JA slide show
 
 
 
 
Home arrow Evaluation IP arrow Evaluation

 


Erasmus 2012

  1. Method

During the last day of the IP, the coordinator distributed the standard questionnaires to the students (15 in total) and collected them back. The coordinator explained how to fill the questionnaire. We used descriptive analysis in order to present evaluation results about the IP.


  1. Motivation

Students considered as of high importance the academic and cultural reasons as well as their career plans in their choice to follow the present Erasmus IP. They also gave great weight to gain European experience in their choice to attend the class. Less important reason seems to be making new friends (Fig. 1).


1.png


Figure 1: Importance of factors that motivated students to take part in the Erasmus IP, using a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)


  1. Information and support results

Almost all (12) of the students (80%) heard about the Erasmus IP from their home institution, while other or former students of the IP seem to have played an important role in disseminating information about it (53%)

All students received excellent or good/very good support from the host institution before and during the IP (100%). No student report no or poor support for the host institution (Fig. 2). Students reported adequate support also by their home institution but not in all cases. The greatest proportion reported an excellent or very adequate support but two students were not satisfied (Fig. 2)


2.png

Figure 2: Students’ satisfaction on receiving support from home and host institution regarding their Erasmus participation


  1. Accomodation/ infrastructure

Students were hosted in traditional stone villas with cooking possibilities, in order to get more familiar to local culture and architecture of Zagori area. The coordinator chose randomly the students to share a room by two or three, but in a way to enhance the international character of the roommate team. Students gave an average grade of 4.6 out of 5 (StD 0.91), evaluating as very good / excellent their accommodation quality. Furthermore, we have to comment that the lectures were held in the oldest traditional stone house of Papingo (dated from 1650), which was recently renovated as a hotel (www.tospitimas.eu).

  1. Recognition/ ECTS

The greatest proportion of students (87%) were sure that they would gain recognition about the Erasmus IP and also 87% of that they would gain recognition as ECTS. We have to note here that the host institute (University of Ioannina) does not have yet the system of ECTS, justifying the number of students expressing their non-confidence about academic recognition. At least for the coordinator department, Erasmus IP will be equivalent to two courses in their curricula, a formal decision taken by the General Assembly of the Department. There was no negative answer for no recognition at all.

3.png

Figure 3: Number of students reporting whether they will gain academic recognition for their Erasmus IP.


  1. Costs

Students did not fill the amount of money needed to contribute to the Erasmus IP. They all answered that they did not have to pay anything about accommodation, field visits, material used during the IP and social programme of the school. They answered that they had to pay only for travel expenses (10% of their tickets) and for some lunches. We have to note here that the coordinator arranged several group lunches for students, offered by the IP or by sponsors (Municipality of Zagori).

  1. Personal experience/evaluation of IP

Table 1 summarizes the overall student’s satisfaction about IP experience. They were in general quite satisfied about the dates that the IP was held but less about the duration. We have to mention that the IP was held at the end of the exam period for Italian, UK and German students. It was however overlapping with the exam period for Greek students.

Students were satisfied about the number of hours of teaching (3.53/5). The present IP gave 7 ECTS and included 100h of workload. The programme was intensive and six students complained for too intensive time programme.

At the same time they evaluated well the equipment used (3.8), and even more highly the quality of teaching (4.33) and the professor’s capabilities and expertise (4.4/5).


Finally, they considered that the IP resulted in very good academic and learning outcomes, with an average evaluation of 3.73 and mediocre deviation (1.22), whereas as expected, the personal outcomes were evaluated slightly higher (3.87) with greater deviation (1.19).

Table 1: Students’ satisfaction with their IP experience in terms of average and Standard Deviation (StDev) using a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent)

Satisfaction about…

Average

StDev

Duration of the IP

3.60

1.30

Dates of the IP

4.40

0.74

Number of hours taught

3.53

1.36

Equipment used

3.80

0.86

Professors’ capabilities and expertise

4.40

0.48

Overall quality of teaching

4.33

0.49

Expected learning outcomes

3.60

0.83

Other activities

3.40

1.45

Academic & Learning
outcomes

3.73

1.22

Personal outcomes

3.87

1.19









The greatest proportion of the students (67%) considered the Erasmus IP as important to very important in helping them continuing their studies and undertaking their careers, but they were far more pessimistic in evaluating the potential of the present Erasmus IP to help them finding a job (Fig.4)

Finally, the overall evaluation of the Erasmus IP was 4.2, with a standard deviation of 0.68 (Fig. 5)

4.png
Figure 4. Number of students’ answers on how important they consider the contribution of the Erasmus IP to their future studies and career and the help them finding a job, using a scale from 0 (not at all) to very much (5). 

5.png

Figure 5. Overall evaluation of the Erasmus IP, using a scale from 1 (poor negative) to 5 (excellent).


  1. Problems/recommendations

In general, there was no serious problem reported by students. Six students suggested in the recommendation to the organizer part of the questionnaire, to let more free private time for students and make the Erasmus IP less intensive.


The main problem of the coordinator was the fact that she could not make a contract to an assistant for administrative issues, as for several months the procedure was “frozen” by the Ministry and no contract at all for research / education project could be envisaged in the Research Committee. The problem was not solved.






 

Evaluation Erasmus IP 2011


1. Method

During the last day of the IP, the coordinator distributed the standard questionnaires to the students (15 in total) and collected them back. The oordinator explained how to fill the questionnaire. We used descriptive nalysis in order to present evaluation results about the IP.

2. Motivation

Students considered as of high importance the academic reasons as well s their career plans in their choice to follow the present Erasmus IP. They lso gave great weight to gain Eu heir choice to attend the class. Less important reasons seem to be racticing a foreign language and making new friends (Fig. 1).


image1.jpg

Figure 1: Importance of factors that motivated students to take part in the Erasmus IP, using a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)

3. Information and support results

Almost all (14) of the students (93%) heard about the Erasmus IP from their home institution, while the web page seems to have played an important role in dissemina disseminating information about it (40%)

All students received excellent or good/very good support from the host institution before and during the IP (100%). No student report no or poor support for the host institution (Fig. 1). Students reported adequate support also by their home institution but not in all cases. The greatest proportion reported an excellent or very adequate support but one student was not satisfied (Fig. 1)


image2.jpg

Figure 3.1 Students’ satisfaction on receiving support from home and host institution regarding their Erasmus participation

4. Accomodation/ Infrastructure

Students were hosted in traditional stone villas with cooking possibilities, in order to get more familiar to local culture and architecture of Zagori area. The usual price per room is a
to have them in a more convenient price for the needs of the Erasmus IP. The coordinator chose randomly the students to share a room by two or three, but in a way to enhance the international character of the roommate team. Students gave an average grade of 4.33 out of 5 (StD 0.82), evaluating as very good / excellent their accommodation quality. Furthermore, we have to comment that the lectures were held in the oldest traditional stone house of Papingo (dated from 1650), recently renovated as a hotel (www.tospitimas.eu).

5. Recognition/ECTS 


image3.jpg

Figure 3.2 Number of students reporting whether they will gain academic recognition for their Erasmus IP.

6. Costs

Students did not fill the amount of money needed to contribute to the Erasmus IP. They all answered that they did not have to pay anything about accommodation, field visits, material used during the IP and social programmes of the school. They answered that they had to pay only for travel expenses (25% of their tickets) and for lunches. We have to note here that the coordinator arranged two group lunches for students and professors together, that they were offered by sponsors (Region of Epirus, Municipality of Zagori).

7. Personal experience/Evaluation of IP

Table 3.1 summarizes the overall student’s satisfaction about IP experience. They were in general quite satisfied about the duration of the IP but less about the the dates it was held. We have to mention that the IP was held at the end of the exam period for Italian, UK and German students. It was however overlapping with the exam period for Greek and Danish students.
Students evaluated quite low the web site of the programme (www.cbcd.eu/gss), giving a grade of 3.4/5. We attribute this low evaluation (a) in a mistake produced by the secretariat and webmaster of the IP, presenting a different date of the IP finalization in the timeprogramme link, causing some problems in booking of air-tickets, which was however settled at the end, and (b) to a technical problem in the online student application form. All problems were fixed at the end. The coordinator decided to change to contract with the webmaster.
They were satisfied about the number of hours of teaching (4/5). The present IP gave 7 ECTS and included 100h of workload. The programme was intensive and three students complained for too intensive time programme.
At the same time they evaluated well the type of academic activities (3.8), and even more highly the quality of teaching (4.4) and the professor’s capabilities and expertise (4.5/5).
Finally, they considered that they IP resulted in very good academic and learning outcomes, with an average evaluation of 4 and small deviation (0.53), whereas as expected, the personal learning outcomes were evaluated slightly less (4.20) with greater deviation (0.77).


Table 3.1 Students’ satisfaction with their IP experience in terms of average and Standard Deviation (StDev) using a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent)


table.jpg

The greatest proportion of the students (87%) considered the Erasmus IP as important to very important in helping them continuing their studies and undertaking their careers, but they were far more pessimistic in evaluating the potential of the present Erasmus IP to help them finding a job (Fig.3.3)

Finally, the overall evaluation of the Erasmus IP was 4.67, with a standard deviation of 0.49 (Fig.3.4)


image4.jpg

Figure 3.3. Number of students’ answers on how important they consider the contribution of the Erasmus IP to their future studies and career and Erasmus the help them finding a job, using a scale from 0 (not at all) to very much (5).

image5.jpg

Figure 3.4. Overall evaluation of the Erasmus IP, using a scale from 1 (poor negative) to 5 (excellent).

8. Problems/Recommendations

There was no serious problem reported by students, except for two students mentioning as a serious problem the fact that they couldn’t speak English fluently. Three more students suggested in the recommendation to the organizer part of the questionnaire, to let more part free private time for students. Another suggestion, reported by many students to the coordinator during the IP was the need to be able to support financially lunches and meals. We note here that this year the subsistence cost for students was that low that allowed only for covering their accommodation. Professors themselves reported that the absence of well organized group lunches as previous year due to financial reasons hampered the realization of the intensive programme of the IP as students programme had short time to prepare lunches and rest. Professors suggested that in the IP of forthcoming year at least one student paid lunch should be student-paid obligatory. The coordinator committed to investigate this possibility with the Erasmus office of IKY.

Evaluation Erasmus IP 2010

1. Method

During the last day of the IP, the coordinator distributed the standard questionnaires to the students (14 in total) and collected them back. The coordinator did not explain anything about how to fill the questionnaire. We used descriptive analysis in order to present evaluation results about the IP.

2. Motivation

Students considered as of high importance the academic reasons as well as their career plans in their choice to follow the present Erasmus IP. They also gave great weight to gain European as well cultural experience in their choice to attend the class. Less important reasons seem to be practicing a foreign language and making new friends (Fig. 1).


Figure 1: Importance of factors that motivated students to take part in the Erasmus IP, using a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much)

3. Information and support results

All of the students (100%) heard about the Erasmus IP from their home institution, whereas the web page not seems to have played an important role in disseminating information about it (7%)

All students received excellent or very good support from the host institution before and during the IP (100%). No student report no or poor support for the host institution (Fig. 1). Students reported adequate support also by their home institution but not in all cases. The greatest proportion reported an excellent or very adequate support but two students were not satisfied (Fig. 1)

Figure 3.1 Students' satisfaction on receiving support from home and host institution regarding their Erasmus participation

4. Accomodation/ infrastructure

Students were hosted in traditional stone villas with cooking possibilities, in order to get more familiar to local culture and architecture of Zagori area. The usual price per room is about 100-150€/ room, but we managed to have them in a more convenient price for the needs of the Erasmus IP. The coordinator chose randomly the students to share a room by two or three, but in a way to enhance the international character of the roommate team. Students gave an average grade of 4.79 out of 5 (StD 0.43), evaluating as excellent their accommodation quality. Furthermore, we have to comment that the lectures were held in the oldest traditional stone house of Papingo (dated from 1650), which was recently renovated as a hotel.

5. Recognition/ ECTS

The greatest proportion of students (79%) were sure that they would gain recognition about the Erasmus IP and 71% of that they would gain recognition as ECTS. We have to note here that the host institute (University of Ioannina) does not have yet the system of ECTS, justifying the number of students expressing their non-confidence about academic recognition. At least for the coordinator department, Erasmus IP will be equivalent to two courses in their curricula. There was no negative answer for no recognition at all.

Figure 3.2. Number of students reporting whether they will gain academic recognition for their Erasmus IP.

6. Costs

Students did not fill the amount of money needed to contribute to the Erasmus IP. They all answered that they did not have to pay anything about accommodation, field visits, material used during the IP and social programmes of the school. They answered that they had to pay only for travel expenses (25% of their tickets). We have to note here that the coordinator arranged group lunches and dinners for students and professors together, whereas two lunches were covered by sponsors.

7. Personal experience/evaluation of IP

Table 3.1 summarizes the overall student's satisfaction about IP experience. They were in general quite satisfied about the duration of the IP and the dates it was held. We have to mention that the IP was held at the end of the exam period for Italian, UK and German students. It was however overlapping with the exam period for Greek and Danish students. The Danish teacher (G. Lovei) reported unwillingness for Danish students to take part because of this reason, whereas Greek students suggested during the IP the transfer of the IP starting date a couple of weeks later, out of their exam period (beginning of July).

Students evaluated quite high the web site of the programme (www.cbcd.eu/gss), giving a grade of 4.6/5.

They were not satisfied about the number of hours of teaching (3.5/5). The present IP gave 7 ECTS and included more than 100h of workload. The programme was very intensive and many students complained for too intensive time programme.

However they evaluated highly the type of academic activities (4.3), and even more highly the quality of teaching (4.5) and the professor's capabilities and expertise (4.7/5). A very high proportion reaching almost 80% gave a thought that professors gave an excellent quality teaching (5).

Finally, they considered that they IP resulted in very good academic and learning outcomes, with an average evaluation of 4.43 and small deviation (0.51), whereas as expected, the personal learning outcomes were evaluated slightly less (4.35) with greater deviation (0.74).

Table 3.1 Students' satisfaction with their IP experience in terms of average and Standard Deviation (StDev) using a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent)

Satisfaction about...

Average

StDev

Duration of the IP

4.43

0.6

Dates of the IP

4.42

0.75

IP Website

4.64

0.50

Number of hours taught

3.50

1.02

Type of academic activities

4.29

0.47

Equipment used

4.36

0.47

Professors' capabilities and expertise

4.71

0.61

Overall quality of teaching

4.57

0.51

Expected learning outcomes

4.14

0.66

Other activities

3.9

1.27

Academic & Learning
outcomes

4.43

0.51

Personal outcomes

4.35

0.74

The greatest proportion of students (79%) considered the Erasmus IP as important to very important in helping them continuing their studies and undertaking their careers, but they were far more pessimistic in evaluating the potential of the present Erasmus IP to help them finding a job (Fig.3.3)

Finally, the overall evaluation of the Erasmus IP was 4.36, with a standard deviation of 0.63 (Fig. 3.4)

Figure 3.3. Number of students' answers on how important they consider the contribution of the Erasmus IP to their future studies and career and the help them finding a job, using a scale from 0 (not at all) to very much (5).

Figure 3.4. Overall evaluation of the Erasmus IP, using a scale from 1 (poor negative) to 5 (excellent).

8. Problems/recommendations

There was no serious problem reported by students, except for one student criticizing the strict time programme and the workload. Five more students suggested in the recommendation to the organizer part of the questionnaire, to let less time for lunches and dinner, and hence let more free private time for students.

Students suggested to the coordinator during the IP about the need to have more private time, party time, time to get better prepared for their projects and exams, but they did not write these comments in their questionnaires.

Another suggestion, reported by five students was the need to organize special meals for vegetarians.

 

Visitors

mod_vvisit_counterAll380450

Important Dates

  •     09 January 2012: Registration opens
  •     15 March 2012: Registration closes
  •     15 April 2012: Announcement of participants
  •     24 June 2012: Arrival in Ioannina
IX.4     The beneficiary shall acknowledge the grant support received under the Lifelong Learning Programme in any document disseminated or published, in any product or material produced with the grant support, and in any statement or interviews given, in accordance with the visual identity guidelines provided by the European Commission at the address http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/graphics/identity_en.html. The acknowledgement shall be followed by a disclaimer stating that the content of the publication is the sole responsibility of the publisher and that the European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information.