1 / 23

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

ERASMUS INFORMAL MEETING INTENSIVE PROGRAMMES 22-23 September 2011 Athens-Greece SUMMARY. Elina Mavrogiorgou, IKY-Hellenic National L.L.P. Agency / Erasmus. PREPARATION OF THE MEETING. A questionnaire for IP was created by the Greek NA with the collaboration of DE, AU, FI NA.

natalie-romero
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ERASMUS INFORMAL MEETING INTENSIVE PROGRAMMES 22-23 September 2011 Athens-Greece SUMMARY Elina Mavrogiorgou, IKY-Hellenic National L.L.P. Agency /Erasmus

  2. PREPARATION OF THE MEETING A questionnaire for IP was created by the Greek NA with the collaboration of DE, AU, FI NA. FR, TR NA and the Commission also sent their comments concerning the questionnaire. The FI NA prepared an electronic tool for answering the questionnaire. 18 NA have participated in the survey. A complementary questionnaire was also created for IP coordinators. 178 coordinators from19 countries have answered this questionnaire.

  3. MAIN THEMES -ADMINISTRATIVE & MANAGEMENT ISSUES -IMPACT OF THE IP -IP QUALITY CRITERIA -THE POST-2013 PROGRAMME -GENERAL IP QUESTIONS

  4. First part: IP ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGEMENT ISSUES LLP link : should be more user-friendly TR NA: developed an e-form from which data is directly transferred to LLP link. Offered for free to all NAs. Some NA have already developed their own software. Commission :e-forms form for IP postponed to the next Programme

  5. Low subsistence costs Subsistence costs reduced, because IP considered as a mobility action Commission: flexibility authorized within the budget heading “subsistence costs” (option, not the rule) NAs’ suggestion: have this rule written on official documents NAs’arguments for raising students’ subsistence costs: -finding accommodation for two weeks:more expensive -students can’t get a part time job -good level of accommodation organization : needs funding Travel costs: lump sum doesn’t always lead to cheaper costs

  6. Co-funding: Reporting of co-funding is not a Commission requirement (needs clarification) NAs may gather this information at national level. Having a real picture of the IP is essential Fees:only cost covering fee Ex. for partially paying students’ accommodation/ subsistence costs: transparency- a prerequisite

  7. Monitoring visits: Different approaches: Not all NA go for a monitoring visit Special monitoring visits for IP/during systems’ Audit More interesting during the IP. Attention: aim of the monitoring visit is to observe, not to check. Audit visits should be separate from monitoring visits. Annual project management meetings Guidelines for IP monitoring visits would be useful

  8. Evaluation of the final report Some NAs use external experts Some NAs use the final report template used by EACEA. DE NA suggested to upload existing final report forms in CIRCA. A folder has been created in CIRCA.http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/eac/llp-decentralised-actions/library?l=/subprogramme_erasmus/erasmus_decentralised/intensive_programmes/report_evaluation&vm=detailed&sb=Title Additional information is required in case of low quality final report Renewals: may be rejected on the basis of final reports Develop a common evaluation form at European level -Useful for measuring the impact/innovative character of IP -Would allow to organize thematic conferences Danger: complicate the evaluation of the final report, add more administrative work for NA

  9. Refunding Reimbursement asked in case eligibility criteria are not respected: Minimum number of students /Conference

  10. Other management issues Percentage of the grant used: 80 % Participation of the same students for 3 consecutive years:only as an exception, for justified cases SE NA proposed to introduce an IP centralized action rule: either different participants/either different programme Travel costs: some NA prefer reimbursement of real costs, some other prefer the use of lump sums, regarding the new Programme. Commission: attention! Only the number of participants may be reduced

  11. 2nd part : impact of the IP Students’ evaluation sheets:a good tool Online version suggested : not all agreed Anonymity of answers should be preserved Platform for IP coordinators: Main purpose: help finding new partners, exchanging ideas Different opinions. Should be user friendly Social and professional networks were suggested (informal) ADAM/EST (as a dissemination, not a communication tool) National meetings essential NAs: list of contact details/project information on the NAs website

  12. Suggestions : Contact seminars: good results but for limited range of subject areas Help bringing potential applicants together, building new partnerships, creating networks The SE NA will organize the next contact seminar in 2012, open only for future applicants Learning outcomes: very important, allow awarding ECTS, checking results But:lack of information-mistakes The Role of Bologna experts DAAD: IP Evaluation conference “Mobility and Innovation in the European Context”, 22-23 Nov. 2011

  13. How innovative are IP Need of a clear definition Students/teachers learn something new/see a topic from different scientific angles. Innovative element:topic/combination of subject areas/partnership Long term strategy: an IP topic could lose its actuality within 3 years Many IP coordinators do not wish/cannot afford to create something bigger than IP Costly :Eligibility period ends shortly

  14. IP Quality issues: academic & management criteria Quality criteria: difficult for NAs, needs experience Useful to have evaluators / external experts with the same academic background as the IP NA try to identify good examples : trigger more interest in IP during events/for publications Publications announced: DE : Generation Erasmus FI: Best practice IPs GR: Greek IP compendium NL: best practice ex. uploaded on their website Polish NA website: special dissemination section

  15. Project management criteria Minimum requirements for the IP website -daily work programme -Practical information -Courses offered Logo of the NA/ DG EAC/funding resources (EU/sponsors) -Free access -Not only on FB -At least in English -Visibility: front page of the university/department Relevant information is given to the IP coordinators during the Project Management meeting (GR)

  16. Project management criteria Financial management: Collaboration of coordinators with financial officers NA invite both in project management meetings Some NA have created a handbook for coordinators Coordinators are encouraged to share best practices

  17. IP beyond 2013 NEW PROGRAMME 2014-2020 Communication +legal basis:23/11/2011 Starting points: LLP : solid basis added European value Quality, Innovation, Internationalization Simplification of procedures-rationalisation Sustained impact at different levels Integration of existing programmes

  18. New Programme 2014-2020 Erasmus: Emphasis to quality : of mobility-recognition-language preparation-host enterprises Flexibility-multiple mobility periods Possible actions: European and Global credit mobility (ERASMUS MUNDUS) Full cycle mobility within joint degrees (Loan Guarantee facility) “

  19. Projects /cooperation -Intensive partnerships”Different actions are envisaged under 1 application -Intensive Programmes -Long term staff mobility on a reciprocal basis -Virtual mobility -Staff training courses Integration between neighboring countries (TEMPUS) -Cooperation with Businesses -Policy support

  20. IP management beyond 2013 More lump sums, including travel and subsistence costs Average length and average student-teacher ratio taken in account Renewal applications: new budgetary rules will apply Innovation criterion: valid Funding for 3 years (interim report) Or keep renewal applications?

  21. General questions Can we prove that IP are innovative? -Development of new curricula approaches -Enhancement of cooperation between HEIs-economy sectors-transfer of know-how Development and improvement of the use of ICT tools -Involvement of local communities -Dissemination of best practices in a specific study field between HEI in different countries

  22. Do IP enhance mobility? IP stimulate the increase of teaching staff and student mobility Initiate/strengthen partnerships between HEIs

  23. What is the IP impact on beneficiaries? Students: soft, intercultural skills First contact with the job market Teaching staff: improve professional teaching experience, exchange teaching ideas, different curricula approaches HEIs offer: internationalization at home”, enrich their curricula IP influence: Recognition procedures HEIs acquire international experience in management Administrative procedures-quality of work

More Related