ERASMUS Monographs No. 13 Ulrich Teichler EXPERIENCES OF ERASMUS STUDENTS Select Findings of the 1988/89 Survey WERKSTATTI3ERICHTE - Band 32 Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel Kassel 1991 ERASMUS Monographs No. 13 This report is based on "Learning in Europe: the ERASMUS Experience" by Friedhelm Maiworm, Wolfgang Steube and Ulrich Teichler (London: Jessica ICingsley, 1991). The study was commissioned by the ERASMUS Bureau, Brussels, on behalf of the Task Force: Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth of the Commission of the European Communities. The present report has been prepared in the context of the monitoring and evaluation of the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS). It is designed primarily for use within the services of the Commission of the European Communities, and although the report is being placed at the disposal of the general public, it is emphasized that the views which it contains are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Commission or of the ERASMUS Bureau, which assists the Commission in the management of ERASMUS. Copyright O 1991 ERASMUS Bureau rue d'Arlon 15 B-1040 BruxeUes WERKSTAl'TBERICHTE Herausgeber: Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel - Universitäit, Henschelstraße 4, D-3500 Kassel Redaktion: Christiane Rittgerott Druck: Druckwerkstatt Bräuning, Espenau ISBN: 3-88122656-7 Gesamthochschulbibliothek Contents 1. Aims and Methods of the Survey 2. The Participating Students 3. Academic and Administrative Support 4. Study and Experiences in the Host Country 5. Accommodation in the Host Country 6. Costs and Fiancing of the Study Period Abroad 7. Recognition and Academic Impacts 8. Improvement of Foreign Language Proficiency and Cultural Impacts 9. Comprehensive Assessment by the Participating Students 10. Determinants of Academic Progress Abroad and Recognition 11. Concluding Observations Aims and Methods of the Survey In 1989, the Commission decided to support a project aiming to analyze the experiences of a large number of ERASMUS students. A survey was conduc- ted to provide useful information for future students opting for a study period in another EC country, a feedback for universities and their departments participating in the activities aiming to support student mobility; it also provided a basis for evaluation and reconsideration of the scheme on the part of the Commission of the European Communities and various persons and agencies involved in the decision-making and adminifitration of the scheme on institutionai, national and supra-national levels. The study is based on replies from about 3,212 ERASMUS grant students in 1988/89 to the written questiomaire "Survey: Experiences of ERASMUS Students 1988/89". The high response rate of 66.8 percent indicates that the questiomaire was well received by most ERASMUS students and that they were willing to provide feedback of their experience which might be useful to further generations of students, persons in charge of exchange Programmes and to those politically and administratively responsible for the ERASMUS scheme in general. Altogether, about 11,000 students went to another country of the European Community with the support by the ERASMUS programme in 1988189. Upon request by the ERASMUS Bureau, programme coordiators provided addresses of about 5,000 students. In comparing the 3,212 students actuaily responding to the questionnaire to the 9,945 students for whom basic statistical information was made available via the administrative reporting procedurel See U. Teichler, R Kreitz and F. Maiworm. Sauienf Mobiiily wiIhin ERASMUS 1%98/89. Kassel: Winschaftliches Zentrum für Be& und Hochschulforschung 1991; ERASMUS Monogrephs, No. 12. 8 about the utilisation procedure of the grants, we note - an over-representation of students from Belgian and German universities among the respondents and an under-representation of Portuguese, Greek, Irish, Italian, Dutch and Danish students (students from Luxembourg were not represented at all); - an over-representation of business and engineering students and an under- representation of social sciences among the major fields represented in the ERASMUS programme, though these f m d i may largely be due to the allocation of students in ecsnomics to either business or social sciences; - an over-representation of students spendig more than six months abroad. On the other hand, the students surveyed hardly differed in their composi- tion by host country, sex, age and timing of the study period abroad from al l the students for whom basic data were available. The over-representation and under-representation according to standard statistical criteria, however, does not seem to lead to any substantial bias of the major fidings. We calculated that the degree of recognition accordiig to the three criteria presented in Chapter 7 would most likely to be at most about two percent lower, if the sample was representative. The study was conducted from November 1989 to March 1990, i.e. a few months after the begiming of the subsequent academic year. At that time, all students had not only completed the study period in the host country, but also had experienced life and study at the home university again and thus could Mew it from the perspectives developed abroad and the extent to which they had acquired formal recognition of their study achievements abroad. Students were asked to provide information regarding their biography and educational careers; the patterns of the ERASMUS supported period; prepa- ration for the study abroad period; advice and Support provided by the host universiw, living in the host country; studying at the host university; accom- modation; finanaal resources and expenses; foreign language proficiency before and after the study period abroad; knowledge of and opinion about the host country culture and society; academic achievements and recognition of study abroad; summarizing assessment of the life and study period in the host country. In this study, terms were used in the way they are defined on the Cover Page of the questiomaire, notably: - University: all higher education institutions, regardless of their designation in the individual Member States, recognized as eligible for ERASMUS by the competent public authorities. - Study abroad period: 'the total study abroad period supported by the ERASMUS Programme. It includes any holiday periods which fall within the study of placement periods. - Home country: the country of the university the students were enroiied in immediately before the study abroad period began. - Host country: the country of the university where the students spent the ERASMUS-supported period abroad. The concepts as well as the methodology of the study were largely based on the experiences acquired in the framework of a large-scale evaiuation project conducted during the 1980s on various types of study abroad Programmes and various support schemes, inciuding the Joint Study Programmes, i.e. the sup port scheme by the Commission of the European Communities preceding the ERASMUS scheme2. The study was conducted at the Centre for Research on Higher Education and Work of the Comprehensive University of Kassel (Federai Republic of Germany) and a complete report has now been published. Friedhelm Maiworm, Wolfgang Steube and Ulrich Teichler conducted the study and wrote this report3. The research team was headed by Ulrich Teichler, who participated in the above mentioned research project. The word processing was undertaken by Kristin Gagelmann. The study was eased by substantial support from the ERASMUS Bureau, notably from Alan Smith, Inge Knudsen, Irene Magill, and Lesley Wilson. Last but not least, the 3,212 students who each spent more than one hour in completing the questionnaire were the key persons in ensuring a Set of comprehensive and interesting findings on the experiences of the ERASMUS students. L Cf. the two recently publihed volumes: B.B. Bum, L. Cerych and A. Smith, eds. Sciuty Abroad Progr-. London: Jessica Kingsley, 1990; S. Opper, U. Teichler and J. Carlsoa. The Impact of Study Abroad Programmes on Students und Gradtuues. Lmdcm: Jessica Kingsley, 1990. Friedhelm Maiwonn, Woifgang Steube aad Ulrich Teichler. Learning in Eun>pe: The ERASMUS Eqerience. London: Jessica KiagtAcy, 1991. The Participating Students 2.1 Nationality and Field of Study For convenience sake, we talk of "British", "French", "Spanish" students etc. in the subsequent text, if we refer to the country of the home university; we do so because aii major issues of this study refer to contacts or cooperation between Partner universities from the respective countries. One should bear in mind, though, that 3 percent of the ERASMUS students were foreigners, i.e. not utizens of the country of the home university. The quota was 7 percent at uaiversities in the United Kingdom, five percent in Ireland, four percent in France, three in the Federal Republic of Germany, 2 percent in Belgium, and one percent or less in the remaining six countries. The largest proportion of ERASMUS students were enroiled in business studies (33 percent) during the period abroad, followed by foreign language studies (18 percent), law (11 percent) and engineering (10 percent). Alte gether 28 percent, 1 to 4 percent each, were represented in the remaining fields of study or groups of fields presented in Table 1. Seven percent of the ERASMUS students returned afterwards to another field of study in their home universities than the one they were enrolled in prior to the study abroad period. 2 3 Age and Previous Study About 57 percent of the students were 21-23 years old in 1989, i.e. at the end of their study period abroad. Altogether, only 13 percent were older than 25 years and the average age reported was 23.4 years. Most French (223 years on average) and British students (22.4 years) were relatively young, whereas Danish (25.4 years), German, Greek (24.4 years each) and Dutch (24.2 years) were eldest on average. The differences in the age at the time of the study abroad period reflect to some extent - in addition to age at the time of first enrolment - the timing of the study abroad period in the course of study. As Table 2 shows, 32 percent spent their study period abroad during the third year of study 6 t h the fourth and fifth year of study the most frequent options (18 percent and 16 percent). About 12 percent went abroad during their second year of study, and 11 percent during the first year - almost half of the latter at the beginning of their studies. Altogether, 10 percent had already completed five or more years of study before going abroad on an ERASMUS grant. The timing of the study abroad period was infiuenced by the subject of study. Students in business studies went abroad at the earliest stage in their course of study: more than a third during the third year or earlier. On the other hand, study periods at relatively late Stages were most often reported by students in agriculture, architecture, fine arts, geography and geology, law and medical sciences. The early stage of study abroad in the case of business studies, however, does not merely reflect characteristics of the discipliie, i.e. a belief that an experience abroad can be worthwhile at a relatively early stage of knowledge acquisition, but also organizational Patterns. The quota of students going abroad in the framework of highiy organized and mandatory arrangements is highest in business studies. Table 2 '$ Study Period in Major Field of Study Completed Prior to Study Period Abroad, by Country of Home University (percentage) Country of home university Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Beginner 1 year 1 - 1.9 years 2 - 2.9 years 3 - 3.9 years 4 - 4.9 years 5 - 5.9 years 6 - 6.9 years 7 and more years Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Question 2.112.2: How long was the period of study you had cornpleted in your major field of study prior to your ERASMUS supported period abroad (in years and months abroad)? 2 3 Duration of Stay and Activities Abroad On average, students surveyed spent 7.1 months abroad in the framework of the ERASMUS grant scheme. As Table 3 shows, 91 percent spent between 3 and 12 months abroad, i.e. a period considered to be the rule in 1988/89 while 3 percent spent less than 2 months. On the other hand, six percent reported a stay abroad supported by ERASMUS for more than one year. In some of those cases, students reported a longer period, although the support as such was not linked to more than 12 months, in other cases, students from those programmes named a longer period in which more than one period of study abroad is required and renewed application is made for support of the Same students. On average, Dutch (4.3 months) and B e l p students (4.4 months) spent the shortest periods abroad. Durations longer than the mean were reported by French (8.5 months), Portuguese (8.1 months), British (7.9 months) and German students (7.6 months), though in most w e s a high proportion of - relatively long (9.2 months) - study periods abroad in business studies accounts for the difference. Durations longer than the mean were also reported by students of engineering (7.5 months) and natural sciences (7.1 months). On the other hand, stays abroad of at most three months dominated in agriculture, architecture, fine arts, and communication sciences. Around 65 percent of the ERASMUS students were solely engaged in fuli- time study during the period abroad and a further 11 percent in part-time study. Work placements were taken up by 22 percent of students - 18 percent in addition to study and four percent solely in that activity. 2 percent mentioned other study-related activities, such as work on theses. Work place- ments were most common among students in medical fields (48 percent), business studies, natural sciences (34 percent each) as well as engineering and agriculture (27 percent each). The work placement periods lasted 4.5 months on average. Table 3 Duration of Period Abroad Supported by ERASMUS, by Country of Horne University (percentage) Count~y of home university Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK 1-2 months 1 3 0 4 1 0 2 5 1 1 0 4 3 3 months 4-6 months 7-12 months 8 36 21 35 45 44 18 21 7 80 41 34 More than 12 months ~ 0 7 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 6 Total (n) Question 2.4: Please state the duration of the ERASMUS supported period abmad (including work placement and holiday periods). Academic and Administrative Support 3.1 Ways and Areas of Preparation In the framework of the Inter-University Cooperation Programmes under the ERASMUS scheme, most home universities offer preparatory courses, ar- range preparatory meetings and possibly provide written material for the students' preparation. The survey shows that - 67 percent of the students prepared themselves through self-study; - 58 percent made use of written material provided; - 51 percent attended mandatory courses of preparation; - 44 percent took part in preparatory meetings; and - 33 percent attended optional preparatory courses. Only five percent stated that they went abroad without any specific preparation for the study period in the host country. The longer the study period in the host country was going to be, the more likely students were to attend pre- paratory courses. Participation in preparatory courses was an exception in the case of Por- tuguese students (13 percent). Less than two thirds of Belgian, Irish and Dutch students attended such courses as compared to more than three quarters of the remaining countries. More than two thirds of participants in preparatory courses reported that at least some of the courses were part of the regular course Programme. This was most often reported by French (83 percent) and British students (79 percent). Only 15 percent of Greek students had preparatory courses which were recog- nised as part of their regular course programme. Students were asked to state the extent to which they had taken preparatory action in 4 areas. The proportion of those preparing themselves was: - 78 percent regarding the foreign language; - 67 percent regarding practical matters of living in the host country and studying at the host university; - 67 percent as regards culture and souety of the host country; and - 61 percent regarding academic preparation. Participation in academic preparation did not differ much accordig to field of study - most often there was no preparatory foreign language learning reported by students going to the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, and Ireland. These were also the host countries for which the home universi- ties least often prescribed participation in mandatory foreign language courses, as Table 4 shows. Obviously, it is not a widespread knowledge of the host country languages which accounts for this pattern. Rather, in most of these host countries, for which foreign language preparation is least common, some universities have opted to offer at least part of the courses for ERASMUS students in other languages than the host country language. Mandatory foreign language courses were most often provided for British (63 percent), for French (51 percent) and for German students (36 percent). One should bear in mind that a large proportion of these students participated in Course Programmes with relatively long, mandatory study abroad compo- nents which were also more likely to incorporate elements of mandatory preparation. ERASMUS students rated the foreign language provisions at their home university more positively than other preparatory provisions. The findings, fust, suggest that the ratings were better when the preparatory provisions were more highly organized. Second, the mean scores are so close to the centre of the scale, that irnprovement of preparatory provisions is needed at many universities accordig to the students' views. Table 4 Ways of Linguistic Preparation, by Host Country (percentage) Host country Total +J B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK i? Written material 16 23 10 20 20 22 26 8 11 22 15 18 t a. (5 Meetings 6 8 7 8 7 5 6 3 3 5 4 6 L E Courses: mandatory 22 44 7 45 47 27 45 24 19 37 43 41 3 P' 21 26 10 32 28 30 20 27 13 32 24 25 t;. Courses: optional 2 Seif-study 34 48 40 47 44 42 52 43 35 41 41 44 $ oi Not ticked 40 20 43 16 17 35 14 35 50 10 21 22 d 3 Total 139 168 117 168 163 163 163 139 130 146 148 156 Question 3.1: How did you prepare yourself pnor to your stay abroad for the study period abroad? Which Courses did you attend? 3.2 Assistance and Advice Provided by the Host University Altogether, very few ERASMUS students reported that they were hardly provided any assistance and advice by the host university at all: - only 2 percent were not provided assistance and advice by the host univer- sity in any of the practical matters addressed in the questionnaire; - 8 percent did not have guidance and advice regarding any aspects of the host country culture and sociely - 11 percent had no assistance and advice in academic matters abroad. However, support and advice regarding language training and personal matters were less often provided with 31 percent and 46 percent respectively stating that they had no assistance and guidance in these respects. Assistance and guidance regarding accommodation and cultural, sports and recreational activities was generally widespread, though 18 percent and 21 percent respec- tively did not experience any assistance. Assistance, guidance and support varied substantially by host country. If we calculate the average percentages of ERASMUS students not receiving assis- tance and guidance regarding the 13 aspects, we note that students who went to Denmark (20 percent), the United Kingdom, and Ireland (23 percent) were least often left without support. Students going to Greece (27 percent), Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany (29 percent), and the Netherlands (30 percent) were frequently without assistance and advice while students going to France (35 percent) and Spain (36 percent) reported more often that they did not experience assistance and advice. Finally, no advice on many aspects was most common in Italy (40 percent) and Portugal (44 percent). Assistance by the host university was somewhat more positively assessed than preparatory provisions by the home university. Thereby, the degree of satisfaction with the assistance and advice provided by the host university highly correlates with the arnount of the assistance and advice provided (correlation coeficients of .6 to .8). This indicates that a high degree of assis- tance and advice by the host university is highly appreciated as a rule. Assis- tance provided by Danish and Irish universities was most highly appreciated (2.3 each on average), whereas the extent of assistance provided by Portuguese and Italian universities (3.1 each) as well as by Spanish and French universities (3.0) was most often criticised. The ratings regardiig the individual aspects are documented in Table 5. Students staying longer than a few months abroad expect better means of assistance in getting to know the host country than actually offered. Female students were less satisfied with almost all aspects of assistance by the host university. Table 5 Degree of Satisfaction with Assistance/Guidance/Advice Provided by the Host University, by Host County (mean*) Host country Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Registration etc. at host univ. 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.8 2.8 2 3 3.1 2.1 2.4 3.0 2.1 2.5 +J Living accommodation 2.5 2.2 2.2 3.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.2 2.2 2.6 Matters regarding students Fmancial support 3.1 3.1 2.8 3.7 3.5 3.0 3.5 2.8 3.1 3.6 3.1 3 3 i9 Other practical matters (insurance etc.) 3.1 2.9 2.5 3.4 3.4 2.8 3.4 2.5 2.8 3.7 2.6 3.0 k Academic matters 2.2 2.5 2.0 2.6 2.9 2 3 2.9 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.0 2.5 i% 1. Work placement matters 2.8 2.8 2 3 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.4 2.4 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.9 E Orientation on the host d country univ. 2.5 2.7 2.0 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.5 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.5 2.8 ih. Language training 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.2 3.1 2.1 3.2 3.1 2.6 2.7 Thehostcountryingeneral 2.5 2.6 1.9 2.8 3.0 2.4 2.9 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 3 The locai comrnunity 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.7 3.2 2.7 3.0 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 Personal matters 2.6 2.8 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.6 3.2 2.4 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.8 Sociai contacts with host country nationals 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.6 3.0 2.7 3.0 2 3 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.8 Cultural, Sports, recreationai activities Question 4.2: To what extent were you provided with assistance/ yidance/advice by p u r host university? And to what extent were you satisfied with the assistance/guidance/advice provided? On a scale from 1 = "very high" to 5 = "very low" 8 Obviously, improvement in assistance on part of the host universities was sug- gested in many cases. Most ERASMUS students appreciate a broad range of assistance and advice, including help to get to know the host country and its culture and regarding personal matters. Study and Experiences in the Host Country 4.1 Cultural and Social Activities in the Host Country Studies at the host universities are embedded in activities of experiencing the cdture and society of the host country in various ways. Learning about and experiencing the host country culture and society is essential in order to cope with life and study in the host country as well as to serve one's own social and cdtural needs during the study period in the host country, and is in itself a valuable area of learning which enriches the knowledge and competences in the 10% run. Asked about various experiences and activities of getting to kaow the host country, ERASMUS students mentioned a receptive strategy most often. Three quarters often listened to or read news about the host country. Altoge- ther, activities strongly vary according to the duration of the study period in the host country, as Table 6 shows. Contacts in the academic context seem to change in opposite diiections in the Course of the stay abroad. The shorter the duration of the study period abroad, the higher the proportion of ERASMUS students reporting frequent contacts with teaching staff of the host country. On the other hand, frequent discussions and conversations with students of the host country are more often reported, the longer the period abroad was. Obviously, the teaching staff at the host university gets in touch with the incoming students regardiig various aca- demic, administrative, social and personal matters, but only some of those con- tacts are sustained over the months, whereas feilow students at the host university become a more important reference group over the months. Table 6 Experiences and Activities Abroad, by Duration of Study Period Abroad (percentage*) Duration of shidy abroad Total More 1-2 3 4-6 7-12 than 12 months months months months months Contact with teaching staff of host country 70 62 61 60 55 61 Discussions/conversations with students of host country 59 63 63 74 84 68 Discussions/conversations with other people of host country 39 57 58 56 69 57 Listening to/readmg news about host wuntry 41 63 77 80 85 74 Travelling in host country 57 54 52 54 58 54 Visiting museums, attending concerts, theatre, cinema etc. 59 63 61 67 66 64 Joint leisure aaMties with host country nationals 48 57 57 61 70 59 Question 4.1: Please state the frequency of the following experiences and activities during your study period abroad. * Percentage 1 +2 on a scale from 1 = "very often" to 5 = "not at all" Activities like visiting museums, attending concerts etc. vary, as could be ex- pected, according to field of study. Students in art and design (84 percent), ed- ucation (77 percent) and humanities (72 percent) reported that they undertook those cultural activities often, as opposed to students of geology and geography (32 percent), mathematics and information science (47 percent), and agri- culture (48 percent). Frequent travel in the host country was reported by about two thiids of geology and geography students as well as by students in art and design, compared to about half of all ERASMUS students. 4. Satdy and Expenenences in the Host Counay 27 4.2 Study at the Host University ERASMUS students participated in an average of 17.2 hours of courses (including laboratory work etc.) at the host universities. The weekly course load abroad was on average 3.4 hours (17 percent) less than that taken at the home university (20.6 hours). Also the information provided about the degree of recognition of study achievements abroad upon return suggests, that ERASMUS students successfully completed about five sixths of the courses they would typicdy complete at their home university. Students reported 39 weekly hours spent altogether on studies during regu- lar working weeks at the host university, including practical projects, foreign language learning, independent study, work on theses, field trips, etc. Of this, 9 hours were devoted to independent study, about fow hours each for practical projects and work on theses and only 2.5 hours per week on average for lan- guage training. The average number of weekly hours spent on study was highest in fields of study which require substantiai laboratory work. Besides, the host country's educational Systems have an impact on the distribution of study time abroad, as Table 7 shows. Most students used the opportunity of studying at an university of another EC country to participate in courses complementing those offered at the home university. As Table 8 shows, more than two thirds of the ERASMUS students took courses involving content not available at the home university. About one half experienced new teaching methods, and a third utilized laboratories or other facilities not available or of a lesser quaiity at the home university. In addition, about half of the students took courses to broaden their academic and cultural horizon which were not required and not diiectly linked to their area of specialization. Around 45 percent took courses in the host country language and 26 percent courses in other languages. About a fifth of the students reported that they developed a new area of specialization, and a tenth changed their earlier chosen specialization. Altogether, these fmdings are similar to those reported about students participating in Joint Study Pro- grammes in the mid-eighties. Table 7 so Weekly Hours Spent on Study, by Host Country (mean) Host country Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Courses and courserelated ac t~ t i e s 15.9 14.8 14.9 17.1 18.1 13.1 16.0 15.9 13.7 12.3 17.4 16.7 Practical projects, laboratory work etc. 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.5 7.5 3 3 3.1 7.1 5.0 5.2 4.3 Independent study 6.9 8.9 12.0 8.4 8.7 7.7 9.2 8.4 8.6 7.6 8.7 8.7 Work on thesis 5.8 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.4 5.2 3.8 2.4 6.9 3.4 3.7 3.9 Field trips, study-related excursions, obsewations Other study activities 2.0 1.6 2.8 .9 .9 .4 .6 1.7 1.5 2.0 .9 1.1 Total 38.1 38.6 42.9 39.1 38.7 40.9 39.2*38.6 40.5 35.6 39.5 39.1 Question 4.3: How many hours per week did you spend on average on the following types of study? Please estimate for the academic study period only (i.e. excluding work placement and hdiday periods). * Estimate (the Italian questionnaire referred to hours per day) Table 8 Type of Academic Enhancement During Study Period Abroad, by Host Country (percentage) Host country Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Take courses inv. contentl topics not avail. at home univ. 75 69 81 63 69 54 67 79 72 52 67 68 Take courses inv. teaching meth. not practised at homeu. 36 50 52 38 52 49 41 53 50 37 67 53 Utilize labs. or other facilities (e.g. comp. data anal.) 32 33 23 15 22 36 14 25 35 4 48 31 Take courses to broaden acad. and arltural background 51 52 45 56 46 67 44 67 29 48 44 47 Develop a new area of specialization 31 17 35 14 24 21 21 14 34 22 19 21 Change an earlier chosen speciakation 3 7 1 3 7 7 5 6 5 8 1 5 1 0 8 Take language courses in the host country language 36 50 52 50 48 46 44 54 18 26 44 45 Take language courses in other language 25 41 13 24 31 18 8 23 11 0 23 26 Total 290 320 313 267 300 295 247 322 259 204 323 299 Question 45: During your study period abroad, did you ... ? (multiple reply possible) The host country language was least often (solely or partly) the language of instruction for students going to Greece (10 percent), the Netherlands (31 per- cent) and Denmark (32 percent), as Table 9 shows. Notably, English was fre- quently used as a language of instruction for incoming ERASMUS students. Among the relatively s m d host countries, the language of which is seldom taught in secondary schools in other EC countries and is not widely used inter- nationaiiy, Portugal turns out to be an exception, for almost two thirds of the ERASMUS students going to Portugal were taught in Portuguese. The longer the study period in the host country, the more likely it became that courses were in the host country language. About half or even more of the students going to Greece, Portugal, Denmark, and the Netherlands, (i.e. those relatively s m d countries in the European Community whose languages are least common internationaiiy) had visits of short duration - at most three months. On average the students report substantial differences between higher education in their home and their host universities. The differences perceived between the host and the home universities according to the 12 aspects surveyed were at least 0.9 and at most 1.6 points on the five-point-scale (1 = "strongly emphasized" to 5 = "not at all emphasized"). This fmding under- Scores the variety of higher education Systems in the European Community. Largest differences between the host and home universities were perceived as regards emphasis placed on out-of-dass communication between teachers and students (1.6), regular dass attendance (1.5), oral examinations (M), use of publications in foreign languages, and students' freedom to choose specific areas of study (1.4 each). Table 9 Language of Instruction* During Study Period Abroad, by Host Country (percentage) Host country Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Host 32 71 16 62 73 5 74 86 12 64 89 71 Home 29 1 2 6 0 7 1 0 4 2 4 1 6 1 6 Host + home 8 4 0 6 4 0 6 1 7 6 2 4 Home + &her 0 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 4 3 0 0 Host + other 10 19 16 22 11 5 12 7 5 6 6 11 Host + home + other 1 1 4 0 4 4 0 1 4 7 6 2 4 Other 10 1 3 9 6 0 75 2 0 25 11 0 4 Total (n) Question 4.6: What was the language of instruction in the cou- you took at the h a t university? if you were taught in more than one language, please state percentages. * "Home" was coded if h a t country language and country of home university language were identical. As regards home country, we note that British (28 percent on average) and Irish students (20 percent) felt more often problems on academic issues abroad than students from aU other countries (7 - 13 percent respectively). They had problems not only regarding contacts, class size, guidance, teaching and learning styles (the latter only in the case of British students), but also related to the academic level of courses at the host university. As British and Irish students did not report less academic Progress abroad in comparison to that at home, than German and Danish students did, these findings suggest that British and Irish students faced problems with the educational environments abroad putting less emphasis on contacts between teachers and students and on good teaching practice, but that this experience led only in a limited number of cases to low academic achievement. 15 percent of the ERASMUS students taught abroad predominantly or exclusively in a foreign language faced significant problems as regards taking exarninations in a foreign language. Students reported more problems in taking examinations, the longer their period of study at the host university lasted. In general, one could certainly infer that a serious immersion into the academic life at the host universiiy only occurs, if the study period abroad lasts at least three months and that study and examinations abroad are more demanding, if the study period at the host university lasts about one academic year. Many ERASMUS students disliked the many contacts with people from their own country. Few dficulties were felt regarding the lifestyles of host country nationals or the climate, food, etc. abroad. Table 10 Problems During Study Period Abroad, by Host Country (percentage*) Host country Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Taking courses in a foreign language 14 18 21 9 10 14 15 6 15 13 5 10 Taking examinations in a foreign language 9 25 17 8 18 10 21 9 15 8 11 15 Academic level of courses 1 2 1 5 8 8 9 5 1 2 5 4 3 4 8 Differences in teaching/learn- ing betw. home and host unk. Readiness of teachers to meet/help foreign students Differences in class or student project group size Administrative matters Financial matters Guidance conceming academic Programme Guidance concerning non-academic matters Finding place to concentrate on studies outside class (to be cont.) 4. Study and Experiences in the Host County 35 4.4 Integration into the Academic and Social Life of Students at the Host University As to the extent to which they felt integrated into the academic life and into the social life of students at the host university, students replied cautiously positive. On a scale from 1 = "to a great extent" to 5 = "not at all", the mean ratings were both 2.5. The ratings were the higher, the longer the period abroad lasted: they ranged from 2.8 both in the case of stays of 1-2 months to 2.0 or 2.1 in the case of students staying abroad for more than one year. ERASMUS students felt most integrated in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and Spain. French students felt the highest degree of integration in the academic life of the host universities (2.1), whereas British students felt academically least integrated (3.1). As regards social integration, a similar Pattern can be observed, though the differente is somewhat smaller (2.2 and 2.8). Accommodation in the Host Country 5.1 Main Modes of Accommodation in Home and Host Country About half of the students supported by the ERASMUS Programme were provided with university accommodation (halls of residence furnished by universities or other agencies for the accommodation of students) during the study period at the host university. As Table 11 shows, about a third of the students had an apartment or house abroad which they shared with other students (we cannot exclude that some students provided with university accommodation have ticked this category instead of the previous one). The proportion of ERASMUS students provided with university accommo- dation varies strongly according to host country, as Table 11 shows. The majority of students going to the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany (65 percent each) and France (59 percent) lived in halls of residence as weii as almost half of the students spending their study period abroad in Denmark and Italy (48 percent each). Students going to Greece and Belgium lived in apartments or houses together with other students as frequently as in university accommodation (38 percent). It must be added that more students going to Greece lived in hotels or pensions (26 percent) than students going to other countries. Students going to the Netherlands and Portugal were twice as likely to share an apartment or room with other students than to stay in university halls of residence (29 and 24 percent respectively). Finally, few students going to Spain (17 percent) and Ireland (9 percent) lived in university halls of residence during their study abroad period. Living in apartments or houses together with other students or in rooms with private families was more common or at least as frequently talcen as university accommodation. Table 11 Accommodation During Study at Host University, by Host Country (percentage) Host country Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK University accommodation 37 64 47 17 58 37 47 8 29 24 64 5 1 Apartment/house together with other students 35 20 38 60 27 40 39 50 48 49 31 34 Apartment/house with parents/relatives 2 2 3 1 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 Apartment/house with partner and/or children 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 2 1 5 1 1 Room in private home with another farniliy 9 11 6 16 9 0 2 34 10 17 8 10 Hotel/pension/boarding house 11 2 6 12 4 26 12 3 4 12 2 5 Other 3 4 3 2 3 0 3 5 9 0 1 3 Not ticked 1 2 3 2 2 2 0 4 2 0 1 2 Total (4 Question 5.1: Where did p u live most of the time during p u r studies at p u r home university and during the study period abroad? 5. Accommodation in the Host Countty 39 The longer the duration of the study period abroad, the higher the percentage of students living in university halls of residente. An exception in this respect were those students staying abroad supported by the ERASMUS scheme for more than one year; most of these students lived in apartments or houses together with other students. The majority of students (61 percent) stayed in the Same place for the whole study period abroad, 21 percent moved once, and 18 percent twice or even more often. On average, students had 1.7 homes during their study period abroad. Around 30 percent of the studenis participating in work placement abroad had to change accommodation, because the location of the work placement was far away from that of the host university. 53 Provision of Accommodation and Time Spent on Search ERASMUS students were asked what kind of assistance and advice they were given by the host university as regards accommodation and how satisfied they were with the assistance provided. 52 percent of the students rated the extent of assistance and advice as "substantiai" and 30 percent as "modest", while 18 percent reported no assistance in t h i respect. By far least assistance and advice regarding accommodation was provided to students who went to Spain (no assistance to 48 percent) and to Portugal (31 percent). When asked in more detail about the role of the host university (staff as wen as students) in fmding accommodation, - 57 percent of students reported that regular accommodation was provided; - 8 percent were provided temporary accommodation; - 15 percent had at least assistance for own search for accommodation; - 11 percent reported that they had no support regarding accommodation; and - 10 percent had their own accommodation arrangement and had therefore informed the university that they did not need any support. Students of the host university played some role in finding accommodation for the incoming ERASMUS students. They found regular accommodation in 7 percent of the cases and temporary accommodation for 2 percent of the guest students. A further 12 percent of the students reported other kinds of help by the host university students: finding accommodation in cooperation with the university staff or assisting the incoming students in their own search. ERASMUS students spent on average 10.5 hours searching for accommodation. Although 68 percent of the students stated that they did not spend any time in searching for accommodation, U) percent reported spending up to 20 hours in fmding accommodation, a further 5 percent up to 40 hours, and hally 7 percent more than 40 hours. Differentes according to host coun- try were remarkable. Whereas students going to Denmark spent one hour on average searching for accommodation, those going to Spain spent 21 hours. Only 59 percent of the students could move directly into a regular room or other kind of accommodation upon arrival. 41 percent had to spend a waiting time, lasting up to one week for 24 percent, up to one month for a further 14 percent, and more than one month for 3 percent. 53 Problems Encountered in Search for Accommodation The three problems most often encountered in the search for accommodation refer to the housing market: expensive accommodation (27 percent), scarcity of accommodation (25 percent), and poor quality of available accommodation (19 percent). Another problem recorded by 13 percent of students that most of the accommodation available was too far away from the university or too inconveniently located in general. Problems related to the foreign students' abilities of search (did not know where and how to look, had language difficulties) were mentioned less often, as Table 12 shows. Other less common problems were experienced because owners, landlords, etc. did not like students (6 percent), their nationality, reli- gion or colour (4 percent) or their Sex (1 percent). Table 12 Problems Encountered in Search for Accornrnodation Abroad, by Host Country (percentage, multiple reply possible) Host country Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Did not know where and how to look 12 10 6 25 13 23 15 15 13 17 6 Had ianguage difficulties 3 7 0 1 6 8 2 3 1 1 6 9 2 4 5 Accomrnodation was scarce 13 27 13 48 24 19 32 21 27 34 17 Quality of accommodation available was mostiy poor 19 6 13 35 15 21 12 46 15 17 22 Accomm. available too far from univ., inconv. located 6 7 13 24 12 7 15 30 9 17 13 Accomrnodationwasexpensive 7 15 19 50 25 33 34 27 27 24 26 Too busy studying etc. 1 3 0 4 3 0 5 3 5 2 2 Some owners/landlords etc. do not like students 4 6 3 1 1 8 5 6 5 3 0 4 Difficulties because of nationality/religion/ colour 4 3 0 8 6 0 4 1 2 2 1 Difficulties because of sex 1 1 0 5 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 Other 5 5 0 1 0 6 7 8 1 0 3 2 5 Not ticked 62 65 75 26 58 51 55 34 57 49 61 Total 138 156 141 262 179 188 199 198 169 190 161 Question 5.9: What problems did you face in the search for accommodation? 5.4 Quality of Accommodation Altogether, ERASMUS students in 1988/89 were not dissatisfied with their accommodation in the host country. On average, they rated 2.6 on a scale from 1 = "very good" to 5 = "very bad. They considered accommodation abroad, however, clearly worse than accommodation at home which was rated 1.8 on average. 22 percent of the ERASMUS students rated their accommodation abroad as bad (scale points 4 and 5), but only 5 percent did so on accommo- dation at home. Thereby, university accommodation was not rated more favourably (2.7) than other Kids of accommodation in the host country (2.6). Two host countries clearly stood out in quality of accommodation provided. 87 percent of ERASMUS students studying for some period in Denmark rated housing provided there as good; they considered it better than accommodation in their respective home countries. Accommodation was viewed second best in the Federal Republic of Germany, where 71 percent of the host students rated it as good; this matches more or less the quality of accommodation in the home countries of students going to Germany. A high rating for accommod- ation was given less frequently by students hosted in Portugal (63 percent), Italy (54 percent), the Netherlands (53 percent), Spain (51 percent), the United Kingdom (45 percent), Greece (42 percent), and Belgium (38 percent). Accommodation was considered most poorly and least matchiig accommod- ation in the respective home countries by students going to France (33 percent negative as compared to 35 positive ratings) and Ireland (32 percent as compared to 37 percent). The commuting time between the university and the place were students lived is undoubtedly an important element of the quality of accommodation. Only 16 percent rated their accommodation as inconveniently located for the host university, with the threshold of problematic location an average return journey lasting more than 50 minutes. On average, students spent 30 minutes daily travelling to the university and back. Many ERASMUS students reported that accommodation played an important role in establishing contacts to host country students (53 percent rated 1 and 2 on a scale from 1 = "very much to 5 = "not at all") and - to the Same extent - to students or other people from other countries (56 percent). University accommodation turned out to be helpful in establishing contacts to students, but was of less help than other accommodation in establishing contacts to other host country people. Thus, accommodation policies regarding foreign students Set the frames as well for the kind of social contacts most likely to emerge. Costs and Financing of the Study Period Abroad 6.1 Monthly Expenses Abroad and at Horne On average, the ERASMUS students responding to the questionnaire section on costs and funding (less than two thirds of all respondents) spent about 419 ECU per month during the study period abroad in 1988/89 (excluding tuition and fees as well as excluding roundtrip fare to the host country). As Table 13 shows, the monthly average expenses varied substantiaily by host country. Students going to Denmark spent 506 ECU on average, and those going to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy and Spain about 450 ECU. Students going to Greece spent about 400 ECU, those going to France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany somewhat less, and those going to Portugal only 331 ECU. The differences found by host country do not consistently match assumptions about differences of general living expenses. There are various factors which might lead to unexpectedly high expenditures, for example shortage of reasonable accommodation, relatively short study periods which might lead to higher costs per month, difficulties of students to adjust to food and lifestyle prevailing in the host country, etc. On the other hand, general subsidies to studies, food, accommodation etc. in some countries serve the host students as well and thus reduce the costs of living abroad. While studying at home ERASMUS students had spent 355 ECU monthly on average, i.e. 64 ECU (18 percent) less than abroad. Danish students spent 472 ECU, and British, German, Italian or Dutch students more than average. French, Spanish and Belgian students spent somewhat more than average, whereas Irish, Greek and Portuguese students spent less than 300 ECU. Table 13 Monthly Expenditures During the Study Period Abroad*, by Host Country (mean in ECU) t Host country Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Books and other study-related supplies 27.1 20.5 25.9 26.4 21.5 28.9 25.1 25.0 29.6 18.7 30.8 25.8 Accornrnodation 107.5 115.3 1843 154.7 124.0 132.6 148.0 152.9 132.0 97.0 171.1 143.4 Travel to university 9 3 163 16.1 14.1 16.6 11.7 16.5 15.1 17.2 223 14.5 15.4 Other travel 35.7 32.2 66.5 43.2 40.2 66.0 51.0 48.1 37.6 21.9 44.6 42.0 Food, comrnon household, clothes, hygiene etc. 178.0 157.2 180.0 175.8 164.1 151.6 173.4 183.9 135.2 1443 172.0 166.7 Other expenses 20.7 17.0 33.6 28.5 24.6 18.5 31.5 25.2 35.4 26.7 26.2 25.7 Total 3783 358.4 5063 442.6 391.0 4043 445.4 450.3 387.1 330.9 459.2 419.1 Return travel abroad 34.2 22.9 43.9 32.9 21.5 74.1 37.6 40.0 29.7 74.9 29.8 29.7 (4 (65) (214) (26) (195) (482) (23) (130) (70) (115) (27) (575) (1922) Question 2.9: Apart from tuition fees and related expenses: How much, on average, did you spend per month during term time during your study period abroad and while studying at home? Please state the amount in the currency of the country of your home university. * Excluding tuition and fees and excluding return travel 6 3 Financial Problems during the Study Period in the Host Country Students were provided with a list of 19 categories of possible problems during their stay abroad (see Table 10). On a scale from 1 = "very serious problems" to 5 = "no problems at all" fmancial problems were rated more seriously on average (35) than any other possible problem. Actually, 21 percent of the students reported serious fmancial problems (1 or 2). This proportion was by far the highest among Irish ERASMUS participants (54 percent). Serious problems were also stated above average by Greek (34 percent), Portuguese (30 percent), British (28 percent) and French students (24 percent). Least problems were reported by Danish students (2 percent), whereas 15-21 per- cent of the students from the remaining countries stated financial problems. Financial problems vary to a much lesser extent according to the host country. Students going to Italy (34 percent), Spain (29 percent) and Portugal (24 percent) reported more frequent problems than those going to other countries. Altogether, the information provided by the students suggests that the ERASMUS grant on average Covers the additional actual expenses abroad. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the ERASMUS grant solves all problems related to additional costs of a study period abroad. Some students report that the ERASMUS grant covered less than the additional expenses for the study period abroad. Students might have opportunities of earning money while studying at home which do not exist while studying abroad. Information about the actual expenses does not reveal how many students might have been compelied to choose thriftier living conditions abroad. Finally, a survey on ERASMUS students by defmition cannot reveal how many students did not apply for ERASMUS support or did not go abroad when offered ERASMUS support because they considered the financial support too smali. Recognition and Academic Impacts 7.1 Need for Varied Measures of nRecognition" Recognition of the ERASMUS supported period in another EC country upon retun is one of the most cruciai measures of success of the ERASMUS scheme. In principle, ERASMUS Support is only granted to universities wrlling to recognize the academic achievements of their students upon return. This emphasis on recognition is based on the assumption that a study period in another country of the European Community will most likely become an inte- gral part of studies, if successful study at a host university substituies study loads or study periods at homel . In the questionnaire survey of ERASMUS students 1988/89, we chose three different measures of recognition:- - Degree of recognition: the degree to which the academic study actualiy undertaken at the host university was recognized or otherwise considered equivaient to study at the home university; - Degee of correspondence: the degree of correspondence of the amount of study actually undertaken abroad to study usually expected at home; and - Non-proiongation: the expected non-prolongation of the total duration of studies due to the study period at the host university. I ! Cf. U. Teichler. Rewphoa - A 'I)pdogrcol OvaWew of Recognition Zssu~s Arising 5i Temporary Sardy Abnmd. Wiioddü i&s Z e a t ~ m für Berufs- und Hochschui- fonchung, 1990 (ERASMUS Monogtapha No. 3). Around 69 percent of the students provided information on the degree of recognition, 64 percent estimated the degree of correspondence of study at the host university to that at the home university, and 87 percent replied to the questions regarding possible prolongation of studies due to study abroad. 7.2 Degree of Recognition, Correspondence and Non-Prolongation 68 percent of the students reported that all their study at the host university was recognized or otherwise considered equivalent at the home university. On the other hand, 17 percent were credited less than a fourth of their study at the host university. On average, 23 percent of the studies successfully completed abroad were not recognized upon return. An average of all responses shows that academic studies at the host university corresponded to 73 percent of the typical amount of study at the home university. As 77 percent of the studies abroad were recognized and as the study load actuaily taken abroad or the number of Courses completed abroad is about one sixth lower than that typically carried out or completed during a corresponding period at home, one could have expected that the academic studies at the host university corresponded to a lesser extend to the typical amount of study at home. Only 40 percent of the students reported that the amount of study abroad equaiied that at home or even surpassed it. As Table 17 shows, a further 41 percent had a study load abroad of at least half of that typical at home, and 19 percent less than half of that at home. On average, ERASMUS students expect 3.4 months prolongation due to their study period abroad. The prolongation expected corresponds to 53 percent of the study period abroad (the figures refer to students providing information both on prolongation and duration of the period abroad). The ratio of prolongation does not vary substantially according to the duration of the study period. Only in cases where students go abroad with the help of the ERASMUS scheme for more than one year, study periods abroad are so clo- sely integrated into the curriculum that only eight percent of these students expect a prolongation due to the study periods abroad. Again, we can refer to the number of students not expecting prolongation. As Table 18 shows, 56 percent of the students do not expect a prolongation of their studies. 12 percent assurne that there will be a prolongation due to study abroad, though shorter than the period they had spent abroad. 33 percent of the students, however, stated that the prolongation of studies due to study abroad will be as long as the study period abroad (in a few cases even more). Table 17 Correspondence of Acadernic Study Abroad to Typical Amount of Study at Horne University, by Country of Horne University (percentage) Country of home university Total Less than 25 % 9 8 2 1 2 1 0 8 8 7 1 8 0 1 3 10 Total (n) Question 4.10: To what extent does your study at the host university actually correspond to the amount of typical study at the home university during a corresponding period? Thus, the extent of recognition of study abroad is - 77 percent, if we address the "degree of recognition" of what was actually studied abroad; - 73 percent, if the amount of study abroad recognized is compared to that usuaiiy taken at home; and - 47 percent, if we take as a yardstick the students' expectation for studies at the host university not leading to prolongation of the total duration of study. The proportion of students reporting full recognition is smaller: - 68 percent of ERASMUS students report that ail studies at the host university were granted academic credit or otherwise considered equivalent; - 40 percent state that all academic study at the host university corresponds to 100 percent (or even more) of typical study at the home university; and - 56 percent expect no prolongation of study due to their study period abroad. The proportion of 1988189 ERASMUS students experiencing full recogni- tion was lower than that of students going abroad in the framework of the JSP scheme who were surveyed in the mid-eighties. A lower ratio of recognition for ERASMUS students is not surprising, because many Inter-University Co- operation Programmes supported by ERASMUS had existed only for a short period at the time this survey was conducted, whereas the JSP Programmes included in the survey conducted in the mid-eighties had existed for some years at that time. 73 Self-Rating of Academic Progress Abroad ERaSMUS students 1988/89 rated their academic progress during the period at the host university positively. Asked to compare the progress abroad with what they would have expected in a correspondig period at home, they rated it 2.5 on average on a scale from 1 = "much better" to 5 = "much less". They rated their academic progress abroad more positively on average than participants of "Joint Study Programmes" surveyed in the mid-eighties (2.8). Actually, 55 percent of the ERASMUS students rated their academic progress at the host university more positively than academic progress at home, and 26 percent stated that it was on the same level. Only 19 percent considered the progress abroad to be lower than at home, as Table 19 shows. The assessment of academic progress abroad varied more according to home country than according to host country. Expectations derived from and conditions of the home university seem to affect the seif-rating of achievement abroad more strongly than the specific experiences and conditions at the host universities. Altogether we note that students from northern European coun- tries tend to rate the academic progress abroad less positively than those from southern European countries. Correspondiy, those who spent the ERAS- MUS-supported study period in northern European countries rate the academic success during that period more positively than those who had spent that period in southern Europe. Ireland turned out to be an exception, for academic progress of ERASMUS students who spent their study period in Ireland, was considered on the same level as those going to Greece and Portu- gal, the least favourably assessed. The rat@ vary to some extent according to field of study. As far as the fields most strongly represented in the ERASMUS Programme are concerned, students of languages and law (mean of 2.2 each) rate the academic progress abroad more positively than students in business and engineering (2.6 each). As regards the smaller fields, students of arts and design as well as those of communication and information sciences (2.2 each) rate most positively, whereas students in geography and geology rate most negatively (2.7). The rating of academic progress abroad does not significantly differ according to the duration of the study period abroad. It differed somewhat by the timing of the study abroad period: students who had studied three years or more at home before they went abroad assessed the academic progress abroad more positively than those going abroad at an earlier stage of their studies. This, however, might be due to home and host country effects. 7. Recognition and Academic Impacrr 57 Those who rated their academic progress abroad to be lower than at home, i.e. about one fifth of the ERASMUS students, were asked to state the major rea- sons. Of the nine categories provided: - differences in teaching, learning and examinations modes between the host and the home university (46 percent of those rating their academic progress abroad lower, i.e. 10 percent of ail ERASMUS students surveyed) were mentioned most often; followed by - substantial differences in course content (39 percent, or 8 percent of all re- spondents); - lack of guidance and supervision (35 percent or 7 percent respectively); and - organizational drawbacks, such as timing of courses and exams, accessibiity of courses, etc. (29 percent or 6 percent). Thus, clearly those reasons for limited academic success abroad stated most frequently refer to educational discrepancies between higher education Systems or to the academic and organizational Setting of the Programme. Rea- sons which could be attributed to the students themselves seem to have played a lesser role: language barriers (26 percent or 5 percent respectively); students themselves did not work well, i.e not hard enough, etc. (19 percent or 4 percent); students' personal problems (12 percent or 2 percent); more demanding courses at host university (11 percent or 2 percent); and finally students' diff~culties of living abroad (8 percent or 2 percent). Finally, it is worthwhile mentioning that language barriers were overproportionally often mentioned as a reason for low academic progress abroad by students going to Italy (10 percent of all going to Italy), Portugal (8 percent), Greece and France (7 percent each). Improvement of Foreign Language Proficiency and Cultural Impacts 1 8.1 Improvement af Foreign Language Proudrncy According to retrospective seif-ratings (all ratings were made on a scale from 1= ""very goodu to 7 = "extremely limited), ERASMUS students had on average a remarkable level of foreign language proficiency already prior to the study abroad period. Average ratings ranged from 3.4 to 4.2, whereby profi- ciency in academic settings was rated to be only slightly inferior to proficiency outside classroom. Passive profiaency, i.e. reading and listening, was consid- ered clearly better prim to the study period abroad - about half a scale-point - than active proficiency, i.e. speaking and writing. On average for the eight ratings before the study period abroad, Greek ERASMUS students considered their proficiency in the major language taught abroad best (3.1), whereas Irish (4.4), Italian (43) and British (4.1) rated it lowest. The low proficiency of Irish and British students certainly reflects the fact that their home language is most widely used internationally and thus the need for foreign language learning seems to be less obvious. This corresponds to the fact that students who went to Ireland and to the United Kingdom rated their prior knowledge of the language of instruction at the host university highest (means of 3.4 and 3.5 across the eight ratings). Students going to Por- tugal (5.0) as well as those going to Italy, the Netherlands (4.5 each) and Belgium (4.4) felt least prepared regarding the h a t country language. Students enrolied in foreign language studies as well as those in communication sciences felt strongest in the foreign language prior to the study period abroad. On the other hand, students in architecture, fine arts, geography and geology, as weii as engineering rated their prior foreign language knowledge modestly. The study abroad period proved to be effective in raising the level of foreign language proficiency to a substantial extent. Speaking and writing remained somewhat less highly rated than listening and reading, but improved to about the Same extent. Speaking in an academic context (2.4) remained more cautiously assessed than speaking outside classroom (2.1), as Table 20 shows. In fact, we note a clear positive correlation between duration and the foreign language improvement, but there is not a continuous improvement. As Figure 1 shows, growth does not continue beyond seven months. Passive proficiency already reaches a high level after four months, but "a ceiling" is Figure 1 Development of Langurige Comptence by Duration of Study Period Abroad (mean) - ~ - 0 1 ~ ' 1 2 3 4 0 8 7 i @ 10 11 12 limitd Dumtion of study period abroad (rnonths) 8. Improvement of Foreign Language Proficiency und Culmral Impacts 61 reached for speaking and writing ability within seven months. In addition, the level of prior foreign language competence seems to be slightly negatively related to the improvement during the study abroad period. Students less prepared for the host country language obviously improved slightly more, but not nearly to the extent of really balancing the differences. If the scales were valid in measuring equal diitances, we could argue that of the differences by home country and host country existing prior to the study abroad, about a third was made up during the shidy period. Table 20 8 Selfrating of Competency in Language of Instruction Abroad After Study Period Abroad, by Host country (mean*) Host country Tota l B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Readinginacademicsetting 2.5 2.1 3.1 1.9 2.0 23 2.2 1.8 2.8 2.7 1.7 2.0 Listeninginacademicsetting 2.6 2.0 3.0 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.8 3.0 3.1 1.8 1.9 Speakinginacademicsetting 3.1 2.5 3.5 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.1 3.4 3.6 2.2 2.4 Writinginacademicsetting 3.4 2.6 3.6 2.5 2.7 3.2 3.1 2.2 3.7 3.7 2.3 2.6 Readingoutsideclassroom 2.7 2.0 2.9 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.7 2.9 2.6 1.8 2.0 Listening outside classroom 2.7 1.8 2.9 1.8 1.9 2.3 1.9 1.7 3.0 3.2 1.8 1.9 Speakingoutsideclassroom 2.8 2.0 3.0 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.1 1.9 3.3 3.7 2.0 2.1 Writing outside classroom 3.2 2.4 3.4 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.2 3.7 3.6 2.2 2.5 Question 4.7: How do you rate your competency in the (major) language of instruction at the host university (reply only if different from the language of instruction at your home university)? * On a scale from 1 = "very good" to 7 = "extremly limited" 8 Improvement of Foreign Language Proficiency und Cultural Impacts 63 82 Knowledge about the Host Country Asked to rate 13 aspects notably regardmg politics, culture and society, the economic system and the geography as weli as the higher education system of the host country (on a scale from 1 = "extensive knowledge" to 5 = 'very minimal knowledge"), ERASMUS students admitted a very low level of knowledge of the host country prior to the study period. Levels of knowledge of the host country differed much more between students than between the different aspects of knowledge i.e. if students were weil informed they tended to be so about all aspects. Knowledge of the host country prior to the study period abroad did not differ strongly accordiig to the country of the home university. Obviously prior knowledge of the "smaller" countries of the EC was more limited. As regards fields of study, we note that students in agriculture, architecture, mathematics (3.9 on average) and fme arts (3.8) rated their knowledge about the host country lowest, whereas those enrolied in communication sciences rated their prior knowledge highest (3.1). Students were better informed on those aspects of the host country closely related to their field of expertise, such as students of geography and geology on the geography of the host country. Upon return from the study abroad period, students rated their knowledge of the host country much higher. The average score of 2.3 indicates an average improvement of 1.2 on the five-point scale. Highest improvement was reported regarding higher education (1.9) and above-average improvement regarding cultural and social issues, except for treatment of recently arrived immigrants, whereas knowledge on politicai issues and the geography of the host country increased to a lesser extent. Knowledge of the host country upon return is strongly related to the dura- tion of study, as Table 21 shows. As those staying more than a year report 2.0 on average, one might state that more time is needed than supported by the ERASMUS scheme in order to acquire a "good knowledge of the host country. Differentes regarding the extent of knowledge of the various host countries were marginal after the study abroad period, if we aggregate the responses to the various aspects, though knowledge of Portugal clearly remained below average. Table 21 Selfrating of Knowledge About Host Country After Study Period Abroad, by Duration of the Study Period Abroad (mean*) Duration of Study Abroad 1-2 3 4-6 7-12 More than Total months months months months 12 months Political system and institutions 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.3 Dominant political issues 2.7 2.5 2 3 2.2 1.9 2 3 Foreign policy in general 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.6 Policy towards your own country 3.2 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.5 System of higher education 2.6 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 Cultural life (art, music, theatre, etc.) 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 Dominant social issues 2.7 2 3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 Economic system 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.4 1.9 2.5 The country's geography 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 Social structure (family, class system) 2.7 23 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.1 Customs, traditiom, religion 2.5 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 Treatment of recently arrived immigrants 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 Sports, leisure, recreational activities 2.9 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.3 Question 6.2: How would you rate p u r level of knowledge with regard to the following aspects of the host country, immediately before you went abroad and now? * On a scale from 1 = "extensive knowledge" to 5 "very minimal knowledge" 83 Opinions of Culture and Society ERASMUS students were asked to rate their opinions of the host country and on the home country both immediately before (retrospectively) and after the study period abroad in respect to ten aspects, such as foreign policy, cultural He and the higher education system. Ag& a five-point scale was provided from 1 = "highly positive" to 5 = "highly negative". Altogether, we note that ERASMUS students' opinions of the host country did neither become clearly more positive nor clearly more negative. A substantial number of students stated that they did not yet have any opinion of their host country before the study abroad period. On average of the ten aspects, this was stated in 21 percent of the cases before the study abroad period and only in six percent upon return. Opinions OE the respedive host countries varied substantiaily according to the individual aspects, as Table 22 shows. The presentation of mean Scores might suggest a stabity of opinions not very much touched by experiences. Comparing opinions before and after, only 46 percent of the ratings were identical. We note for example that opinions most often change regarding the higher education system of the host country, i.e an area in which all students had first-hand experience; only a fourth of the students kept their opinions stable in this area. Altogether, changes of attitudes in the positive direction took place most often by students who spent their study period abroad in Ireland and Portugal, whereas changes in the negative direction were most often among students who went to France. Opinions of the home country remained much more stable. On average, 69 percent of the ratings remained unchanged, whereas 18 percent were more positive and 13 percent more negative upon return than prior to the study period abroad. In view of the fact that most students had spent almost aii their iife in the country of the home university, 31 percent changes of ratings of the home country might be considered to be remarkably high. Again, most changes of attitudes took place regarding the system of higher education. Altogether we might state that study in another EC country is instrumental in reflecting both the host and the home country and in changing one's opinion of many aspects of the host country and to some extent of the home country as weii. Thii does not lead, however, on average to more positive or more nega- tive attitudes towards the host country or the home country. The value of the study period abroad regarding opinions is not to increase sympathy towards other countries or towards one's home country in general, but rather to pro- vide opportunities for a broad range of experiences which might lead to changes of opinions in many respects. Table 22 8: Bpinions on Host Country After Study Abroad, by Host Country (mean*) Host country Total B D DK E F GR I IRL NL P UK Post-secondarylhigher education in host country 2.6 2.2 1.8 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.8 2 3 2.9 2.5 2.7 Foreignpolicyinhostcountry 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.8 3.0 3 3 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.6 3.1 Culturallifeinhostcountry 2 3 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.2 Media in host country 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.0 2.7 3.1 2.6 2.7 Customs and traditions in host country Treatment of recently arrived irnmignuits in host country 3.2 3 3 2.7 3.1 3.7 3.3 3.4 2.4 2.6 3.3 33 3.3 Sociai structure in host country 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.6 3.3 3 3 3.0 Urban life in host country 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.3 3.0 2.9 2.7 Governmentai domestic policies in host country Environmentai policies in host country 3.3 1.8 1.8 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.8 2.0 3.8 3.7 3 3 Question 6.3: What was your opinion about each of the following aspects of the hobt country and the home country immediately before you went abroad? And h a t is your opinion now? On a scale from 1 = "highly positive" to 5 = "highly negative" Comprehensive Assessment by the Participating Students 9.1 Personal Value of Study Abroad Students were asked to state the extent to which they consideredf worthwhile to study abroad as regards such aspects as study progress, career, foreign language proficiency, understanding the host country, travel, or break from usual moundings. They were asked to rate each of ten aspects provided in the question on a scaie from 1 = "extremely worthwhile" to 5 = "not at ail worthwhile". Altogether, students considered the study abroad period supported by the ERASMUS scheme as worthwhile. The average rating for ail ten aspects was 1.8., i.e. higher than scaie point 2 which could be called "worthwhile". Most positively assessed were cultural and foreign language outcomes: acquaintance with people in another country (1.4), knowledge and understanding of the host country (1.5), and foreign language proficiency (1.6 ). Contrasting life experiences as weil as expected professional hpacts were just as highly regarded as assets of a study period abroad: opportunity to travel (1.7), break from usual surroundings (1.9, and career prospects (1.8). Contrasting 1- experiences, new views on the home country and f111ai.i~ subsequent academic progress were apprechted as weli, though with samewhat less enthusiasm: other teaching methods than at home (1.9), new perspectives on home country (2.1), exposure to subjects not offered at home university (2.4), and study progress after return (25). The majority of countries least appreciated for the academic and profes- sional value of studying there, i.e. Portugal (29 on average for the four respective items), Greece (2.5), Ireland (2.4), and Spain (2.3, in contrast to 1.9 in the case of Denmark and 2.0 of the Federal Republic of Germany), were much more favourably assessed in terms of the cultural and experience value of going there. Spain, Italy, Germany and Ireland (1.4) were most favourably viewed as compared to the Netherlands (1.8), Belgium and Portugal (1.7 each). The assessment of the value of the study abroad period varied, as expected, somewhat less according to home country than according to host country. Spanish students rated the study period abroad most positively (1.7 on average for 9 items), whereas students from Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Denmark, and the Netherlands (2.1-2.0) were slightly more resewed in their judgements. As in the case of the rating concerning academic Progress abroad, we note - with a few exceptions - a slight North-South gap, whereby northern European higher education Systems are more positively assessed and southern European higher education System less positively. The longer the duration of the study period lasted, the more favourably it was rated. The means ranged from 2.2 for students who had been abroad for 1-2 months to 1.7 in the case of a period of more than one year. Differences in the assessment of the value of the study abroad period are relatively small, as far as fields of study are concerned. But we note that stu- desits of agricultural fields, architecture as well as geography and geology most highly appreciated the opportunity to travel abroad (1.4 as compared to 1.7 on average). Students of architecture and of geography and geology exposed the biggest gap in a comparatively cautious assessment of the academic and pro- fessional value of study abroad on the one hand and on the other a relatively positive assessment of the cultural and experiential value of study abroad. Stu- dents of business fields valued the study abroad period highly for the career prospects implied (1.4 as compared to 1.8 on average). Asked to rate their satisfaction with their study abroad period ("ali things considered") on a scale from 1 = "very satisfied" to 5 = "not satisfied at ali", ERASMUS students rated 1.5 on average. This was even slightly more positive than the respective rating of JSP students surveyed in the mid-eighties (1.7). Differences according to home or host country, to duration and fields of study are relatively small and can only be discussed with some caution. Engi- neering (1.3) and law students (1.4) were most satisfied with the study abroad period. Some resewations were voiced by students of geography and geology (1.8), of architecture as well as of communication and information sciences (1.7). 9. Comprehensive Assessment by the Participating Students 69 9 3 Most Striking Experiences during the Study Period Abroad Problems ("worst things") mentioned referred most often to issues of accom- modation. Almost 20 percent referred to accommodation problems (problems of search and quality of accommodation, problems with other people living in the Same house, etc.) - an extraordinarily high quota in response to an Open question posed. 10 percent of the students addressed issues of accommodation as well in response to the question regarding the most difficult thing successfuiiy accomplished. As regards the most positive experiences, more than half of the students praised the opportunity of getting acquainted with people - mostly from the h a t country, but from other countries as weil. More than a fourth of the ERASMUS students considered the opportunity of getting to know the host country and its culture and society as the best thing they experienced during the study abroad period. Academic experiences were named by about 10 per- cent of the students as the best thing that happened to them. As in response to the "closed question about worthwhile experiences, academic experiences were not as favourably assessed here as personal contacts and cultural experi- ences. Academic experiences, however, were in the forefront of reports by the stu- dents as regards the most difficult things they achieved during the study period abroad. 30 percent of the ERASMUS students referred to academic issues in this context. About 20 percent of the students reported their success in over- coming problems of understandin& reading listening and speaking the host country language. Students from most southern European countries, though mentioning vari- ous problems faced in the host country, by and large described the study abroad period most favourably. 9 3 Desired Duration of the ERASMUS Supported Period Both the positive experiences during the study abroad period and the limits of what they could experience and achieve during their stay lead many students to wish for a longer stay abroad than initially intended or supported. Of all the ERASMUS participants, 68 percent stated that they would have liked to spend a longer period abroad. Those who wished an additional period abroad actu- aliy would have liked to stay an additional 8.3 months on average. This would equal an average of 5.5 months for aii ERASMUS students. As aii ERASMUS students responding to the q u e s t i o d e had spent an average of 7.1 months abroad supported by the ERASMUS programme, the desired period of study abroad supported by the ERASMUS Programme, thus, would be 12.6 months on average. Actudy, 27 percent realized an extension of the stay abroad with the help of other means. They extended their stay on average by 5.9 months. This corresponds to 1 5 months extension on average for aii ERASMUS students. Determinants of Academic Progress Abroad and Recognition A statisticai anaiysis was undertaken designed to identify some of the key determinants of academic success of the study period abroad supported by the ERASMUS scheme. Regression and variance anaiysis was employed in examining the possible impact of personal background variables, major study profile data, academic preparation, assistance and guidance abroad, various academic issues abroad and fmdy problems experienced during the study period abroad on the academic progress abroad as well as the extent of recog- nition granted. As the possible factors included determine the extent of prolongation of study more strongly than the extent of recognition granted for courses actually taken and the degree of correspondence between the courses actuaily recognized and the typicai study load for a corresponding period at home, the iindings regarding the two latter measures of recognition are not presented here. As Figures 2 and 3 show, personal background data (age, gender and parental educational background) hardly play any role in explaining the perceived academic progress abroad in comparison to academic progress during a corresponding period at home or in explaining the extent of prolongation of the overall study period due to the study abroad period. As regards the profle of the ICP or the study Programme, academic progress abroad and (non-) pro- longation is much more clearly linked to the country of the home university than to the host country, the Geld of study, the duration of the study period abroad or the timing of the study period abroad within the overall Course pro- gramme. As regards the students' experiences and activities abroad, we note a stronger link of the possible factors observed to the (self-reported) academic E $ gs fj " ' P , progress abroad than to any of the measures of recognition chosen. As one might expect students naming various problems they experienced at home are most likely to be those who report relatively little academic progress abroad and who expect a prolongation of studies due to ihe study abroad period. As regards assistance and academic matters abroad, academic assistance abroad and students' contacts with the host university's academic staff turned out to be key factors. Again, they are more closely linked to self-perceived academic progress abroad than to the extent of recognition in terms of expecting no or little prolongation. The positive impact of guidance and assistance does not mean, however, that students who experienced "spoon-feeding" abroad report highest success. Rather, those students who observe a strongly emphasis on independent study abroad and less emphasis on the teacher as the main source of information seem to study somewhat more successfully abroad. Altogether, the findiigs suggest that improvements of the study conditions at the host university for the ERASMUS students would help to increase aca- demic progress during the study abroad period and ensure academic recogni- tion upon return. There is not, however, any single key factor which could be viewed as the major starting point for such improvements. Finaliy, the diifer- ences of academic achievement by home country also suggest that academic preparation at the home university is not a trivial factor for academic success during the study period abroad. Concluding Observations The presentation of the major hdings of the 1988/89 ERASMUS Student survey is intentionally very descriptive. Readers are i d t e d to focus their at- tention on 'interesting' and 'surprising' phenomena according to their respec- tive experience and expertise. A short presentation such as this one does not allow for detailed discussion of the hdings and their implications. The foliowing findings, however, certainly stand out and deserve attention - notably since some of them challenge widespread views about the strengths and weaknesses of study in other countries of the European Community in the framework of the ERASMUS Programme. (1) As regards the profile of the participating students, a wide range of fields of study was supported by ERASMUS grants. On average, students were older than 23 years and had completed 2.7 years of study before they went abroad. They spent seven months on average in the host country, and 22 percent of them participated in a work placement while abroad. 54 percent of the ERASMUS-supported students surveyed were female. 37 percent reported that their father, their mother or both of them were college-trained. Most students had spent some period abroad prior to the ERASMUS-supported study period. (2) We note that participating departments have developed a substantial range of measures for preparing their own students for study abroad as weli as providing administrative and academic advice and Support for incoming ERASMUS students from dher EC countries during the study period abroad. On average, however, students assess these measures somewhat cautiously. Obviously, many of them expect some improvement in these areas. (3) We note, in most of the topics ad- striking differentes by country - be it the country of the home university or the host country. By and large, conditions and provisions for study ab& vary more strongly by country tban I 22. Conciuding Observations 77 estimate that the ERASMUS grants in 1988/89 on average covered the additional costs for study abroad. (7) On the basis of prior research we developed three criteria for recogni- tion: - How many of the courses completed or other formal achievements abroad are recoguized upon return by the home university? 77 percent of study actually undertaken abroad was recognized, and 68 percent of the ERAS- MUS students reported full recognition according to this measure. - How far does successful and recognized study abroad correspond to a typi- cal study load at home? Accordhg to this measure, recognition corre- sponded on average to 73 percent of typicai study at home, whereby oniy 40 percent of the students reported complete reqyition in this respect. As 77 percent of the studies abroad were recognized and as the study load actualiy taken abroad or the number of courses completed abroad is about one sixth lower than that typicdy carried out or completed during a corresponding period at home, one could have expected that the academic studies at the host instituition corresponded to a lesser extent to the typical amount of study at home. - Finally, many ERASMUS students assumed that their study in another EC country will lead to a prolongation of study. If non-prolongation is the mea- Sure of complete recognition, oniy 47 percent of study abroad during an ERASMUS-supported period is recognized. Recognition of study abroad is unlikely to be recognized completely for all students, because some students take fewer courses, fail some courses or deliberately choose courses not fitting their home curricula in order to broaden their horizon. This notwithstanding, the findings of the survey suggest that the idea of the ERASMUS programme according to which participating departments will grant recognition as a rule, is not (yet) fully implemented. (8) In contrast, students themselves rated their academic progress abroad very positively. 55 percent considered their academic progress abroad better, and only 19 percent reported less academic progress than during a respective period at home. Even dowing for some overestimation on the part of the students, these 6n@ suggest that there is more academic value to study abroad as judged by the students' themselves than is formally recognized by the home universiiies. (9) ERASMUS students aquire substantial knowledge of their host coun- try, but their opinions of the host country on average do not change substan- tially. Attitudes towards the host country, towards international relations etc. might possibly change in longer cycles than study abroad periods lasting a few months or even a year. PUBLIKATIONEN DES WISSENSCHAFIZICHEN ZENTRUMS A. Reihe "Hochschule und Beruf" (Campus-Verlag, FrankfurtIM. und New York) TEICHLER, Ulrich und WINKLER, Helmut (Hg.): Praxisorientierung des Studiums. Frankfurtm. und New York 1979 (vergriffen). TEICHLER, Ulrich (Hg.): Hochschule und Beruf. Problemlagen und Aufgaben der Forschung. Frankfurtm. und New York 1979 (vergriffen). BRINCKMANN, Hans; HACKFORTI-I, Susanne und TEICHLER, Ulrich: Die neuen Beamtenhochschulen. Bildungs-, venvaltungs- und arbeitsmarktpolitische Probleme ei- ner verspäteten Reform. Frankfurtw. und New York 1980. FREIDANK, Gabriele; NEUSEL, Ayla; TEICHLER, Uirich (Hg.): Praxisorientierung als institutionelles Problem der Hochschule. Frankfurt/M. und New York 1980. CERYCH, Ladislav; NEUSEL, Ayla; TEICHLER, Ulrich und WINKLER, Helmut: Gesamthochschule - Erfahrungen, Hemmnisse, Zielwandel. Frankfurtp. und New York 1981. HERMAiUNS, Harry, TEICHLER, Ulrich und WASSER, Henry (Hg.): Integrierte Hochschulmodeile. Erfahrungen aus drei Ländern. Frankfurtw. und New York 1982. HOLTKAMP, Roif und TEICHLER, Uirich (Hg.): Benafstätigkeit von Hochschul- absolventen - Forschungsergebnisse und Folgerungen für das Studium. Frankfurt/M. und New York 1983 (vergriffen). HERMANNS, Hany; TKOCZ, Christian und WINKLER, Helmut: Berufsverlauf von Ingenieuren. Eine biografieanalytische Untersuchung auf der Basis narrativer Inter- views. Frankfurt/M. und New York 1983. CLEMENS, Bärbel; METZGÖCKEL, Sigrid; NEUSEL, Ayla und PORT, Barbara (Hg.): Töchter der Alma Mater. Frauen in der Berufs- und Hochschuiforschung. Frankfurt/M. und New York 1986. GORZKA, Gabriele; HEIPCKE, Klaus und TEICHLER, Uirich (Hg.): Hochschule - Beruf - Geseiischaft. Ergebnisse der Forschung zum Funktionswandel der Hochschu- len. Frankfurtm. und New York 1988. OEHLER, Christoph: Hochschulentwickiung in der Bundesrepublik seit 1945. Frank- furt/M. und New York 1989. TEICHLER, Ulnch: Europäische Hochschulsysteme. Die Beharrlichkeit vielfältiger Modeile. Frankfurt/M. und New York 1990. BECKMEIER, Carola und NEUSEL, Aylk Entscheidungsverfiechtung an Hochschulen - Determinanten der Entscheidungsfindung an deutschen und französischen Hochschulen. Frankfurt/M. und New York 1991. B. Werkstattberichte (Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung, Ge- samthochschule Kassel). HERMANNS, H q , TKOCZ, Christian und WIMKLER, Helmut: Soziale Hand- lungskompetenz von Ingenieuren, Rückblick auf Verlauf und Ergebnisse der Klausur- tagung in Hofgeismar am 16. und 17. November 1978.1979 (Nr. 1). H E U S , H q , TKOCZ, Christian und WINKLER, Helrnut: Ingenieurarbeit: Soziales Handeln oder disziplinäre Routine? 1980 (Nr. 2) (vergriffen). NEUSEL, Aylg und TEICHLER, Ulrich (Hg.): Neue Aufgaben der Hochschulen. 1980 (Nr. 3). I HEINE, Uwe; TEICHLER, Ulrich und WOLLENWEBER, Bernd: Perspektiven der Hochschulentwicklung in Bremen. 1980 (Nr. 4). I NERAD, Maresi: Frauenzentren an amerikanischen Hochschulen. 1981 (Nr. 5). I LIEBAU, Eckart und TEICHLER, Ulrich (Hg.): Hochschule und Beruf - Forschungs- perspektiven. 1981 (Nr. 6) (vergriffen). EBHARDT, Heike und HEIPCKE, Klaus: Prüfung und Studium. Teil A: %er den Zusammenhang von Studien- und Prüfungserfahrungen. 1981 (Nr. 7). HOLTKAMP, Rolf und TEICHLER, Ulridi: Außerschulische Tätigkeitsbereiche für Absolventen sprach- und Literaturwissenschaftlicher Studienghge. 1981 (Nr. 8) (vergriffen). RA'ITEMEYER, Volker: Chancen und Probleme von Arbeitsrnaterialien in der kiinstlerischen Aus- und Weiterbildung. Mit Beitragen von Hilmar Liptow und Wolf- ram Schmidt. Kasse1 1982 (Nr. 9). CLEMENS, Bärbel: Frauenforschungs- und Frauenstudieninitiativen in der Bundesre publik Deutschiand. Kassel 1983 (Nr. 10) (vergnffen). DANCKWOR'iT, Dieter: Auslandsstudium als Gegenstand der Forschung - eine Lits raturübersicht. Kassel 1984 (Nr. 11). BUlTGEREXT, Michael und TEICHLER, Ulrich (Hg.): Probleme der Hochschulpla- nung in der Sowjetunion. Kassel 1984 (Nr. 12). Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung (Hg.): Forschung über Hochschule und Beruf. Arbeitsbericht 1978 - 1984. Kassel 1985 (Nr. 13). DALICHOW, Fntz und TEICHLER, Ulrich: Anerkennung des Auslandsstudiums in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Kassel 1985 (Nr. 14). HORNBOSTEL, Stefan; OEHLER, Christoph und TEICHLER, Ulrich (Hg.): Hoch- schulsysteme und Hochschulplanung in westlichen Industriestaaten. Kassel 1986 (Nr. 15). TEICHLER, Ulrich: I-&her Education in the Federal Republic of Germany. D e velopments and Recent Issues. New York und Kassel: Center for European Studies, Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York und Wis- senschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung, Gesamthochschule Kas- sel. New York/Kassel1986 (Nr. 16). KLUGE, Norbert und OEHLER, Christoph: Hochschulen und Forschungstransfer. Bedingungen, Konfigurationen und Handlungsmuster. Kassel 1986 (Nr. 17) (vergriffen). BUTTGEREIT, Michael: Lebensverlauf und Biografie. Kassel 1987 (Nr. 18). EKARDT, Hanns-Peter und LÖFFLER, Reiner (Hg.): Die gesellschaftliche Verant- wortung der Bauingenieure. 3. Kasseler Kolloquium zu Problemen des Bauingenieur- berufs. Kassel 1988 (Nr. 19). TEICHLER, Ulrich: Wandel der Hochschulstrukturen im internationalen Vergleich. Kassel 1988 (Nr. 20). KLUCZYNSKI, Jan und OEHLER, Christoph (Hg.): Hochschulen und Wissenstrans- fer in verschiedenen Gesekhaftssystemen. Ergebnisse eines polnisch-deutschen Sym- posiums. Kassel 1988 (Nr. 21). KRUGER, Heidemarie: Aspekte des Frauenstudiums an bundesdeutschen Hochschu- len. Zur Studiensituation von Frauen im Soziaiwesen und in den Wirtschaftswissen- schaften - ausg-te Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung. Kassel 1989 (Nr. 22) (vergriffen). KRAUSHAAR, Kurt und OEHLER, Christoph: Forschungstransfer, betriebliche In- novationen und Ingenieurarbeit. Kassel 1989 (Nr. 23). STRmING, Jörg: 'Technik, das ist das Koordinatensystem, in dem wir leben ..." - Fali- studien zu Handlungsorientierungen im tec-tlichen Forschungstransfer. Kassel 1989 (Nr. 24). GORZKA, Gabriele; MESSNER, Rudolf und OEHLER, Christoph (Hg.): Wozu noch Bildung? - Beihäge aus einem unerledigten Thema der Hodischulforschung. Kassel 1990 (Nr. 25). ENDERS, Jürgen: Beschäftigungssituation im akademischen Mittelbau. Kassel 1990 (Nr. 26) (vergriffen). WETTERER, Angelika: Frauen und Frauenforschung in der bundesdeutschen Sozio- logie - Ergebnisse der Soziologinnen-Enquete. Kassel 1990 (Nr. 27) (vergnffen). I TEICHLER, 'Ulrich: The First Years of Study at Fachhochschulen and Universities in the Federal Republic of Germany. Kassel 1990 (Nr. 28). I TEICHLER, Ulrich: Recognition. A Typological Overview of Recognition Issues Ari- sing in Temporary Study Abroad. Kassel 1990 (Nr. 29). SCHOMBURG, Harald, TEICHLER, Ulrich und WINKLER, Helmut: Studium und Beruf von Empfängern deutscher Stipendien am Asian Institute of Technolopy. Kassel 1991 (NI. 30). J E S S K E - W R , B i OVER, Albert und REICHERT, Christoph: Existenzgründungen in Entwicklungsländern. Literaturstudie zu einem deutschen F6rderprogramm. 1991 (Nr. 31). C. Arbeitspapiere (Wissenschaftliches Zenirum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung, Gesamt- hochschule Kassel) TEICHLER, Ulrich und WiNKL+ER, Helmut: Vorüberlegungen zur Gründung des Wissenschaftlichen Zentrums fiir Berufs- und Hochschulforschung. 1978 (Nr. 1). TEICHLER, Ulridr Der Wandel der Beziehungen von Bildungs- und Beschäftigungs- System und die Entwicklung der beruflich-sozialen Lebensperspektiven Jugendlicher. 1978 (Nr. 2). TEICKLER, Ulrich: Higher mcation and Employment in the Federal Republic of Germany: Trends and Changing Research Approaches from the Comparative Point of View. - Recherches en cours sur le problkme de l'enseignement supkrieure et de l'ernploi en R6publique Federale Nemande. 1978 (Nr. 3) (vergriffen). PEIFFER, Knut: Untersuchung des Implementationsinstrumentariums von Hochschul- reformprogrammen anhand einer synoptischen Darstellung. - Untersuchung der legis lativen Umsetzung von Hochschulreform- und Studienreforminhalten anhand des HRG, des HHG und des HUG. 1979 (NI. 4). NEUSEL, AyLa: Zu W s W g k e i t und Studium von ArchitektenIPlanem. WINK- LER, Helmut: Neue Entwicklungen im Berufsfeld von Architekten und Bauin- genieuren und deren Berücksichtigung in der Hochschulausbiidung. 1979 (Nr. 5). TEICHLER, Ulrich und VOSS, Friedrich: Materialien zur Arbeitsrnarktlage von Hochschulabsolventen. 1979 (Nr. 6) (vergriffen). 1 RATIBMEYER, Volker: Weiterentwicklung des Kunststudiums unter Berücksich- I tigung der beruflichen Möglichkeiten der Künstler. 1980 (Nr. 7). TEICHLE!R, Ulrich: Work-Study-Propms The Case of "Berufspraktkhe Studienn at the Comprehmsive University of Kassel. 1981 (Nr. 8) (vergriffen) . H-S, Harry: Das narrative Interview in berufsbiogdwhen Untersuchungen. 1981 (Nr. 9) (vergriffen). DENKTNGER, Joachim und KLUGE, Norbert: Bibliographie zur Praxisorientierung des Studiums. 1981 (Nr. 10). LIEBAU, Eckart: Hochschule, Schule und Lehrerfortbildung - Tendenzen und Per- spektiven. 1981 (Nr. 11). LIEBAU, Eckart: Der Habitus der Ökonomen. Über Arbeitgebererwartungen an Hochschulabsolventen der Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Kassel 1982 (Nr. 12). W'INKLER, Helmut: Interaction of Theory arid Practice in the US Engineering Edu- cation. Kassel 1982 (Nr. 13). HERMANNS, Harry: Statuspassagen von Hochschullehrern im Entwicklungsprozeß von Gesamthochschulen. Kassel 1982 (Nr. 14). KROGER, Heidemarie: Probleme studierender Frauen - Ergebnisse eines Kollo- quiums. Kassel 1984 (Nr. 15). USHIOGI, Morikazu: Job Perspectives of College Graduates in Japan. Kassel 1984 (Nr. 16). NERAD, Maresi: Implementation Analysis - A New Magic Tool for Research in Hig- her Education? Kassel 1984 (Nr. 17). KLUGE, Norbert: Studienrefonn in der Literatur - Eine kommentierte Bibliographie über Studiemefonnakti~taten in den letzten zehn Jahren. Kassel 1988 (Nr. 18). WINICLER, Hehut: Ursachen für überlange Studiendauem von Maschinenbaustu- denten. Sonderauswertung von Daten der Kasseler Absolventenstudie. Kassel 1988 (Nr. 19). SCHMUTZER, Manfred E. A.: Vom Elfenbeinturm zum Bildungskonzem. Kassel 1989 (Nr. 20). MAIWORM, Friedheh: Zur Notenvergabe an hessischen Hochschulen im Vergleich zum Bundesdurchschnitt. Kassel 1989 (Nr. 21). BECKER, Peter Motive der Studienortwahl und Informationsverhalten von Studien- anfängem der Gesamthochschule Kassel im Wintersemester 1987/88. Kassel 1990 (Nr. 22). OEHLER, Christoph: Effizienz der Drittrnittelfürdening in den Ingenieurwissenschaf- ten. Kassel 1990 (Nr. 23). TEICHLER, Ulrich; MAIWORM, Friedhelm und STEUBE, Wolfgang: Student Mobility within ERASMUS 1987/88 - a Statistical Survey. Kassel 1990 (Nr. 24). ERASMUS Monographs 1. Student Mobility within ERASMUS 1987/88 - A Statistical Survey U. Teichler, F. Maiwom, W. Steube Arbeitspapiere, 24, Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung, Kassel 1990 Contact: Prof. Ulnch TEICHLER, Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung, Gesamthochschule Kassei, Henschelstraße 4, D-3500 Kassel, Tel.: 49-561-804 2415, Fax: 49-561-804 3301 2. L'amelioration de la pdparation linguistique et socioculturelle des 6tudiants ERASMUS G. Baumgratz-GangZ, N. Deyson, G. Moss Unite langues pour la Cooperation en Europe (ULCE) aupres du Centre d'Information et de Recherche sur l'Allemagne Contemporaine (CIRAC), July 1989. Contact: Dr. Gisela BAUMGRATZGANGL, Unitt5 langues pour la cooperation en Europe (ULCE), Institut europeen d'education et de politique sociale, c/o Universite de Paris IX-Dauphine, Place du Markhal de Lattre de Tassigny, F-75116 Paris, Tel.: 33-1-47.27.06.41 / 45.05.14.10, poste 3000, Fax: 33-1-45.53.81.34 3. Recognition: A lSpological Overview of Recognition Issues Arising in Temporary Study Abroad U. Teichier Werkstattberichte, 29, Wissenschafiliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung, Kassel 1990 Contact: Prof. Ulnch TEICHLER, cf. Monograph 1 4. Untersuchung über die Beteiligung der Medizin im ERASMUS- Programm (Study on the Participation of Medicine in ERASMUS) In German with an English Summary K Schnitzer, E. Korie HIS Hochschulplanung 85, HIS Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH, Hannover 1990 Contact: Dr. Klaus SCHNITZER, HIS Hochschul-Informations-System, Post- fach 2920, D-3000 Hannover; Tel.: 49-511-1220297 / Fax. 49-511-1220250 5. Teacher Education and the ERASMUS Programme M. Bnzce In: European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 12, No. 3,1989 (pp. 197 - 228) ISSN 0261-9768 - Brussels 1989 Contact: A.T.E.E. - Association for Teacher Education in Europe, Rue de la Concorde 51, B-1050 Bruxelles. Tel.: 32-2-512 1734 / Fax 32-2-512 3265 6. Les obstacles h la participation au Programme ERASMUS dans le domaine de I'art et du design P. Kuentz Strasbourg, July 1989. Contaci: Prof. Pierre KUENTZ. Ecole des Arts Decoratifs, 1 rue de i'Acadkmie, F-6700 Strasbourg; ~e l . : 33-88-353858 7. ERASMUS et les arts du spectacle (musique, thGtre, danse) D. Bamdade EUROCREATION, Paris, July 1989. Contact: Directeur de Projets Denise Barriolade, EUROCREATION, L'agence franpke des jeunes crkateurs europkens, 3 rue Debelleyme, F-75003 Paris; Tel.: 33-1-48047879 / Fax 33-1-40299246 8. Comparative Evaluation of ERASMUS ICPs in the Subject Areas of Business Management, Chemistry, History Prof. A. Monasta UniversitA di Fienze, July 1989 Contact: Prof. Attilio MONASTA, Universita degli Studi di Firenze, FacoltA di Magistero, Dipartemento di Scienze dell' Educazione, Via Cavour, 82, 1-50129 Fienze; Tel.: 39-55-2757751/2757761 9. Survey of Academic Recognition within the Framework of ICPs in the Field of Mechanical Engineering H. Risvig Henriksen SEFi (Soci6te Europkenne pour la Formation des Ingenieurs), Bruxelies, August 1989 Contact: S.E.F.I. - Socikte Europeenne pour la Formation des Ingenieurs, Rue de la Concorde 51, B-1050 Bruxelies; Tel.: 32-2-512 1734 / Fax: 32-2-512 3265 10. ERASMUS PROGRAMME - Report on the Experience Acquired in the Application of the ERASMUS Programme 1987-1989 Commission of the European Communities, SEC(89) U351 Bmsels, 13 December 1989 Contact: ERASMUS Bureau, cf. Monograph 2 11. La cooperation inter-universitaire dans les sciences agronomiques, ERASMUS 1978/88 - 1990/91 Philippe RuDo ENSAR, Department des Sciences economiques et sociales, June 1990 I Contact: 1 ERASMUS Bureau, cf. Monograph 2 I 12. Student Mobility 1988/89 - A Statistical Survey U. Teichler, R Kieiti, F. Maiwonn Arbeitspapiere, 26, Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochxhuiforschung, Kassel 1991 Contact: Prof. Uirich TEICHLER, cf. Monograph 1 13. Experiences of E W M U S Students 1988/89 U. Teichler Werkstattberichte, 32, Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung, Kassel 1991 Contact: Prof. Ulrich TEICHLER, cf. Monograph 1 14. Learning in Europe: The E W M U S Experience F. Maiwonn, W; Steube, U. Teichler Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London 1991 (£ 18.-) Contact: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 118 Pentonville Road, UK-London N19JN; Tel.: 44-71833 2307 / Fax 44-71-837 2917 In 1988/89 some 11,000 European students spent a period of study in another Member State of the European Community with the support of the ERASMUS Programme. This study is based on the experiences of 3,212 students who responded to a written questionnaire covering the profile of ERASMUS dtudents, academic and administra- tive support both by home and host universities, the study abroad experience; accommodation, living costs in the host country and sources of funding, self-assessment of academic achieve- ment, foreign language improvement and cultural awareness. Im Rahmen des ERASMUS Programms studier- ten 1988/89 ca. 11.000 europäische Studenten an Hochschulen anderer EG-Länder. Die vorliegende Studie stützt sich auf eine Befragung von 3.2i.2 ERASMUS Studenten zum persönlichen Profil, zur Unterstützung durch die Universitäten in Stu- dien- und Verwaltungsangelegenheiten, zu Le- bensbedingungen und Studienerfahrungen im Ausland und zur Selbsteinschätzung der Studien- ertrage. ISBN 3-88122-656-7