 5.7 9 1.5 Understanding of other cultures 332 54.0 187 30.4 55 8.9 8 1.3 Opportunity to study at a prestigious university abroad 315 51.2 206 33.5 46 7.5 12 2.0 Development of personal skills 359 58.4 186 30.2 35 5.7 8 1.3 10
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - Do you think that an integrated course offered by a consortium of European universities has a clear added value over comparable national programmes? No. % Yes 502 81.6 No 56 9.1 No response 57 9.3 Total 615 100.0 It is an obligatory element of Erasmus Mundus masters programmes that students have to study in at least two institutions ( mobility ). How do you rate Excellent Quite good Not very good Bad this mobility? No. % No. % No. % No. % From the point of view of the academic benefit you derive from it 438 71.2 132 21.5 21 3.4 6 1.0 From the point of view of transfer arrangements and organisation 165 26.8 252 41.0 118 19.2 45 7.3 How useful do you perceive receiving a double or joint qualification as opposed to a Masters qualification from a single university from the perspective of the following? Future career Academic prestige No. % Very useful 409 67.8 411 68.0 Quite useful 151 25.0 157 26.0 Not very useful 32 5.3 30 5.0 Not at all useful 11 1.8 6 1.0 Total 603 100.0 604 100.0 To what extent has participating in the Erasmus Mundus programme improved your perception of higher education in the European Union? Excellent 317 52.6 Quite good 242 40.1 Not too good 32 5.3 Low 12 2.0 Total 603 100.0 Is the Masters qualification that you obtained from participating in an Erasmus Mundus course fully recognised in your country of origin? Yes 228 43.1 No 31 5.9 Don t know 356 51.0 Total 615 100.0 11
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - Was the scholarship funding provided sufficient to enable you to participate fully in the course and to live in the host country without undue hardship? Wholly sufficient 377 61.3 Quite sufficient 179 29.1 Not very sufficient 41 6.7 Not at all sufficient 11 1.8 No response 7 1.1 Total 615 100.0 Would you have participated without scholarship funding? No. % Yes 28 4.6 No 577 93.8 No response 10 1.6 Total 615 100.0 If you were choosing a masters course again, would you still choose to follow this Erasmus Mundus course? Yes 544 88.5 No/ no response 71 11.5 Total 615 100.0 2.4 Action 2 - scholars from third countries Scholars from third countries were also asked for their views with regard to their participation in the EM programme and for suggestions on how the scholar dimension could be improved in future. The survey results are set out in full below: In which academic year did you participate in the EM programme (please tick all that apply)? Year No. % 2004/05 4 7.0 2005/06 19 33.3 2006/07 37 64.9 How did you first become aware of the EM programme (please tick all that apply)? Website 10 17.5 Recommendation from an academic institution 21 36.8 Previous co-operation relations with the institution concerned 16 28.1 Personal recommendation 27 47.4 Advertisement 1 1.8 12
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - In deciding to work in a university abroad, what areas of the world Highly attractive Quite attractive Not very attractive Unattractive No response did you consider? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Europe 45 78.9 6 10.5 1 1.8 0 0.0 5 8.8 North America 21 36.8 19 33.3 4 7.0 4 7.0 9 15.8 South America 3 5.3 15 26.3 16 28.1 11 19.3 12 21.1 Asia 12 21.1 16 28.1 14 24.6 8 14.0 7 12.3 Australasia 9 15.8 17 29.8 10 17.5 9 15.8 12 21.1 Africa 4 7.0 6 10.5 13 22.8 20 35.1 14 24.6 What were the main factors that Quite Not very influenced your decision to apply Important important important to participate in Erasmus Unimportant No response Mundus? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhancement of future career prospects 33 57.9 13 22.8 4 7.0 4 7.0 3 5.3 Quality of European higher education 32 56.1 18 31.6 4 7.0 0 0.0 3 5.3 Unique characteristics of the Erasmus Mundus course 42 73.7 11 19.3 2 3.5 0 0.0 2 3.5 Reputation of the academic department you have joined 26 45.6 23 40.4 4 7.0 2 3.5 2 3.5 Availability of grant 32 56.1 14 24.6 5 8.8 1 1.8 5 8.8 Cost 13 22.8 20 35.1 9 15.8 8 14.0 7 12.3 Did not obtain first choice elsewhere 5 8.8 6 10.5 3 5.3 31 54.4 12 21.1 Improvement of language skills 17 29.8 12 21.1 7 12.3 16 28.1 5 8.8 The challenge of living and working in another country 24 42.1 16 28.1 8 14.0 7 12.3 2 3.5 Opportunity to come into contact with another culture 24 42.1 22 38.6 6 10.5 2 3.5 3 5.3 Opportunity to work at a prestigious university abroad 30 52.6 14 24.6 4 7.0 3 5.3 6 10.5 Development of personal skills 30 52.6 17 29.8 1 1.8 4 7.0 5 8.8 Once you had been accepted, were there any barriers to participating Easy Fairly easy Minor barrier Major barrier No response in Erasmus Mundus? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Obtaining a visa for a period of work in the European Union 28 49.1 10 17.5 6 10.5 9 15.8 4 7.0 Accreditation of your existing qualification 37 64.9 10 17.5 2 3.5 6 10.5 2 3.5 Translation of qualifications 38 66.7 5 8.8 3 5.3 8 14.0 3 5.3 Linguistic barriers 31 54.4 8 14.0 6 10.5 9 15.8 3 5.3 Cultural barriers 32 56.1 10 17.5 5 8.8 6 10.5 4 7.0 13
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - What sort of preparation did you receive, if any, prior to going to Substantial Quite good Not a lot None No response your chosen university? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Languages 15 26.3 11 19.3 2 3.5 25 43.9 4 7.0 Cultural 13 22.8 13 22.8 7 12.3 21 36.8 3 5.3 Help with visas 26 45.6 11 19.3 5 8.8 14 24.6 1 1.8 Help with accommodation, etc. 35 61.4 14 24.6 3 5.3 3 5.3 2 3.5 Help with residence permit 20 35.1 8 14.0 8 14.0 17 29.8 4 7.0 Help with travel 17 29.8 17 29.8 7 12.3 13 22.8 3 5.3 What was the quality of the facilities at the university you are working in (or most recently worked at) as part of Erasmus Excellent Quite good Not very good Low No response Mundus? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Teaching 34 59.6 20 35.1 1 1.8 1 1.8 1 1.8 Research 32 56.1 18 31.6 5 8.8 0 0.0 2 3.5 Accommodation 29 50.9 10 17.5 8 14.0 8 14.0 2 3.5 Cultural 24 42.1 23 40.4 7 12.3 0 0.0 3 5.3 To what extent did you perceive the Erasmus Mundus course as having been well integrated between the different European higher education institutions that run the course and deliver course content? Very well integrated 23 41.8 Quite well integrated 25 45.5 Not very well integrated 7 12.7 Not integrated at all 0 0.0 Total 55 100.0 Do you think that an integrated course offered by a consortium of European universities has a clear added value over comparable national programmes? Yes 48 84.2 No 2 3.5 No response 7 12.3 Total 57 100.0 To what extent have you been involved in teaching and research activities during your period as an A lot Quite a lot Not a lot Very little No response Erasmus Mundus scholar? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Teaching 19 33.3 16 28.1 8 14.0 11 19.3 3 5.3 Research 21 36.8 15 26.3 11 19.3 7 12.3 3 5.3 14
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - What was the length of your stay as a scholar in Erasmus Mundus? No. % More than 3 months 20 35.1 About 3 months 25 43.9 Less than 3 months 11 19.3 No response 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0 The standard period of stay as an Erasmus Mundus scholar is 3 months. In your view, is this period: No. % Too long? 6 10.5 About right? 28 49.1 Too short? 22 38.6 No response 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0 Looking back on your participation in Erasmus Mundus, what in your view were the main benefits of participating in the Substantial Quite good Not a lot Not at all No response programme? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhancement of future career prospects 29 50.9 25 43.9 3 5.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Quality of European higher education 26 45.6 26 45.6 3 5.3 0 0.0 2 3.5 Reputation of the academic department you have joined 25 43.9 27 47.4 4 7.0 0 0.0 1 1.8 Unique characteristics of Erasmus Mundus 46 80.7 8 14.0 2 3.5 0 0.0 1 1.8 Improvement of language skills 18 31.6 24 42.1 5 8.8 6 10.5 4 7.0 The challenge of living and working in another country 24 42.1 23 40.4 6 10.5 1 1.8 3 5.3 Opportunity to come into contact with another culture 31 54.4 17 29.8 6 10.5 1 1.8 2 3.5 Understanding of other cultures 25 43.9 25 43.9 3 5.3 0 0.0 4 7.0 Opportunity to work at a prestigious university abroad 30 52.6 15 26.3 2 3.5 5 8.8 5 8.8 Development of personal skills 31 54.4 17 29.8 3 5.3 2 3.5 4 7.0 To what extent has participating in the Erasmus Mundus programme improved your perception of higher education in the European Union? No. % Excellent 30 52.6 Quite a lot 24 42.1 Not a lot 2 3.5 Low 0 0.0 Total 56 98.2 15
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - Is the experience and any qualification that you obtained from working for an Erasmus Mundus course fully recognised in your country of origin? No. % Yes 31 54.4 No 4 7.0 Don t know 22 38.6 Total 57 100.0 Was the scholarship funding provided sufficient to enable you to participate fully in the work and to live in the host country without undue hardship? No. % Wholly sufficient 28 49.1 Somewhat sufficient 20 35.1 Not very sufficient 5 8.8 Not sufficient 3 5.3 Total 56 98.2 Would you have participated without scholarship funding? No. % Yes 4 7.0 No 52 91.2 No response 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0 If you were choosing to go to a foreign university again, would you still choose to work for this Erasmus Mundus course? No. % Yes 56 98.2 No 0 0.0 No response 1 1.8 Total 57 100.0 2.5 Action 3 - students from EU countries Another survey group was students from EU Member States participating in the programme. It should be noted that there are much fewer EU students compared with international students participating in the programme, hence the total response was much lower for European students. The results are presented in full below: In which academic year did you start your the Erasmus Mundus programme (please tick all that apply)? Academic Year No. % 2004/05 13 18.1 2005/06 25 34.7 2006/07 36 50.0 16
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - How did you first become aware of the Erasmus Mundus programme (please tick all that apply)? Website 18 25.0 Recommendation from an academic institution 26 36.1 Personal recommendation 22 30.6 Advertisement 6 8.3 What were the main factors that influenced your decision to apply to Important Quite important Small importance Not important participate in Erasmus Mundus? No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhancement of future career prospects 46 63.9 13 18.1 10 13.9 2 2.8 Quality of Erasmus Mundus course 34 47.2 28 38.9 8 11.1 1 1.4 Unique characteristics of Erasmus Mundus course 42 58.3 17 23.6 9 12.5 3 4.2 Availability of grant to study at an institution outside Europe 21 29.2 16 22.2 11 15.3 21 29.2 Cost 15 20.8 16 22.2 25 34.7 15 20.8 Improvement of language skills 28 38.9 29 40.3 8 11.1 6 8.3 The challenge of living and studying in another country 37 51.4 21 29.2 8 11.1 4 5.6 Opportunity to come into contact with another culture 42 58.3 21 29.2 7 9.7 1 1.4 Opportunity to study at a prestigious university abroad 19 26.4 33 45.8 15 20.8 3 4.2 Development of personal skills 47 65.3 17 23.6 6 8.3 1 1.4 Please tell us what obstacles you had in participating in an Erasmus Mundus Not important Little importance Quite important Very important course No. % No. % No. % No. % Costs 9 12.5 16 22.2 21 29.2 26 36.1 Mobility requirements 27 37.5 26 36.1 15 20.8 4 5.6 Lack of clarity of information about the integrated course and its requirements 12 16.7 24 33.3 18 25.0 18 25.0 What sort of preparation did you receive, if any, prior to entering on your chosen course of study (please tick all that Substantial Quite a lot A little None apply)? No. % No. % No. % No. % Languages 4 5.6 10 13.9 12 16.7 42 58.3 Cultural 1 1.4 7 9.7 10 13.9 49 68.1 Help with accommodation, etc. 16 22.2 10 13.9 17 23.6 26 36.1 Help with travel 4 5.6 7 9.7 10 13.9 48 66.7 Preparatory academic courses 7 9.7 8 11.1 11 15.3 42 58.3 17
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - To what extent did you perceive the Erasmus Mundus course as having been well integrated between the different higher education institutions that run the course and deliver course content? Very well integrated 13 18.1 Quite well integrated 27 37.5 Not much integration 26 36.1 Not integrated at all 3 4.2 No response 3 4.2 Total 72 100.0 How would you rate the quality of the following student facilities at the European institution you are studying at (or most recently studied at) as part of Erasmus Mundus? Options Excellent Quite good Not too good Low No. % No. % No. % No. % Accommodation 15 20.8 29 40.3 15 20.8 9 12.5 Cultural facilities 11 15.3 43 59.7 12 16.7 4 5.6 Sports facilities 17 23.6 26 36.1 15 20.8 12 16.7 Placements 12 16.7 26 36.1 17 23.6 6 8.3 Careers 11 15.3 29 40.3 16 22.2 9 12.5 For the European university you are studying at (or most recently studied at), how would you rate the quality of the Excellent Quite good Not too good Low following? No. % No. % No. % No. % Course content 23 31.9 41 56.9 6 8.3 1 1.4 Teaching 20 27.8 42 58.3 8 11.1 1 1.4 Study environment 24 33.3 38 52.8 8 11.1 1 1.4 Research services and facilities 25 34.7 30 41.7 14 19.4 2 2.8 Have these features been of comparable quality across all the institutions you have visited throughout your Erasmus Mundus masters programme? No. % Yes 19 26.4 No 34 47.2 No response 19 26.4 Total 72 100.0 Do you think that an integrated course offered by a consortium of European universities has a clear added value over comparable national programmes? Yes 68 94.4 No 1 1.4 No response 3 4.2 Total 72 100.0 18
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - It is an obligatory element of Erasmus Not very Mundus masters programmes that Excellent Quite good good students have to study in at least two Bad institutions in Europe ( mobility ). How do you rate this mobility? No. % No. % No. % No. % From the point of view of the academic benefit you derive from it 51 70.8 18 25.0 1 1.4 1 1.4 From the point of view of transfer arrangements and organisation 18 25.0 33 45.8 19 26.4 1 1.4 It is an optional element of Erasmus Mundus masters programmes that students can study in an institution outside Europe. How do you rate this Excellent Quite good Not very good Bad mobility? No. % No. % No. % No. % From the point of view of the academic benefit you derive from it 50 69.4 16 22.2 1 1.4 1 1.4 From the point of view of transfer arrangements and organisation 12 16.7 35 48.6 13 18.1 5 6.9 In respect of the integration of teaching or research modules with European universities 18 25.0 31 43.1 8 11.1 5 6.9 Looking back on your participation in Erasmus Mundus, what in your view were the main benefits of participating in Substantial Quite a lot Some Not at all the programme? No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhancement of future career prospects 35 48.6 21 29.2 7 9.7 3 4.2 Quality of Erasmus Mundus course 22 30.6 35 48.6 11 15.3 0 0.0 Unique characteristics of Erasmus Mundus course 42 58.3 19 26.4 6 8.3 1 1.4 The possibility of studying at an institution outside Europe 46 63.9 15 20.8 3 4.2 2 2.8 Improvement of language skills 39 54.2 24 33.3 4 5.6 1 1.4 The challenge of living and studying in another country 45 62.5 19 26.4 4 5.6 0 0.0 Opportunity to come into contact with another culture 49 68.1 17 23.6 3 4.2 0 0.0 Understanding of other cultures 41 56.9 22 30.6 5 6.9 0 0.0 Opportunity to study at a prestigious university abroad 21 29.2 34 47.2 10 13.9 3 4.2 Development of personal skills 48 66.7 16 22.2 3 4.2 1 1.4 19
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - How useful do you perceive receiving a double or joint qualification as opposed to a Masters qualification from a single university from the Future career Academic prestige perspective of the following? No. % No. % Very useful 37 51.4 40 55.6 Quite useful 26 36.1 24 33.3 Not very useful 7 9.7 7 9.7 Not at all useful 2 2.8 1 1.4 Total 72 100.0 72 100.0 Is the Masters qualification that you obtained from participating in an Erasmus Mundus course fully recognised in your country of origin? No. % Yes 46 63.9 No 1 1.4 Don t know 25 34.7 Total 72 100.0 Did you receive an Erasmus Mundus scholarship to study at an institution outside Europe as part of this course? No. % Yes 38 52.8 No 34 47.2 Total 72 100.0 What sort of preparation did you receive, if any, prior to entering on Substantial Quite a lot Some None No response your chosen course of study? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Languages 2 2.8 6 8.3 4 5.6 19 26.4 41 56.9 Cultural 3 4.2 4 5.6 6 8.3 17 23.6 42 58.3 Help with visas 3 4.2 7 9.7 4 5.6 14 19.4 44 61.1 Help with residence permits 4 5.6 5 6.9 2 2.8 17 23.6 44 61.1 Help with accommodation, etc. 8 11.1 9 12.5 6 8.3 6 8.3 43 59.7 Help with travel 3 4.2 5 6.9 4 5.6 17 23.6 43 59.7 Preparatory academic courses 3 4.2 2 2.8 7 9.7 17 23.6 43 59.7 How would you rate the quality of the following student facilities at the third-country institution you are studying at (or most recently studied at) as part of Erasmus Excellent Quite good Not very good Low No response Mundus? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Accommodation 8 11.1 6 8.3 5 6.9 5 6.9 48 66.7 Cultural facilities 6 8.3 3 4.2 10 13.9 5 6.9 48 66.7 Sports facilities 4 5.6 7 9.7 10 13.9 3 4.2 48 66.7 Placements 3 4.2 8 11.1 9 12.5 3 4.2 49 68.1 Careers 1 1.4 13 18.1 6 8.3 4 5.6 48 66.7 20
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - Have these features been of comparable quality across all the institutions you have visited throughout your Erasmus Mundus Masters programme? No. % Yes 12 16.7 No 12 16.7 No response 48 66.7 Total 72 100.0 For the third-country university you are studying at (or most recently studied at, how would you Excellent Quite good Not too good Low No response rate the quality of the following? No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Course content 9 12.5 7 9.7 4 5.6 2 2.8 50 69.4 Teaching 12 16.7 6 8.3 4 5.6 2 2.8 48 66.7 Study environment 12 16.7 9 12.5 3 4.2 0 0.0 48 66.7 Research services and facilities 10 13.9 10 13.9 2 2.8 2 2.8 48 66.7 Was the scholarship funding provided for your study period in an institution outside Europe sufficient to enable you to participate fully in the course and to live in the host country without undue hardship? Wholly sufficient 5 6.9 Quite sufficient 8 11.1 Not very sufficient 2 2.8 Not at all sufficient 11 15.3 No response 46 63.9 Total 72 100.0 Would you have studied at an institution outside Europe without Erasmus Mundus scholarship funding? No. % Yes 6 8.3 No 23 31.9 No response 43 59.7 Total 72 100.0 If you were choosing a masters course again, would you still choose to follow this Erasmus Mundus course? No. % Yes 63 87.5 No 0 0.0 No response 9 12.5 Total 72 100.0 21
2.6 Action 3 - scholars from EU countries Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - European scholars that have been accepted on the EM programme were also surveyed. Scholars supported through Action 3 have the opportunity to spend up to 3 months teaching and undertaking research in an academic institution in a third country outside the EU. The results are set out below in full: In which academic year did you receive a scholarship to go to a third-country institution in the context of the Erasmus Mundus programme (please tick all that apply)? Year No. % 2004/05 4 22.2 2005/06 12 66.7 2006/07 9 50.0 What were the main factors that influenced your decision to work at an institution outside Europe as part of the Erasmus Mundus Important Quite important Not very important Unimportant programme? No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhancement of future career prospects 3 16.7 7 38.9 3 16.7 4 22.2 Quality of higher education in your chosen country 5 27.8 8 44.4 2 11.1 2 11.1 Reputation of the academic department you have joined 7 38.9 6 33.3 3 16.7 1 5.6 Availability of grant 5 27.8 5 27.8 6 33.3 1 5.6 Cost 0 0.0 5 27.8 5 27.8 7 38.9 Improvement of language skills 2 11.1 3 16.7 6 33.3 6 33.3 The challenge of living and working in another country 8 44.4 2 11.1 4 22.2 3 16.7 Opportunity to come into contact with another culture 6 33.3 7 38.9 2 11.1 2 11.1 Opportunity to work at a prestigious university abroad 6 33.3 5 27.8 4 22.2 1 5.6 Development of personal skills 7 38.9 8 44.4 0 0.0 2 11.1 Once you had been accepted for mobility towards the third-country institution, Easy Fairly easy Minor barrier Major barrier were there any barriers? No. % No. % No. % No. % Obtaining a visa for a period of work in your chosen country 12 66.7 2 11.1 0 0.0 2 11.1 Accreditation of your existing qualification 13 72.2 1 5.6 0 0.0 2 11.1 Translation of qualifications 13 72.2 1 5.6 0 0.0 2 11.1 Linguistic barriers 9 50.0 3 16.7 2 11.1 2 11.1 Cultural barriers 10 55.6 5 27.8 1 5.6 1 5.6 22
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - What sort of preparation did you receive, if any, prior to going to your chosen Substantial Quite good Not a lot None university? No. % No. % No. % No. % Languages 1 5.6 0 0.0 3 16.7 13 72.2 Cultural 0 0.0 3 16.7 5 27.8 9 50.0 Help with visas 1 5.6 1 5.6 2 11.1 11 61.1 Help with accommodation, etc. 8 44.4 4 22.2 3 16.7 2 11.1 Help with residence permit 2 11.1 2 11.1 2 11.1 9 50.0 Help with travel 2 11.1 5 27.8 2 11.1 8 44.4 How would you rate the quality of the following facilities at the third-country university you worked at as part of Excellent Quite good Not very good Low Erasmus Mundus? No. % No. % No. % No. % Teaching 9 50.0 6 33.3 1 5.6 1 5.6 Research 8 44.4 6 33.3 1 5.6 1 5.6 Accommodation 8 44.4 7 38.9 1 5.6 1 5.6 Cultural 9 50.0 5 27.8 1 5.6 1 5.6 Looking back on your participation in Erasmus Mundus, what in your view were the main benefits of participating in the mobility period at the third-country Substantial Quite good Not a lot Not at all institution? No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhancement of future career prospects 4 22.2 9 50.0 1 5.6 3 16.7 Quality of higher education in your chosen country 5 27.8 10 55.6 0 0.0 2 11.1 Reputation of the academic department you have joined 4 22.2 10 55.6 1 5.6 1 5.6 Improvement of language skills 4 22.2 4 22.2 5 27.8 3 16.7 The challenge of living and working in another country 8 44.4 6 33.3 2 11.1 1 5.6 Opportunity to come into contact with another culture 8 44.4 5 27.8 2 11.1 1 5.6 Understanding of other cultures 9 50.0 4 22.2 2 11.1 1 5.6 Opportunity to work at a prestigious university abroad 8 44.4 6 33.3 2 11.1 1 5.6 Development of personal skills 9 50.0 7 38.9 0 0.0 1 5.6 Is the experience and any qualification that you obtained from participating in the mobility offered by Erasmus Mundus fully recognised in your country of origin? No. % Yes 11 61.1 No 1 5.6 Don t know 6 33.3 Total 18 100.0 23
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - Was the scholarship funding provided sufficient to enable you to participate fully in the work and to live in the host country without undue hardship? Wholly sufficient 10 55.6 Somewhat sufficient 5 27.8 Not very sufficient 1 5.6 Not sufficient 1 5.6 Total 17 94.4 Would you have participated without scholarship funding? No. % Yes 4 22.2 No 13 72.2 Total 17 94.4 If you were planning to go to a foreign university again, would you still choose to follow this Erasmus Mundus course? Yes 17 94.4 No 0 0.0 Total 17 94.4 2.7 Action 3 - Partnerships (HEIs from EU countries) European HEIs participating in Action 3 Partnerships were asked a number of supplementary questions to the Action 1 EM Masters Course questionnaire regarding their experiences of participating in an international partnership with other academic institutions in third countries. The results are presented below: In your opinion, how relevant is Erasmus Mundus Action 3 to the needs of higher education institutions? Relevant 21 56.8 Somewhat relevant 13 35.1 Not very relevant 2 5.4 Irrelevant 1 2.7 Total 37 100.0 In your opinion, does the EM Action 3 add value to higher education institutions? Relevant 24 64.9 Somewhat relevant 9 24.3 Not very relevant 3 8.1 Irrelevant 1 2.7 Total 37 100.0 24
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - What were the main factors that influenced your decision to apply to Important Quite important Not very important Unimportant participate in Action 3? No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhance course quality through joint working with other universities Increase the attractiveness of your own institution to students through the development of an international higher education partnership Increase the attractiveness of your own institution to students by offering opportunities to complete part of the course in a higher education institution outside Europe Increase staff development opportunities through transnational co-operation Enhance the international profile of your institution Attract more international students to your institution Attract more European students to your course 20 54.1 12 32.4 2 5.4 1 2.7 23 62.2 9 24.3 3 8.1 0 0.0 25 67.6 8 21.6 2 5.4 1 2.7 15 40.5 15 40.5 6 16.2 0 0.0 23 62.2 8 21.6 3 8.1 2 5.4 17 45.9 13 35.1 6 16.2 0 0.0 17 45.9 11 29.7 6 16.2 2 5.4 How far has participation in Action 3 helped contribute to improvements in the quality of this Masters course? Important 7 20.6 Quite important 19 55.9 Not very important 8 23.5 Unimportant 0 0.0 Total 34 100.0 With regard to programme management, how efficiently and effectively has the programme been managed? Well managed 17 47.2 Quite well managed 12 33.3 Not very well managed 2 5.6 Not well managed at all 1 2.8 Don t know 4 11.1 Total 36 100.0 25
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - With regard to impacts, how far has Important Quite important Not very important Unimportant participation in Action 3: No. % No. % No. % No. % Strengthened the international dimension of activities in your higher education 16 43.2 14 37.8 2 5.4 2 5.4 institution? Promoted academic excellence in your institution? 14 37.8 11 29.7 5 13.5 4 10.8 Improved the quality of Masters courses within participating institutions? 13 35.1 12 32.4 6 16.2 3 8.1 Better prepared students for the challenges of competing in a global economy and an ever more internationalised work 23 62.2 7 18.9 1 2.7 3 8.1 environment? Developed intercultural understanding 23 62.2 9 24.3 0 0.0 2 5.4 Attracted more European students to your course 14 37.8 8 21.6 6 16.2 6 16.2 How adequate do you feel the financial provision for the development of joint courses under Action 3 has been? Please rate the adequacy of financial provision Excellent 6 17.6 Quite good 14 41.2 Not very satisfactory 7 20.6 Unsatisfactory 7 20.6 Total 34 100.0 Do you think your Action 3 Erasmus Mundus masters course will be financially sustainable once the Erasmus Mundus funding has ended? Totally sustainable 2 5.7 Somewhat sustainable 8 22.9 Not very sustainable 14 40.0 Not at all sustainable 11 31.4 Total 35 100.0 How well has the EM consortium functioned? No. % Excellent 23 65.7 Quite good 10 28.6 Not very satisfactory 2 5.7 Unsatisfactory 0 0.0 Total 35 100.0 26
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - What problems, if any, did you encounter during the process of implementation of an EM Action 3 course? Quite Very easy Quite easy difficult Very difficult Problems No. % No. % No. % No. % Finding partner institutions in third countries offering compatible courses Finding partner institutions in third countries interested in Action 3 Negotiating an agreement with the partner institutions in the third countries 13 35.1 15 40.5 6 16.2 0 0.0 15 40.5 11 29.7 7 18.9 1 2.7 11 29.7 14 37.8 7 18.9 1 2.7 Administrative obstacles such as timing of semesters, credit definition, organisation of 6 16.2 12 32.4 12 32.4 4 10.8 outgoing mobility for European students Finding European students interested in mobility to a third country 9 24.3 9 24.3 10 27.0 5 13.5 Services for outgoing European students 4 10.8 17 45.9 6 16.2 4 10.8 Tuition fees 8 21.6 14 37.8 6 16.2 4 10.8 Linguistic issues 16 43.2 8 21.6 9 24.3 1 2.7 Issues relating to mutual recognition of qualifications 11 29.7 16 43.2 4 10.8 2 5.4 Has your consortium been able to reach the target numbers for students on mobility? Yes 14 37.8 No 17 45.9 No response 6 16.2 Total 37 100.0 Do you think Erasmus Mundus Action 3 overlaps with actions under other Community programmes in the field of higher education? Yes 0 0.0 No 20 54.1 No response 17 45.9 Total 37 100.0 Please let us know why you have not used Erasmus Mundus Action 3 (addressed to European HEIs involved in Action 1 but which have not yet participated in Action 3) No. % Not considered it 5 9.3 Decided not to 8 14.8 Plan to do so in future 21 38.9 Tried to do so but was not able to put a course together 2 3.7 Tried to do so, but the proposal was rejected 2 3.7 No response 16 29.6 Total 54 100.0 27
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - 2.8 Action 3 - Partnerships (HEIs from third countries) Higher education institutions from third countries that participated in EM were also asked in a separate survey for their views on Action 3 Partnerships, in particular how they became aware of the programme, how effective they view the Action as being and ways in which it might be improved in future. The results are set out below: In which academic year did you first participate in an Action 3 Partnership? Academic Year No. % 2004/05 0 0.0 2005/06 7 63.6 2006/07 3 27.3 Total 10 90.9 How did you first become aware of the Erasmus Mundus programme? No. % Website 1 9.1 At a conference or exhibition 2 18.2 Recommendation from an academic institution 6 54.5 National contact point 1 9.1 Personal recommendation 6 54.5 Other advertisement 0 0.0 In the process of preparing for participation in Erasmus Mundus Action 3, how easy or difficult did you find each of the following elements: Very easy Quite easy Quite difficult Very difficult No. % No. % No. % No. % Completing the application form? 4 36.4 2 18.2 3 27.3 1 9.1 Developing appropriate course content compatible with that delivered through the Erasmus Mundus course by European higher education institutions? Identifying academic staff with appropriate skills (foreign language skills, other skills) to deliver course content? 3 27.3 5 45.5 2 18.2 0 0.0 3 27.3 3 27.3 3 27.3 1 9.1 Accreditation of study period in third country by partners and/or competent 4 36.4 4 36.4 1 9.1 1 9.1 authorities in the European Union? Setting a tuition fee for European students? 2 18.2 4 36.4 2 18.2 1 9.1 Setting criteria for the selection of students? 4 36.4 1 9.1 3 27.3 0 0.0 28
Interim Evaluation of Erasmus Mundus - In your opinion, how relevant is Erasmus Mundus Action 3 to the needs of higher education institutions? Relevance No. % Highly relevant 8 72.7 Quite relevant 3 27.3 Somewhat relevant 0 0.0 Not relevant at all 0 0.0 Total 11 100.0 Did co-operation with higher education institutions in EU countries already exist at the time of the Action 3 EM application? Yes 6 54.5 No 4 36.4 Total 10 90.9 In your opinion, does Erasmus Mundus Action 3 add value to higher education institutions? A lot 8 72.7 Quite a lot 2 18.2 A little 1 9.1 No value at all 0 0.0 Total 11 100.0 What were the main factors that influenced your decision to apply to Important Quite important Small importance Not important participate in Action 3? No. % No. % No. % No. % Enhance course quality through joint working with other universities 6 54.5 3 27.3 1 9.1 0 0.0 Increase the attractiveness of your own institution to students through the development of an international higher education partnership Increase the attractiveness of your own institution to students by offering opportunities to complete part of the course in a higher education institutions in Europe Increase staff development opportunities through transnational co-operation Enhance the international profile of your institution Attract more European students to your course 7 63.6 3 27.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 63.6 2 18.2 1 9.1 0 0.0 5 45.5 2 18.2 2 18.2 1 9.1 7 63.6 2 18.2 1 9.1 0 0.0 7 63.6 1 9.1 2 18.2 0 0.0 29