WP2 Final Report

7/30/2019 WP2 Final Report

1/45

HEIONHigher Education Institutions Online for ECTS

Work Package 2 | Study of Current Practices in ECTS Learning Agreement Handling

April 2013

DocumentReport on ECTS Learning Agreement in handling inEuropean HEI

AuthorsRui Raposo (UA); Nesrin Kenar (SAU); Paul Leys

(GhentU)

Contributions zkan Canay (SAU)

Approved 25th of April


2/45

HEION Work Package 2 | Study of Current Practices in ECTS Learning Agreement Handling

Identifier: EACEA-527937 | Proposal Number: 527937-LLP-1-2012-1-PT-ERASMUS-EAM Page 2 / 45

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 32 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 43 LITERATUREREVIEW ................................................................................................... 5

THEECTSHANDLINGPROCESS .......................................................................................................... 5SOFTWARE..................................................................................................................................... 8

4 QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................................................... 105 FOCUSGROUPMEETINGS ......................................................................................... 106 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 11

LITERATURE.................................................................................................................................. 11ONLINEQUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................ 13FOCUSGROUPMEETINGS ............................................................................................................... 14

7 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 168 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 189 ANNEXES................................................................................................................... 19

ANNEX1:RESULTSFROMQUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................................... 19ANNEX2:MINUTESOFFOCUSGROUPMEETINGFORHEIONPROJECTOFAVEIROUNIVERSITY ................ 30ANNEX3:MINUTESOFFOCUSGROUPMEETINGFORHEIONPROJECTOFGHENTUNIVERSITY .................36ANNEX4:MINUTESOFFOCUSGROUPMEETINGFORHEIONPROJECTOFSAKARYAUNIVERSITY .............. 41


3/45



1 Introduction

Learning Agreements (LA) may probably be considered one of the core documents, ifnot the most important document, used within student exchange programmes. TheLA is originally developed in order to provide a binding agreement before the mobilitytakes place among the home institution, the host institution and the student. Itcontains the list of courses, which the student plans to attend at the host institution,the courses identification code and their attributed European Credit Transfer andAccumulation System (ECTS) credits. By signing the LA, the host institution agreesand commits to enrolling the incoming student in the courses listed in the officialdocument and to providing the required learning activities. The home institution in

return commits to granting recognition of the credits obtained at the host institution.There are, however, cases in which the study programme proposed through the LAmay need to be modified after the student arrival at host institution. In such cases,the Learning Agreement must be amended as soon as possible and signed by thethree parties (the home institution, the host institution and the student).

Although this relatively simple formal process is clearly described in the ECTS UsersGuide, a considerable number of Higher Education Institutions (HEI) adopt differentpractices. Moreover, as parts of this report will describe, many Erasmus studentscome across various problems due to the sometimes incorrect or partial applicationof what is suggested in the ECTS Users Guide.

Within the HEION project focus will be placed upon work done with LA, andsubsequent ECTS handling, within the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP)/Erasmusexchange programme.

This report provides a detailed overview of work done in Work Package 2 (WP2),from the HEION project, which focuses on the Study of Current Practices LA and inECTS Learning Agreement Handling. Lead by the team from Sakarya University1staff members from two additional universities (University of Aveiro2 and GhentUniversity3) were involved in this work package dedicated to ECTS LearningAgreement handling in European HEI. Work done focused on the different ways HEI

deal with the preparation, signing and dispatch of ECTS Learning Agreements in thecontext of the ERASMUS programme.

The report starts with explaining the methodology used by the WP2 partners. Adescription of the tools used in data and information collection is presentedaccompanied by an overview of some of the literature about these issues. Literaturereview also included a brief analysis of some IT systems currently available, which

1 http://www.sakarya.edu.tr/en/2 http://www.ua.pt

3 http://www.ugent.be/en
http://www.sakarya.edu.tr/en/http://www.ua.pt/http://www.ugent.be/enhttp://www.ugent.be/enhttp://www.ua.pt/http://www.sakarya.edu.tr/en/


4/45



also tackle these issues, and a look at some on-going work and trends that seek toaddress the question of ECTS Learning Agreement handling. Main results andsignificance of the work is presented in the section of the report that resumes someof the findings come across.

Towards the end of the report some conclusions drawn from work done in WP2 arepresented and discussed. These conclusions include a reflection, by the authors, onthe findings, including some interpretations and, where appropriate and sustainable,a SWOT4 analysis of the ECTS learning agreement handling practices and attitudesof stake holders based on the information collected. Annexes referred to though outthe report are included in the last section of this document.

2 Methodology

Work in WP2 was done according to an exploratory methodology in which the maingoals to be met where:

i) the summary of information available in current literature regarding currentpractices and trends in European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) handling anddifficulties felt within the Learning Agreement (LA) process;

ii) the collection of information and data regarding current practices related withECTS and LA from the actual players in the process (incoming and outgoingstudents, international office coordinators and staff and department coordinators);

iii) the drawing of conclusions and opinions concerning the issues addressed suitablefor being used in the subsequent work packages.

In order to meet these goals the WP2 team:

Developed a literature review focused on documented policies, practices andtrends;

Designed and implemented an online questionnaire focused on obtaininginformation about the ECTS handling and LA process from current and formerstudents taking part in the Erasmus mobility programme all over Europe;

Organized 3 focus group meetings with participants in the ECTS handling andLA process, in each team members HEI.

The following sections of this report will describe the work done; difficulties comeacross, the results and some conclusions that may be drawn from what wasachieved.

4 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)


5/45



3 Literature review

The ECTS handling process

Literature on the topic of the ECTS Key documents evolves from the late 1980s andearly 1990s when the ECTS concept took root as a mechanism, in Europe, forrecognition of studies carried out in a foreign country within the context of studentmobility. Explanations and examples of the ECTS credit as a kind of Europeancurrency for student exchange are readily available and the pivotal role of the ECTSKey Documents as the legal instruments for ensuring the transfer of credits is verypresent. The literature lays heavy emphasis on problems of methodology of creditallocation and describing learning outcomes. As ECTS became implemented in moreand more Higher Education Institutions (HEI), and the concerns of the European

Commission, the Council and the European Parliament turned to improving lifelonglearning opportunities and facilitating access to higher education, ECTS wasrecognized as a crucial instrument in achieving new goals. The literature naturallyanticipates and accompanies the policy trends, very particularly at a time, fromaround 2000, when ECTS became widely recognized as a key instrument in lifelongcredit accumulation and recognition of non-formal learning in the context of theBologna Process.

As a credit transfer mechanism, ECTS are now the common instrument in use in theEuropean Higher Education Area. The system has been integrated into the legalsystems of the European Union (EU) Member States and a considerable number of

states beyond, providing the means to enable the full academic recognition of studiestaken abroad by students in HEI. Yet it is believed and recognizable, in variousinstances throughout the European HEI network, that the technical implementation ofECTS in the student mobility context still faces serious difficulties, notably in terms ofthe administrative workload it involves for administrative staff, students and academicstaff in HEI.

Inherent difficulties felt in the ECTS handling process may, at a first glance, belargely attributed to the fact that a vast percentage of the administrative workloadinvolved in ECTS Learning Agreements (LA) is still paper-based. This paper-basedreality, not at all in consensus with current information and knowledge society trends,

has lead, in the past and present, to situations in which LA are simply left unchangedwhen changes are required, in which documents are still left unsigned whensignatures are necessary and unchecked for detail. An ECTS Learning Agreementmay be understood, at its essence, as contract between two HEI and a student todefine the content of a study programme abroad and to identify and agree upon thenumber of ECTS credits that the study programme is worth. It is, of course, thediversity of degree programme structures and contents, and the diversity of ways ofpresenting (or not) this information, that makes creating and handling a LA a lesssimple task than one would otherwise expect it to be.

The percentage of student exchanges that take place without a correctly prepared

ECTS Learning Agreement before the study period abroad or changed during the


6/45



study period abroad, is unknown and this fact on its own must be considered aworrying issue in need of immediate attention. Few HEI in Europe are ready to applyfor the ECTS Label and many have been unsuccessful in their attempts, as shown bythe scarce number of HEI listed the latest ECTS Label booklet. This bears witness tothe fact that the number of HEI truly employing the ECTS tools correctly is very smallindeed.

If we consider the description provided in the ECTS User Guide on preparing ECTSLearning Agreement, which is supposed to be the document of reference for HEIparticipating in the ERASMUS Programme, we might wonder why the preparation ofsuch a clear, short and seemingly simple contract between two HEI should be thesource of an excessive or complex administrative workload. However, professionalsat International Offices and ECTS Departmental Co-ordinators around Europe are at

odds to agree upon how to solve the many and varied practical problems that prevail.Literature providing analysis and evaluation of the usage made of ECTS keydocuments by students; mobility coordinators or administrative staff is not readilyavailable in the public domain. A review of documents available evidence of howECTS key documents are being used in HEI appears to lead to a conclusion thatwhile the formal requirements of the ECTS key documents are indeed welldocumented, not least to mention in the ECTS Users Guide (2009), HEI have workedautonomously to develop methods of preparing and circulating the ECTSdocumentation, albeit in many instances with the assistance of ECTS counsellorsand an ECTS Helpline.

However, a simplistic attempt to outline the workflow followed by the vast majority, ifnot all HEI, would allow us to reach a result as illustrated in figure 1. A quick overviewof this workflow enables us to understand that the process, although simple, in realitycomes across several inherent challenges due to the number of tasks, people,communication media and the information exchanged.


7/45



Figure 1 - Outline of a simplistic, yet widely adopted, LA process workflow.

Quality control of the ECTS documentation produced along, and as a result of thisworkflow, is generally carried out at an institutional level, through internal Q&Amechanisms; at national level, through national agency audits; and, for ECTS Labelapplicants, at a European programme coordination level. However, documented


8/45



evidence available suggests that, according to quality control criteria, the use ofECTS key documents generally represent a formality which has been implemented ina top-down manner across Universities in Europe, where the monitoring of ECTS isrestricted to the extent to which University conform to the formal requirements of theECTS key documents (i.e. ECTS Key Documentation as products, not processes).

Coordination among HEI in Europe on how to process the ECTS key documentshas been scant, which means, it has been limited to a small number of UniversityNetworks that provide the only evidence of an attempt to achieve some kind ofconsensus regarding the methods used to ensure quality in ECTS Document usage.

Oftentimes the workload is borne by students, who are expected to gather thesignatures on their ECTS Learning Agreement. Other times, the task of fillingagreement and collecting signatures is let to the technical support staff at theInternational Office. Less often, it seems, do ECTS Departmental Co-ordinators see itas their duty to oversee and ensure the correct fulfilment of the ECTS LearningAgreement requirements. Literature does not, however, establish any basis for ageneralised claim that ECTS Departmental coordinators are falling back in theirduties. It does, in fact, lead to the recognition that what is often lacking is a clearunderstanding of what the procedure actually is, how it should be executed and bywhom and, most importantly, the importance of action such as: having the LearningAgreement signed by 5 people, at different physical locations; and the importance ofsigning the Changes form. ECTS documents, and various versions thereof, go backand forth by snail mail throughout Europe constantly, and in some cases, in more

than one version of the same document. One may say that there are too manypaper-based documents being produced and shifted around in a procedure, which atits core is relatively simple and straightforward.

In the literature available, there is recurring reference to the obstacles to mobility, inwhich administrative obstacles(EHEA Ministerial Conference 2012 Report fromthe Mobility Working Group) appear to vaguely hint at poor quality ECTSdocumentation handling as being problematic. Nevertheless a number of sources(Euro student, ESU), apparently attempting to give a view of ECTS from below, fail toappreciate the coordination problems of ECTS Key Document handling, and hencefail to recognize the problem as an obstacle to student mobility.

Software

The use of specific software, built and orientated towards the management ofinternational relations inherent tasks is, according to the review done, a growingtrend but still far from general adoption by European HEI. In many cases HEI havechosen to develop their own online solutions, capable of aiding particular tasks suchas filing in LA or presenting the lists of courses available in English. These solutionshave been able to improve the LA and ECTS handling process, but have done so ata local level. This means that these practices are capable of improve activities at alocal level, but in many cases fall short of total success due to the fact that the same

practices are not implemented at other partner home and host HEI. However, there


9/45



are cases in which the concern with providing solutions that promote sharedpractices has lead HEI to purchase and use the same online software. Some of thesesoftware solutions, such as moveon5and Mobility-Online by SOP6, have been able todeconstruct and understand to great extent: work flows, tasks and variables involvedin international relation activities. They have, to an even deeper extent, been capableto pinpoint almost every expected outcome and usage expected from work donewithin the softwares context of use.

It is interesting to see that the scope of the software presently available does not limitits potential users exclusively to one or two types of users. Students, Teachers, Staff,Interns, Staff of the International Office, Departmental coordinators, Institutioncoordinators and even enterprises; are accounted for in many of the solutionsprovided. However, what does draw some attention is the fact that software, as theabove-mentioned examples, does not use the same discourse when presenting

themselves or the type of problems they can help solve. While the moveon solutiondirects its description to a module based structure concerned with internationalmanagement activities and what the software proposes as key features for each ofthese modules; the solution provided by SOP although sharing some commonbenefits and capabilities, as they are referred to, tend to mix the functional and thetechnological aspects of what it has to offer.

With this said about the obvious distinctions among these examples, attention shouldbe directed to what they share is common, in other words, what challenges have thistype of software set out to meet in the mobility context.

Some characteristics that jump to ones attention are: the fact that the software isavailable online; that much of the activities are done in real-time; and in an easy anderror and effort reducing manner. This only leads to the belief that paper is not, andshould not be, the dominant part of the equation in current practices. It is alsoenables the conclusion that workflows in various areas such as: mobility andexchange applications; partner agreement management; academic and internationaloffice management; have already been outlined, critical moments within their flowhave been predicted and solutions for eventual problems are provided byanticipation.

From a technical point of view, besides the online and real-time nature of thesoftware, by proposing highly flexible solutions with multiple choices as to import and

export files and data formats, it is clear to see that interoperability is a key quality inthese solutions. By guaranteeing high standards of interoperability technicalincompatibility with already existing information systems and databases may bedrastically reduced. This means that when HEI decide to integrate these tools in theirpractices technical difficulties, information system reviewing and redesigning will beat the bottom of their list of concerns. However, it is still interesting to notice that withall the data and information produced and managed, the reporting done still has roomto grow and paths to explore. Reporting is, to some extent, still seen as the task of

5 http://www.qs-unisolution.com/en/portfolio/solutions/moveon/about.html

6 http://www.sop-at.com/en/products/mobility_online/


10/45



reporting final results to someone or to some organization. The software review didnot enable us to reach any conclusions as to what it allowed in terms of searchingand analyzing information according to multivariable correlation and configuration,nor was there any mention to the solutions provides in terms of informationvisualization. However, as expected in common reporting actions, bar and pie chartsas well as single and multiline graphs are the most common InfoViz methodsprovided.

4 Questionnaire

There is no better way to understand how students handle the whole LA and ECTShandling process than asking the students themselves. With this is mind the threeproject partners involved in this WP2 conducted an online questionnaire7 as a part of

the work plan outlined for this particular work package. The questionnaire wastargeted to Erasmus students from all over Europe and was distributed by the WP2partners, who also asked the other partners of the HEION project to share thequestionnaire with their students. The questionnaire was answered by incoming andoutgoing students, which either participated (2011-2012) or are currently participatingin the Erasmus program (2012-2013). WP2 leaders chose to only include mobilestudents of the current and the previous academic year as students from earlieryears (before 2011-2012) would probably have addressed problems that may havealready been solved. The questionnaire was disseminated by email and posted onthe projects Facebook page8.

In the questionnaire students were asked about the following topics: personal profile,institutional background; the completion of the first LA and the difficulties faced; thecollection of obligatory signatures; their need for original documents/signatures; theirneed for changes in their original LA after arriving at the host HEI; whether they usedthe right procedure to change the original LA; who was responsible for thecompletion of the LA; their opinion about the use of an online tool as a mean tofacilitate the process; what features and functionalities such an online tool shouldinclude.

A copy of the quest ionnaire may be found both onl ine and in Annex 1.

5 Focus group meetings

When asking for problems within the LA and ECTS handling process all partsinvolved should have a chance to speak their mind. In order to collect these differentperspectives each of the WP2 partners organized a focus group at their university.Prior to this focus group meeting, the methodology that would be used wasdiscussed and agreed on. The general profile of the stakeholders they wanted to

7https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGhHRTNnTmVmbzJnbGRlYWFROVRyTWc6MQ#gid=08 http://www.facebook.com/heionproject


11/45



invite was discussed and agreed on and resulted in the following list of participants:at least one departmental/Erasmus coordinator, some members from theInternational Relations Office (IRO) staff, at least one incoming student and at leastone outgoing student. In some cases the focus groups, which should ideally be madeup of about 7 participants, included more than one incoming and outgoing student. Ascript used for structuring the discussions held was set in advance in order to allowan easier comparison between the answers given by the participants.

Regarding current practices at each HEI, four main phases of the LA and ECTShandling process were identified and discussed about:

1. Filling in LA, sending it to the Host HEI and receiving confirmation andacceptance;

2. Arriving to the Host HEI, reviewing LA and making some changes;3. Leaving Host HEI and receiving by snail mail the final results at the Home HEI;4. Grades and ECTS transferred to the Home HEI local system.

The following questions were asked in relation to each of these phases:

What problems did you/students face?

How were these problems solved?

In your opinion how could these problems be eradicated?

Could an online tool help to eradicate these problems and how?

The summaries of the transcripts from each of the focus group may be foundin Annexes 2, 3 and 4.

6 Findings

The following pages will provide and overview of the findings came across duringwork done in WP2 according to each of the tasks developed. In general, according toresults and information retrieved, through the literature review, questionnaire andfocus group meetings, all Erasmus students and staff involved in the processresearched face the same problems or similar ones. Moreover, the way they deal

with these problems, and their proposals about how an online tool could help toeradicate them, are also similar.

Literature

After the review of current available literature, it is clearly viewable that any literaturerelated to the LA handling process, and with the usage of ECTS key documents, isnot available in the public domain. The ECTS Users Guide (2009) is, according towhat was analysed, the most detailed document available, which provides relativelydetailed information regarding the formal requirements of the ECTS key documentson the issue.


12/45



When looking for additional information there is not an extent list of documentsavailable related with the usage of ECTS key documents in HEI. The previouslymentioned ECTS Users Guide is still the main reference document. However, it isworth noticing that in 2013 an Ad-hoc Working Group was formed with the goal ofrevising the ECTS Users' Guide. This may, to some extent, be related with theupcoming changes in the mobility programs structure and the need to look back onrecent practices in order to fine tune and improve them. This is a comprehensibleeffort when it is clear that, in terms of how LA and ECTS are dealt with, there is aninconsistency in the European HEI landscape regarding the methods used ofpreparing these documents.

It is a fact that, the administrative workload involved in LA and ECTS handling is stillfully or partially paper-based in a vast majority of HEI. In some cases this may, for

instance, involuntarily enable a lack of control over documents produced andchanged throughout the process. As a result HEI and students still run into situationsin which: LA are left unchanged when changes are required; documents are still leftpartially unsigned when a well known list of obligatory signatures are essential; andcourse unit codes and ECTS credits are left unchecked by students and staff atvarious stages of handling process.

As the information collected in the questionnaire will prove further on in this report,there is a still considerable percentage of students that handle their ECTS LearningAgreements without correctly preparing them before the mobility occurs or reviewingthem during the mobility period. So, consequently, success in getting the ECTS Label

is sometimes sabotaged due to this fact worth looking into.However, according to the description linked to the ECTS Learning Agreement in theECTS User Guide, LA seem a clear, short and simple contract between two HEI. Itshouldnt be the source of an excessive or complex administrative workload forInternational Offices and ECTS Departmental Co-ordinators, but in reality it can turninto a very complex process. After scanning ECTS key documents and the LAhandling process of various HEI in Europe, it was clear that only portion of HEI haveattempted and succeeded in achieving consensus regarding the methods used toensure quality in ECTS Document usage. Other examples of current literature do notentirely point out the problems faced in mobility as the Report from the Mobility

Working Group - EHEA Ministerial Conference 20129

, which analyse theadministrative obstacles on ECTS documentation handling, and the EuropeanStudents Union (ESU)10 publications do not mention coordination problems of ECTSKey Document handling, and hence fail to recognize the problem as an obstacle tostudent mobility.

9Final Report by The Working Group on Mobility, EHEA Ministerial Conference, Bucharest 2012.10http://www.esu-online.org


13/45



Online questionnaire

ECTS Users Guide is the official guide for handling LAs in HEIs. As alreadydescribed in this guide, a standard LA has to include a planned course list, thestudents signature, the home HEIs institutional signatures and stamp, and the hostHEIs institutional signatures and stamp. These are what are considered thecompulsory parts of LA. Some HEI have, however, made some changes in otherparts of LAs according to specific institutional and national policies.

The remaining of this section includes a short compilation of the results obtainedthrough the online questionnaire. The complete set of results may be found in Annex1.

The majority of respondents had a copy (80%) or the original version (13%) of theirLA when they arrived at the host university. 5% received their LA after arrival, 1 %stated that they did not have any version of their LA. When it comes to the questionwhether all parties signed the LA, 70 % answered positively, 30% didnt have thesignature of the host institution.

The results of the questionnaire made clear that different practices exist regardingthe use of original documents, signatures and a certain template of the LA. 56% wasrequired to use the LA from the home university while 28% had to use the LA fromthe host institution. 52% responded they required an original LA. Although scannedcopies of LAs are accepted by many HEIs, handling hard copies of completed LAsstill causes problems for other HEIs.

In general students find managing the LA neither very easy nor very difficult. 39% didnot have a positive nor negative opinion regarding the question how easy was it foryou to manage the LA and ECTS for your mobility. 36% answered it was easy orvery easy, 25% answered it was difficult or very difficult. An analysis of the difficultiesfound in managing the LA and ECTS enables to conclude that students had mostproblems with finding courses (26% difficult, 9% very difficult) and courses contents(23% difficult, 10% very difficult) at the host university.

Getting the LA signed by the host university was, for about 16% of all respondentsdifficult or very difficult, while getting the LA signed by the home university was, forabout 15% of all respondents, difficult (11%) or very difficult (4%). An importantfinding from the questionnaire is that 75% of all respondents changed courses aftertheir arrival at the host institution. This means that 75% of all LAs needed to berevised and about 18% of a total of 839 respondents, did not complete the add anddelete form.

Only 17% of the responding Erasmus students used online/software systems or toolsfor the handling of their LA and/or ECTS. 81% of a total of 939 respondentsanswered that they were responsible themselves for the LA and other processes.

To conclude students were asked if, in their opinion, an online tool could make work


14/45



regarding the LA and ECTS handling easier. The vast majority of respondents (90%)answered positively to this question. The most important tasks they think this toolshould include have to do with: course selection (90%), LA completion (79%), andCourse/credit recognition at the home institution (74%), updates on the validation ofthe LA (62%).

Focus group meetings

In this section the findings of the three different focus groups will be compiledtogether into a simple general overview. There were many common remarks andsolutions provided by the participant and, curiously or not, what all three focus groupsclearly had in common for all phases discussed was the answer on how thereproblems were solved. Problems were almost always solved with extra efforts andtime from students and staff involved in the establishment of the Learning Agreement(departmental/Erasmus coordinators, International Relations Office staff). From thisperspective there is a clear need for reducing the extra efforts off all participantsinvolved in the LA process. An online tool could, in the opinion of several focus groupmembers, offer a solution for several of the problems discussed. In the followingsections the most important outcomes of the focus groups will be discussed alongthe lines of the discussion structure used in the focus groups (see supra 5 FocusGroup Meetings).

a) Filling in LA, sending it to the Host Higher Education Institution and

receiving confirmation and acceptance

A first important problem students faced at this stage is finding courses at the hostinstitution. Issues related with the fact that some HEI do not have a course catalogue,the course catalogue is not available in English, it is not updated are often referredto. Due to the unclear information about the availability of courses, many studentsneed to change their Learning Agreement when they arrive at the host institution(75% needs to change his/her Learning Agreement). A second important problemhas to do with communication. There is no/not enough communication between thehome institution and the host institution reaching a point that sometimes students donot know whom they should address at the host institution. The third relevantproblem, in this first phase, is that students do not get back a properly signed

learning agreement from the host institution.

Focus group participants in all three countries saw a clear benefit in the online toolthat could help reduce communication problems and, at the same time, also helpclarify role attribution thus bypassing current complications quite easily with thisonline system. The new tool could also enable electronic approval instead ofsignature collection, which would make the process easier. The most difficult part ofthe process remains linked to course selection for HEI will always be dependent onthe information they get from their partners.


15/45



b) Arr iving to Host HEI, reviewing LA and making necessary changes

As already mentioned before, the majority of students change their LearningAgreement when arriving at the host HEI and the problems they face, once again,have to do with communication issues such as: students do not inform their homeinstitution; they do not know who to address; they use wrong subject codes or theydo not use them at all. Finding the correct courses can be a problem in this phasebecause e.g. information is not always updated or there is no decent coursecatalogue. As an alternative, at this stage, students need personnel advise at thehost institution. Therefore they often rely on staff in case they already know whichstaff member they should address. Another problem faced by departmental/Erasmuscoordinators or IRO staff is the difficulty in clearly and immediately recognizing whichsubjects were added and which ones were deleted. This makes the revision of

changed LA a huge effort for the staff involved.Many of the problems faced in this stage are due to the fact that the first LA was notproperly filled out in the first place. A lot of work normally expected has to be donetwice. Eradicating the problem of finding the correct courses in the first phase, willeradicate most problems in the second phase. Besides that the online tool can onceagain help with: making communication more easy; giving correct information aboutcontact persons at the home and host institution; facilitating the process of signingthe changed LA by using electronic approvals. It could also make the work simplerfor the staff, that has to control and sign/approve the changes, deleted and addedcourses where visually presented in an easy to understand manner.

c) Leaving Host HEI and receiving by snail mail the final results at the Home

HEI

Focus group participants in all three institutions agreed on the fact that there is aproblem in receiving results on time. An unofficial transcript of records could be partof the solution but home institutions will always be dependent on their partners (e.g.academic calendar differ among many European countries).

To solve this problem there is the need for a European HEI consensus in relation tomeans of exchanging the grade documents among one another. Transferring this

task to a partially or totally online activity could help improve the sending andreceiving results.

d) Grades and ECTS transferred to the Home HEI local system

In regards to this issue the biggest problem felt is that the methodology used forconverting the grades is not clear for students. Often a quite complex system is usedand students have no idea why their marks need to be changed or how they werecalculated.


16/45



In this context the WP-partners want to draw the attention on the Egracons project11that has to do with grade conversion. One of the goals of this project is to develop atool that will automatically convert the grades.

7 Conclusions

The information collected throughout WP2 show that students face several difficultiesin handling their LA. 81% of the respondent students are responsible themselves forfinding courses and preparing LA and 75% of them need to change their LA afterarrival to host institution. Duality must also be accounted for, in terms of the LAdocuments used in the process. 56% of students are required to use the LA fromtheir home university while 28% had to use an LA document provided by the hostinstitution.

The vast majority of respondents (90%) agreed that an online tool could make workregarding the LA and ECTS handling easier and they thought that this tool shouldinclude as some of its functions: course selection (90%), LA completion (79%), andCourse/credit recognition at the home institution (74%), as well as the LA changesand updates.

From the information gathered in the focus groups, the project partners where able toget some information about what features and functionalities should an online LA andECTS handling tool include.

One of the most important features pointed out was the possibility of exchanginginformation between student, home and host HEI. The online tool prototypeproposed, as an outcome of this project, is believed to be able to eradicate a lot ofproblems by replacing much of the paper based workload for an easier web basedone. On this matter focus group members totally agreed with the HEION concept.Approving LAs instead of signing them, as a possible function delivered by the tool,is but one of the concerns brought up in the focus groups. Other suggestions include:

The use of a virtual inbox where documents are kept that need validation; An automatic mail for approvals at a certain date/certain amount of LAs that need

to be approved;

Clear deadlines with warnings; A color code for the stage of each change (green > finished, yellow > awaiting

review/validation, red > out of date, in trouble). A clear presentation of courses that have been added/deleted for changes on the

LA.

Besides the clear benefit of using an online tool for the LA-administration, the toolcould also include some features for statistical analysis. As a considerable amount of

11http://www.egracons.eu


17/45



data is gathered in the system, it will be easier to get relevant data that could be usedfor answering all kinds of questions related with the LA, ECTS and Mobility actions.

From a users perspective it is very important that the tool is user-friendly. Somesuggest thats one of the reasons why the language should be English and not thenational language.

Another important issue from a user based perspective is that the tool should beintegrated with the existing administration systems (e.g. move on from Uni-Solutionor mobility online from SOP), or that it establishes some sort of link between thesesystems and the tool. Imposing on the students the need to use differentapplications, in the course of the administrative process, is something that should beavoided.

Focus group members stressed that it will be crucial for the success andsustainability of the tool that all (if not most) HEI, which take part in Erasmus shoulduse such an online tool. Another crucial part for a well fine tuned process is correctoutlining of the workflow and the web based procedure. The one proposed in figure1, still has room for improvement and will undoubtedly suffer minor changes duringthe iterative and agile development of the project. It was made obvious, by all theinformation collected, that adopting an online tool for LA and ECT handling is anadvantage for the process and that the simpler the better.


18/45



8 References

1. Cophenagen University Learning agreement & Changes to agreed programme ofstudy (Cophenagen University, Study Administration [email protected] ,http://int.ihk.dk/exchange-students/application/application-exchange-students#Changes_to_agreed_programme_of_study_/_Learning_agreement)

2. ECTS Users Guide, 2009 (European Commission,http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/ects/guide_en.pdf)

3. ECVET projects (http://www.ecvet-projects.eu/toolbox/ToolBoxList.aspx?id=17&type=1, [email protected] )

4. http://www.esu-online.org5. Final Report by The Working Group on Mobility, EHEA Ministerial Conference,

Bucharest 2012.

6. Learning agreements (for Undergraduates and Master exchange applicants)(University of Graz, Austria, http://www.joineusee.eu/content.aspx?AID=68,Contact for general questions about the JoinEU-SEE project:[email protected] ).

7. Sharon WallerLearning Agreements(https://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/EconHEAproj2010/Learning+Agreements)

8. Tuning Educational Structures in Europe,(http://www.thematicnetworkdietetics.eu/everyone/1649/7/0/30, Thematic NetworkManager , [email protected], Thematic NetworkCoordinator, [email protected] )

9. Tuning Educational Structures in Europe: Line 3: ECTS as an AccumulationSystem (120 Higher Education institutions involved from the EU and EAA-countries, http://www.relint.deusto.es/TuningProject/line3.asp),

10. Tuning Educational Structures in Europe Final Report (Carried out by over 100Universities, coordinated by the University of Deusto (Spain) and the University ofGroningen (The Netherlands) and supported by the European Commission,http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/stories/Publications/Tuning_phase1_full_document.pdf
mailto:[email protected]://changes_to_agreed_programme_of_study_/_Learning_agreementhttp://changes_to_agreed_programme_of_study_/_Learning_agreementhttp://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/ects/guide_en.pdfhttp://www.ecvet-projects.eu/toolbox/ToolBoxList.aspx?id=17&type=1http://www.ecvet-projects.eu/toolbox/ToolBoxList.aspx?id=17&type=1mailto:[email protected]://www.joineusee.eu/content.aspx?AID=68mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/EconHEAproj2010/Learning+Agreementshttps://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/EconHEAproj2010/Learning+Agreementshttp://www.thematicnetworkdietetics.eu/everyone/1649/7/0/30mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.relint.deusto.es/TuningProject/line3.asphttp://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/stories/Publications/Tuning_phase1_full_document.pdfhttp://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/stories/Publications/Tuning_phase1_full_document.pdfhttp://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/stories/Publications/Tuning_phase1_full_document.pdfhttp://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/stories/Publications/Tuning_phase1_full_document.pdfhttp://www.relint.deusto.es/TuningProject/line3.aspmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.thematicnetworkdietetics.eu/everyone/1649/7/0/30https://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/EconHEAproj2010/Learning+Agreementshttps://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/EconHEAproj2010/Learning+Agreementsmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.joineusee.eu/content.aspx?AID=68mailto:[email protected]://www.ecvet-projects.eu/toolbox/ToolBoxList.aspx?id=17&type=1http://www.ecvet-projects.eu/toolbox/ToolBoxList.aspx?id=17&type=1http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/ects/guide_en.pdfhttp://changes_to_agreed_programme_of_study_/_Learning_agreementhttp://changes_to_agreed_programme_of_study_/_Learning_agreementmailto:[email protected]


19/45



9 Annexes

Annex 1: Results f rom Quest ionnaire

[Questionnaire Report for the HEION Project]

1069 answers / 29.01.2013

Gender

Male 404 38%

Female 665 62%

Age

15-19 16 1%

20-24 887 83%25-29 151 14%

30-34 10 1%

35-39 4 0%

40-44 1 0%

45-49 0 0%

50+ 0 0%

Count of answers per day


20/45



Country of your home university

Austria 7 1%

Belgium 369 35%

Bulgaria 8 1%

Croatia 5 0%

Czech Republic 211 20%

Cyprus 1 0%

Denmark 6 1%

Estonia 3 0%

Germany 34 3%

Spain 78 7%Finland 4 0%

France 23 2%

Greece 16 1%

Hungary 11 1%

Iceland 0 0%

Ireland 1 0%

Italy 34 3%

Latvia 5 0%

Liechtenstein 0 0%

Lithuania 17 2%

Luxembourg 1 0%

Malta 0 0%

Netherlands 14 1%

Norway 2 0%

Poland 43 4%

Portugal 21 2%

Romania 13 1%Slovak Republic 14 1%

Slovenia 8 1%

Sweden 1 0%

Switzerland 1 0%

United Kingdom 1 0%

Turkey 116 11%

Other 1 0%


21/45



Country of your host university

Austria 38 4%

Belgium 247 23%

Bulgaria 1 0%

Croatia 1 0%

Czech Republic 132 12%

Cyprus 0 0%

Denmark 16 1%

Estonia 2 0%

Germany 79 7%

Spain 107 10%Finland 29 3%

France 75 7%

Greece 8 1%

Hungary 6 1%

Iceland 2 0%

Ireland 7 1%

Italy 48 4%

Latvia 4 0%

Liechtenstein 1 0%

Lithuania 12 1%

Luxembourg 1 0%

Malta 1 0%

Netherlands 33 3%

Norway 27 3%

Poland 29 3%

Portugal 31 3%

Romania 6 1%Slovak Republic 6 1%

Slovenia 10 1%

Sweden 21 2%

Switzerland 9 1%

United Kingdom 29 3%

Turkey 48 4%

Other 3 0%


22/45



Degree

Undergraduate(3 years / 4 years)

534 50%

Graduate(Master / Doctorate)

535 50%

Class (Year)

1st 103 10%

2nd 155 14%3rd 323 30%

4th 247 23%

5th 179 17%

6th+ 62 6%


23/45



Granted for Erasmus exchangeFall 2011 239 22%

Spring 2012 175 16%

Both fall 2011 &spring 2012

124 12%

Fall 2012 341 32%

Spring 2013 63 6%

Both fall 2012 &

spring 2013

127 12%

Did you have a copy of your learning agreement (LA) with you when you arrived atyour host university?

Yes, I did have a copy

of my LA with me.

859 80%

No, I had the originalLA with me.

140 13%

No, I did not have acopy when I arrived atyour host university, itwas sent to me later bypost / by e-mail / viafax.

57 5%

No, I did not have one,and I still do not haveone.

13 1%


24/45



Was your LA completely filled and signed by all parts (home university, hostuniversity, student) when you arrived at your host university?

Yes, I did have acompleted copy ofmy LA with allsignatures.

751 70%

No, only my homeuniversity and mysignature.

318 30%

If you answered Yes, were all the signatures on your LA originals?

Yes, all of them weresigned on the originalform.

489 46%

No, a scanned copy ofpartly filled LA was signed

by one parties involved.

316 30%

Which form were you required to use as your LA?

My home university LAform.

603 56%

My host university LAform.

301 28%

I could choose whichform I could use.

165 15%


25/45



Does your home university require originals of your LA?

Yes, originals are required. 551 52%

No, scanned copies or halfcopies are accepted.

518 48%

How easy was it for you to manage the learning agreement (LA) and ECTS for your

mobility?Very easy 82 8%

Easy 299 28%

So so 419 39%

Difficult 183 17%

Very difficult 86 8%

Please identify the difficulty felt in each of the following tasks: - finding courses ofyour host university

Very easy 103 10%

Easy 303 28%

Neither easy nordifficult

283 26%

Difficult 280 26%



26/45



Please identify the difficulty felt in each of the following tasks: - finding coursescontents of your host university

Very easy 101 9%

Easy 322 30%

Neither easynor difficult

299 28%

Difficult 244 23%


Please identify the difficulty felt in each of the following tasks: - getting signed LAfrom your host university

Very easy 218 20%

Easy 466 44%


218 20%

Difficult 113 11%


Please identify the difficulty felt in each of the following tasks: - getting signed LAfrom your home university.

Very easy 224 21%Easy 490 46%


196 18%

Difficult 116 11%



27/45



Did you change any of your courses after you arrived to your host university?

Yes, I did. 802 75%No, I did not. 267 25%

In case you answered yes, have you completed an added and deleted form?

Yes 649 61%

No 190 18%

In case you answered yes, have you received an approval (signed copy) of youradded and deleted form?

Yes 542 51%

No 168 16%


28/45



During the whole process did you use any online / software systems or tools for LAand/or ECTS handling?

Yes 180 17%No 889 83%

When you were selected for Erasmus mobility how was work regarding the LA done?

I was responsible and Idid all the work bymyself for the LA andECTS.

863 81%

I was not responsible at

all for any stage of theLA and ECTS. It wasdone by others at myUniversity/Polytechnic.

76 7%

I was not responsiblefor all the work but I didestablish the firstcontact about ECTSand courses by myselfwith your hostuniversity.

130 12%


29/45



Do you think that work on LA and ECTS could improve with the use of an online tool?

Yes 964 90%

No 105 10%

What tasks should such an online tool include?

Course selection 916 86%

Learning Agreementcompletion

847 79%

Added and deletedform completion

703 66%

Updates on thevalidation of myLearning Agreement

664 62%

History of changesmade to theLearning Agreement

529 49%

Course/creditrecognition at homeinstitution

793 74%

Other 48 4%

People can mark more than onecheckbox, so the sum of thepercentage may exceed 100%.


30/45



Annex 2: Minutes of Focus Group Meeting for HEION Project of Aveiro

University

Monday, February 26th 2013, 14.30-16.00PARTICIPANTS:

Niall Power, Director of the International Office

Helena Barbosa Officer responsible for Incoming Students, International Office

Susana Duarte, Officer responsible for Outgoing Students, International Office

Rui Raposo Assist. Prof. Department of Communication and Art | DepartmentErasmus Coordinator for Field of Study Code 15.

Mai-Liis, Incoming Student

Case 1) Filling in LA, sending it to the Host Higher Education Institution andreceiving confirmation and acceptance.

Problems students faced

The LAs are sent, received and accepted but, in many cases, not thoroughlyanalyzed and, because of that, must be changed by students on arriving at thehost HEI.

Students tend to panic not knowing what to do and what steps to take whenchanges in the LA are asked for.

There are several cases of host institutions that accept LA without confirming if: the subjects included are available that semester/year. there are limited places for the subjects included in the LA. if there are any language or competences requirements for the subjects

included in the LA. In general it is felt that coordinators should be more attentive in relation do the LA

completion.

Communication among Erasmus coordinators (home-host) are a main problem inneed of attention.

it is usual for coordinators to communication solely when major problems breakout (skipping classes, behaviour problems) other than that communication is trulyscarce if not inexistent.

It is believed that there is the need to transfer to the coordinators theresponsibility for supervising and taking an active role in the reviewing andchanging of LA instead of placing it solely in the students hands.


31/45



Problems solved

The problems pointed out are usually solved through additional activities done bydepartmental coordinators, international office staff and students, which just addsonto the regular activities dealt with.

Problems could be eradicated

Problems could be eradicated or, at least, reduced if communication was enforcebetween the coordinators and the HEIs.

In some cases simply redirecting the incoming students to the correct departmentcoordinator could help.

Information about department coordinators (ie.: e-mail, office location, HEIaddress) could help establish or simplify communication channels.

The inclusion of a more social like aspect to an eventual online tool could helpdepartment coordinators and students to interact.

Case 2) Arriving to Host HEI, reviewing LAs and making some changes


Students have problems filling in their LA mostly because they don't understandthe process, its steps and tasks involved.

Students sometimes dont ask their host and/or home coordinators for help and,as result, the coordinators are not involved in the LA changing process.

The international office is called upon several times to help out with the LAreviewing and changing process.

There is a problem in setting straight and clearly who is responsible for doingwhat in the process.

Students are sometimes given or obtain off the Internet the wrong codes for thesubjects included in the original LA or in its changes. In many cases thecoordinators themselves to not know or have access to the correct codes for thesubjects listed in the LA.

Sometime codes are just not available online.

Some students say that they feel it easy to fill and change but codes where aproblem.

The information available if only in the HEI country native language.


32/45



Students feel that there is a problem with the fact that one international officer isresponsible for the incoming students and has a hard time answering many

questions and tending to many problems. There are cases in which information online is outdated.

Some students choose from different courses, scattering their options acrossseveral courses and departments, and coordinators may not be supportive inthese cases and as a result they feel some difficulties in taking care of their LA.

Teachers are often surprised when they receive in their class students from otherareas on short notice. There is no pattern regarding how these situations aredealt with.

Changes in this particular context need to be approved and promoted as aninstitutional decision.

Solutions

There should be some sort of interaction between online platforms used by HEIso information should be updated and shared in a more efficient and effectivemanner.

An online tool could help but if information is not updated then it may render onlypartially useful.Number of changes to the original LA could probably drop considerably ifinformation made available online is updated and complemented with additionalinformation (timetables, exceptions, subject pre-requisites)

Department coordinators are essential key figures for the LA process and ECTShandling and because of that they cannot be unavailable or unable to help.

Department coordinators should inform students about the problems that maycome from certain choices (class schedule overlaps, exceptions, subject pre-requisites)

Students should be asked to choose at least 50% of a degree of the area

included in the Erasmus agreement.

Problems solved


How an online tool helps to eradicate these problems?


33/45



Each professor is responsible for their subject and could be notified when anErasmus student is assigned to his or her subject.

If the student chooses a subject from another area of studies, the departmentcoordinator for that area and the teacher for that subject could receive theinformation that they could receive that student.

The tool could enable communication among local and home coordinatorsthrough the tool and could try do reduce multichannel communication (e-mail,phone call, skype)

An online tool could help setup limits (i.e.: 30 ECTS, subjects from the sameschool in cases where distance does not enable students to take part in classesfrom different schools, faculties or departments, etc)

The tool should enable the integration of its information with the home and hostacademic Information Systems (i.e.: when the LA is accepted and validated thestudents could automatically be enrolled in the subjects)

Case 3) Leaving Host HEI and receiving by snail mail the final results at theHome HEI


Students have a great deal of problems in receiving their final grades at their

home HEI

Problems solved


In some cases home coordinators ask for scans of the transcript of record in pdfin order to start the recognition process.


An unofficial transcript of records, just for an initial ECTS recognition process,could be validated by the host HEI and shared online in digital format with thehome HEI (this document could be completed further on, but could allow a full orpartial view of what will be received)

A set of warnings could be made available online such as:


34/45



documents waiting for changes and validation;

deadlines for changes and document validation (local and the host

International office HEI should fill that in); warnings about students not attending. (Sometimes students asks for

grades and never show up);

additional info about the students grade (in case the student failed orattained and outstanding grade);

a colour code for the stage of each change (green > finished, yellow >awaiting review/validation, red > out of date, in trouble.

Case 4) Grades and ECTS transferred to the Home HEI local system


Students dont understand the methodology used by the home departmentcoordinators for the ECTS recognition process and question if it is fair.

Problems solved

Department coordinators look for information about the host grading process andcriteria.

Department coordinators explain the process to each student that asks foradditional information.


A simplified package of information about what grading system is used in the hostcountry could be shared online so the home HEI could understand the gradingprocess and criteria.

Students could have access to a simple step-by-step tutorial about how the ECTSrecognition process is dealt with in their country and HEI.


It would probably be to complex to try to automatize the ECTS recognitionprocess, but enabling the department coordinator and the students to haveaccess to clear information about the process may help to improve how they dealwith it.


35/45



Case 5) What sort of information should be made available for searching andinteracting with in the online tool?

Statistic analysis of the number of ECTS approved

Comparison between variables such as: ECTS approved vs. grades vs. work load

Definition of a time period for specific analysis

Representation of areas, levels in the HEI according to the Erasmus codes

Geo-reference of both incoming and outgoing fluxes of students

Statistical analysis of problems occurred during the ECTS handling and LAprocess (changes in LA, fall back on deadlines, analysis by country, HEI, etc.)


36/45



Annex 3: Minutes of Focus Group Meeting for HEION Project of GhentUniversity

Friday, February 8, 2013 - 9.00 12.00 am

Participants

Prof. Ren Vermeir Erasmus Coordinator - Faculty of Arts and Philosophy Prof. Johan Lagae Erasmus Coordinator Faculty of Engineering and

Architecture Ms. Ann Reynaert - Faculty International Relations Officer Faculty of

Economics and Business Administration

Ms. Marisa Montero Perez - Faculty International Relations Officer Faculty ofPsychology and Educational Sciences

Ms. Lies David, Outgoing exchange student Faculty of Political and SocialSciences

Prof. Luc Franois Chief International Officer International Relations Office(HEION project)

Mr. Paul Leys International Relations Officer - International Relations Office(HEION project)

Excused

Mrs. Carole Picavet- Exchange student advisor International relations Office Ms. Hilde Vandecasteele Faculty International Relations Officer faculty of

Bioscience Engineering Ms. Tomasa Miranda Incoming Exchange student Faculty of Sciences

General remarks

Exchange students who opt for a two semester exchange sometimes changetheir changed LA for the second semester.

A general concern is that we need to avoid an overload of systems that are allused for one specific phase of administration a student needs to complete. Forexample: move on for application, this new tool for the learning agreement,another tool for another aspect

It will therefore be important that the online tool could be integrated on the portalwebsite of universities

Also related with the remark above, we need to try to avoid that information aboutcertain roles in universities need to be altered and kept in more than one system.

The success of this online tool will depend on the number of institutions who will

use this tool.


37/45



1) Fill in LA, sent it to the Host Higher Education Institution, receive itsacceptance confi rmation.


a) The biggest problem in the first phase is finding the correct courses at the hostUniversity.

a. No course catalogue at the host institution, availability of information!b) Hand-written LAsc) Double administration: first LA is most of the times changed!d) Use of different LA-templates: host, homee) Need for different signed copies of one LA

f) The LA on its own is a problem as well. Some universities require originaldocuments. As long as it exists in its current shape, there will be anadministrative burden.

g) All incoming students get their LA signed by Ghent University before they cometo Ghent. Not all of them have the LA signed by all parties when they arrive inGhent. There is a problem in the exchange of information between the studentand the home institution.

h) The sending and receiving of LAs


Most of the above problems were dealt with by extra efforts of the administrative staffand the Erasmus coordinators.


a) Erasmus exchange windowsb) The use of an electronic standard form and procedure instead of a paper based

form and procedurec) There will always be a phase between the realization of the LA and the moment

the LA is put into the official administrative system of universities as the final

version.d) All institutions use the same standard template from the European Commissione) If the European Commission does not need to have original copies, students can

print the signed LA different timesf) The LA as it exist now, paper based, needed to be signed by different parties

need to be replaced by an online system with electronic signings or approvals.The European Commission needs to support a more web based approach andcommunicate this in their ECTS users guide

g) With an electronic form, that doesnt require original signings, the forms can be

send to both the student and to the institution.


38/45



h) Sending and receiving all information via an online system.


a) NO: There is a big need for a clear online course catalogue for each universitythat participates in Erasmus. We should avoid that the course catalogue iscopied in another system because than we face the problem of updatinginformation in the own course catalogue and in the other system. Off course anonline tool can have a link with were students can find the information aboutcourses/course catalogue.

YES: the online tool can provide information about subjects that students fromuniversity x have chosen in the past in the host institution for a certain ISCED-

code.a. If there is no course catalogue, the information will never be up to date in theonline tool.

b) YES: An electronic standardized LA that can be completed in the online toolc) YES: all administration before the final LA is done in the online tool. Once the

final LA is approved, it is put into the administrative systemd) YES: the template in the online tool is the standard template. Some fields are

automatically completed depending on the institution the students want to apply:home institution, host institution, country, departmental coordinator, facultycoordinator, Erasmus institutional coordinator We need to think about how wewill get all information up to date! There are already some systems where this

information is gathered like for example move on. We need to avoid that updates

on this kind of information needs to be done twice or more.e) YES: students can print their LA as many times as they need to from the online

systemf) YES: there is need for a system where students can put in their subjects and all

necessary information. If the students has completed the form, it needs to beapproved (instead of signed) by the home institution. When it is approved by thehome institutions it is been send to the host institution. There the responsible

needs to approve it as well. Then it is send back to the student/home institution.At this stage the students has his/hers three approvals. If he/she prints the form,it is put in the template, necessary for the European Commission with allapprovals. ICT-people need to think of a way that the approvals are secure!There need to be a solution for the signing of the documents.

g) In the online tool all administration needs to be done on a clear and convenientmanner, the realization of the LA is the last step when all information from theonline tool is exported to the LA template.

h) YES: the whole information and communication flow is managed by the system.


39/45



2) Arrive at the Host HEI and, due to various reasons, review the LA and make,if needed, some changes

In the questionnaire (version 30/01/13) 75 % states that there were changes at theLA. All members of the focus group think it is even more than 75%.

Some of the problems addressed in the first phase are also true for this phase!


If a student does changes, it is not clear anymore which subjects have changed. The majority of students changes its LA.


The LAs need to be compared manual. This is a lot of work. The administrative staff and Erasmus coordinators do their work double: once for

the LA and once for the changed LA


A form, screen where you can see immediately which course is deleted andwhich one is added.

Instead of a LA and an original form and a changes to the original form, we couldpropose a pending or provisional LA, and a definite LA. The final LA issubmitted after arrival


YES: the online tool can develop a way that it is very clear which subjects areadded and which ones are deleted

YES: the processing of the LA is completely done online.

3) Leave the Host HEI and receive by snailmail the final results at the Home HEI


a) The results are too late availableb) Results are send to us after the deliberation at the home institutionc) Sometimes (Germany) the semester differ. Students get their results way too

late.


40/45




a) By urging partners to give results asap.b) Informing the students that they wont be deliberated before we get results from

the home institution


a) No ideab) No idea


In general an online tool can help to exchange the information but not to eradicatethe problems.

4) See the grades and ECTS transferred to the Home HEI local system

As far as this point is concerned Ghent University wants to draw the attention on theEgracons project. More information on this project: http://egracons.eu/


a) The grading scale is not always clearb) No information from the host institution


a) Consequent use of all institutions of the grading scaleb) Developing an own system to convert the grades

Looking to results in the past at the own institution


a) By urging institutions to use the grading scale

b) NO: we are dependent on the goodwill of the partner institutionsCould an online tool help to eradicate these problems and how?

a) For the exchange of the transcripts of records an online tool can helpb) NO: we are dependent on the goodwill of the partner institutions
http://egracons.eu/http://egracons.eu/


41/45



Annex 4: Minutes of Focus Group Meeting for HEION Project of SakaryaUniversity

SAKARYA UNIVERSITY, FEBRUARY 8, 2013, 14.30 17.00PARTICIPANTS:

Nesrin Kenar, Assist. Prof. Dr., Erasmus Institutional Coordinator, Faculty ofEconomics and Administrative Sciences.

Mustafa Cahit NAN, Assoc. Prof. Dr., Erasmus Faculty Coordinator,Faculty of Business.

Cemal yem, Assist. Prof. Dr., Erasmus Departmental Coordinator, Faculty ofEconomics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Human Resources.

Mustafa Turan, Assist. Prof. Dr., Director of Distance Learning Centre. Fatih imek, Assist. Prof. Dr., Faculty of Sciences and Letters, Erasmus

Departmental Coordinator, Department of German Language and Literature.

zkan Canay, HEION project staff and Lecturer at SAU / ADAMYO

Engin Can, Dr., HEION project staff, International Office Ms. Aycan Leventli, Staff at the International Office of SAU Ms. Ebru zkan, Outgoing Student to Lithuania, Economics

Mr. Ouz Gngrmez, Outgoing Student to Poland, International Relations

Mr. Mehmet Gven, Outgoing Student to Czech Rep., Economics

Mr. Cihan Sr, Outgoing Student to Italy, Tourism Management Mr. Doan Dereli, Outgoing Student to Spain, Mechanical Engineering

Ms. Laura Sulce, Incoming Student from Lithuania, International Relations

Ms. Agrita Kalnina, Incoming Student from Lithuania, Social Studies Education

Ms. Ruta Skudyte, Incoming Student from Latvia, International Relations

Ms. Christina Navarro, Incoming Student from Spain, Social Studies Education

Ms. Sara Salesa, Incoming Student from Spain, Social Studies Education


42/45



Case 1) Filling in LA, sending it to the Host Higher Education Institution andreceiving confirmation and acceptance.


- Students cannot find courses offered in the webpage of host institution,- Lack of updated course list/catalogue in host institution,- Lack of English content of courses in host institution,- Lack of ECTS credits,- Lack of English webpage of host institution,- Lack of updated information in host institution,- Sometimes host institution send LAs back without signature of departmental and/or

institutional coordinator,- Unclear programme schedules,- Communication problem with host institution: students cannot get in touch with

departmental coordinators and/or international office staff,- Long process duration: to have an answer / acceptance / confirmation takes so

long.

Problems solved

- With spending huge effort and wasting time: all these problems solved by extraefforts of departmental coordinator and international officers and students.


- There should be a separate link to the course info package for Erasmus students,- Updated course list (with content) should be available (with English language),- Courses must be seen easily,- Schedule must be ready before start,- Clearer deadlines & faster acceptance & confirmation,- In case of all courses are not open for Erasmus students, host institution should

create a separate course list for Erasmus students,- Host institution should create active communication between the students and the

university.


- Online system should be created to solve problems of Erasmus programmes andcreate easer, faster and more qualitative LA,

- Online system should be in English,- Online system should include LA & electronic signature,- Online system should include information about how to fill documents,- Online system should include contact information of departmental & institutional

coordinator and international officers,- Erasmus student should see (updated & eligible for Erasmus students) course list

and course content/language of host institution easily.


43/45



Case 2) Arriving to Host HEI, reviewing LAs and making some changes


- Almost all Erasmus students have to change their LAs after arrival to hostinstitution,

- The process of changing them often is very difficult for both Erasmus students andcoordinators,

- Departmental coordinators can not control this changing process,- Sometimes students changing their LAs without confirmation of their departmental

coordinator and at the end of semester, departmental coordinator in the homeinstitution do not want to accept changed courses, because they feel the coursesare not related to the programme,

- Students need confirmation of their departmental coordinator in home institution,- There is no exact period for changes in host institution; host institution allows

students to change courses at the end of the semester,- Departmental coordinators in home university do not accept the course/courses

after add and delete process,- It takes long time to deliver original copies of changed LAs to the home institution.

Problems solved

- Again with extra efforts of student and departmental coordinators problems aresolved manually,- Choosing a course from different degree, for example MA degree student has to

choose a course from bachelor`s degree.- By asking another students,- Sometimes outgoing student cannot contact with departmental coordinator in home

institution easily, in that case making changes in LA without confirmation ofcoordinator, after returning back to home institution his/her credits cannot betransferred.


- We need to reduce the number of changed LAs,- If HEIs update course list in general or for Erasmus students and announces

courses for the next semester, students and coordinator know definitely whichcourses are open, in that case many student would not need to change LA,

- Clear and definite announcement of open courses needed,- Changes of LA should be allowed in an exact time in all HEIs.



44/45



- Online system can solve many of these problems,- Online system can reduce number of changes,- Changes could be through online system easily and much faster,- Online system must provide an active communication between partner units.

Case 3) Leaving Host HEI and receiving by snail mail the final results at theHome HEI


- Often, students receive their final results from host HEI very late and since there isrecognition of courses without transcript as a proof, of student, cannot register forthe summer school and/or sometimes next semester,

- Confirmation process may take so much time because of the delay in snail mail.

Problems solved

- Students, international officers and departmental coordinators has to spend extraeffort to contact with partners,

- Usually student has to wait for final results to transfer his/her credits; there isnothing to do to solve this problem.


- Instead of using regular post for confirmation, there should be an online system,- Via international online system,- HEIs can upload transcript of students to the international system and sending

institution can see and download easily.


- If it is very well organized, online system can solve many of these problems,- Online system can provide electronic signature of both partner universities, so that

there will be no need for original document.

Case 4) Grades and ECTS transferred to the Home HEI local system


- Some HEIs do not send the explanation of their local grading system and/or do nottransform their local grade to ECTS grade,

- Recognition process is becoming very complicated and takes a lot of time,- Sometimes coordinator does not want to recognize some portion of credits of

students,


45/45


- Manuel recognition, credit transfer and grade transfer is not objective, it is changingaccording to coordinator.

Problems solved

-HEIs should use an international grading system like ECTS grade or should give aclear explanation for th