TRIPLE I & AURORA: what did we do to make projects successful?

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "TRIPLE I & AURORA: what did we do to make projects successful?"

Lizbeth Pitts
6 years ago
Views:

1 TRIPLE I & AURORA: what did we do to make projects successful? New Steps for Russian-Finnish Higher Education Cooperation Olga Vershinina Higher School of Economics, Russia Moscow, June 14-15, 2017, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

2 Quality assurance methods - Jointly agreed quality assurance methods that guarantee the overall quality and transparency of project activities. - Activities monitored and analysed by collecting feedback: - from partners - from grantees - from alumni - Results and proposals for development were shared during consortium meetings. 2

Evaluation and quality of mobilities - all grantees signed Grant Award Agreement detailing the terms of the grant. - ECTS plan was mandatory for all exchange students.

3 Evaluation and quality of mobilities - all grantees signed Grant Award Agreement detailing the terms of the grant. - ECTS plan was mandatory for all exchange students. - for all mobilities over academic year, annual reports were required for securing the continuation of the grant. - all grantees had possibility to give feedback on their mobility in final report (indicated grantees self-evaluation of the acquired professional capacity, number of gained credits, and possibility to report any encountered problems). - grantees could contact coordinator at any time during and after the grant period at aurora.admissions@utu.fi. Coordinator provided not only assistance in practical matters but also guidance and counselling if needed. - after the exchange period the home university contact person monitored the credit transfer and provided assistance if needed. 3

4 Evaluation and quality of consortia activities - Consortium Meetings: arranged yearly, usually in accordance to Aurora Selection Committee Meeting. - Monthly Newsletter: summarized the current news and developments, and gave instructions on what was expected from the partners during the upcoming month. - Aurora website : served the entire consortium as well as applicants, grantees and other stakeholders. - Internal web based platform Moodle: was used for sharing consortium materials to partners (application materials, consortium agreements, manuals, guidelines, reports). - lists: 1) aurora.admissions@utu.fi 2) aurora.enclosures@utu.fi 3) aurora.coordinator@utu.fi 4) aurora.partners@utu.fi 5) aurora.co-coordinator@utu.fi 6) aurora.associates2012@utu.fi 4

5 Transparent application and selection processes based on applicants academic merit were assured with the following: - consortium jointly agreed on application procedure. - official call for applications, application procedure and selection criteria were published on project website - address aurora.admissions@utu.fi served both applicants and partners on questions regarding the application process. - applications and support materials were available to partners in Moodle. - the final decision on nominated grantees was made by the Selection Committee in which all partner universities were represented. - selection results were communicated to all applicants. Not selected applicants were given the right to inquire reasons leading to unsuccessful application. - information on Aurora internships was available on the project s website 5

6 Monitoring systems established to assure the overall quality of the consortium activities: - Consortium surveys: Coordinator conducted online surveys on project management. Each partner could give feedback to coordinator on project administration and quality of management. Survey also enabled Partners to feedback each other. Results were communicated to all partners and used for development of project management. - Partner surveys: Coordinator conducted questionnaire to Partners on implementation of project activities within the partner university. Partners could reflect how they have benefitted from incoming and outgoing mobility and from the administrative experiences of Aurora. Partners were also requested to share any problem they might have had regarding the mobilities or administration. - Participation in infodays and conferences of National Agencies and National Erasmus+ Offices: Information received in the sessions and in discussion with representatives of other projects allowed all projects to benefit from the experience of other, to disseminate best practices and to benchmark activities. 6

7 Monitoring systems (continued): - individual consultations: Coordinator offered all partners a possibility to individual consultations. These could take place in the Aurora meetings or longer visits could be organised. Visits were not necessarily organised with Aurora funding. - meetings and consultations between coordinator and co-coordinator: the coordinating teams met also between the consortium meetings and had separate sessions connected to them. Information flow has been constant. - self-evaluation: Consortium constantly shared lessons learned and feedback received from EACEA with other EMA2 projects coordinated by University of Turku and by Aurora partners. EACEA evaluation reports and acceptance letters of follow-up reports were carefully studied and suggested procedures considered also in other EMA2 projects. 7

8 Analyzing Academic Staff mobility flows (Aurora I & II) 8

9 Academic Staff mobility (Aurora I & II) Analyzing mobility numbers (Moodle database) Udmurt State University (Russia) St. Petersburg State University of Russian State University for the Pacific National University (Russia) Novosibirsk State Technical North-Ossetian State University Northern (Arctic) Federal North-Eastern Federal University Mari State University (Russia) Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Higher School of Economics Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University of Warsaw (Poland) University of Tartu (Estonia) Masaryk University (Czech University of Leuven (Belgium) University of Latvia (Latvia) Humboldt University Berlin University of Groningen University of Deusto (Spain) University of Bologna (Italy) University of Turku (Finland) My University is not Aurora I am not enrolled in any University TOP-5 HOME HEI s Udmurt State University 14 University of Warsaw 7 University of Latvia 5 HSE 5 NarFU

10 Academic Staff mobility (Aurora I & II) Analyzing mobility flows Udmurt State University St. Petersburg State Russian State University for Pacific National University Novosibirsk State Technical North-Ossetian State Northern (Arctic) Federal North-Eastern Federal Mari State University (Russia) Immanuel Kant Baltic Higher School of Economics Kazan (Volga Region) University of Warsaw (Poland) University of Tartu (Estonia) Masaryk University (Czech University of Leuven (Belgium) University of Latvia (Latvia) Humboldt University Berlin University of Groningen University of Deusto (Spain) University of Bologna (Italy) University of Turku (Finland) --Choose your Host TOP-5 HOST HEI s University of Turku 10 Masaryk University 7 University of Tartu 7 University of Latvia 6 RSUH

11 Analysing Grantees Reports* Purpose What was the main purpose of your visit at the Host University Administrative tasks Research Teaching --Choose the main purpose *Data from Aurora Final Report for Grantees 11

12 Overall Level of Contentment Analysing Grantees Reports* professional and academic development 1 (very dissatisfied) 2 (dissatisfied) 3 (satisfied) 4 (very satisfied) Total Average ,82 academic interaction ,7 knowledge of languages ,68 Employability ,52 cultural awareness ,74 personal learning outcome ,81 Total ,71 *Data from Aurora Final Report for Grantees 12

13 Analysing Grantees Reports Most Significant Attainments Academic Contacts Info Dissemination Joint Researches, Events New Teaching Methods Shared Digital Collections Enhancement of Student Services New Marketing Tools Career Promotion Special Needs Students Teaching *Data from Aurora Final Report for Grantees, % 13

14 Examples of Tangible Results Analysing Grantees Reports* New Courses Arctic Regionality in Traditional and Mass Culture Texts NarFU Administrative and Juducual Translation (Russian-Spanish) Joint Programmes DD Intercultural Communication: language, history and literature of Russia and Italy RSUH-UNIBO DD Economics and Marketing Policy UNIBO-HSE Publications Some observations of the language diversity in Latvia O.Kohevnikova, UdSU Regional Aspects of International relations *Data from Aurora Final Report for Grantees 14

15 Examples of tangible results Analysing Partners Reports Higher School of Economics Bologna University Double degree program in Public Policy and Political Science between HSE and University of Bologna, campus Forli (Prof. Belyaeva), Masaryk University Research cooperation of HSE Werner Binder, Masaryk University, with HSE Center for Cultural Sociology and Anthropology of Education University of Turku Fin-Rus pilot program, (student mobility to HSE) University of Turku HSE international winter school Politics and the Body in cooperation with Tartu University, annually since February 2012 KA1 Agreements with Triple I/Aurora Partners 15

16 Analysing Partners Reports Agreements on Cooperation and Joint Research Projects within Aurora Consortium * Erasmus+ Agreements Bilateral Agreemets Joint Projects *Data provided by Russian Partners 16

17 A Way Forward Strong Academic Links Sustainable Partnerships Joint Summer Schools Fundraising for ongoing mobilities (partners resources) Erasmus + Credit Mobility Capacity Building??? Consortium Agreement Virtual Mobility 17

18 Thank you!

Memorandum of Understanding

Memorandum of Understanding between the member universities of the Erasmus Mundus Action 2 consortium Capacity Building in Higher Education for an improved co-operation between the EU and SA in the field