EAFP Report Prepared in European Commission. Erasmus Subject

ERASMUS Subject Evaluations Summary Reports of the Evaluation Conferences by Subject Area Volume I Agriculture Archaeology Biology Chemistry Languages Pharmacy Physics Teacher training Tourism and Leisure Women’s studies EUROPEAN COMMISSION Erasmus: Subject Evaluations The information presented in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or the opinion of the European Commission and is therefore the responsibility of their authors. General Table of Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................................... i - 1 to 6 Section I Studies in Pharmacy in Europe ........................................................................................... I - 1 to 18 Section II Tourism and Leisure ........................................................................................................... II - 1 to 11 Section III Chemistry in Europe: Past achievements and future directions........................................ III - 1 to 26 Section IV Biology ............................................................................................................................... IV - 1 to 29 Section V Physics Studies for tomorrow's Europe .............................................................................. V - 1 to 21 Section VI Agricultural Sciences ......................................................................................................... VI - 1 to 31 Section VII Archaeology: Education and Training in Europe .............................................................VII - 1 to 15 Section VIII Language studies ............................................................................................................ VIII - 1 to 26 Section IX Women's studies in Europe ............................................................................................... IX - 1 to 26 Section X Teacher Education in Europe ............................................................................................. X - 1 to 16 i-2 Erasmus: Subject Evaluations Foreword There is scarcely a higher education institution in Europe that • Scientific Committee: the evaluation was steered by a has not heard of the Erasmus programme, and since 1987 committee of academics from the discipline concerned, many students, and teaching staff have benefited from the each participating country having one representative mobility made possible through the inter-university (Liechtenstein excepted). Switzerland, though not cooperation programmes (ICPs) established under its eligible to participate in Socrates, was involved in auspices. As a Community programme, Erasmus is unique in Erasmus and therefore often present as observer. its insistence on direct, mass involvement of the citizen The contracting university or association acted as Chair. (students and academic staff) and the fact that it is open to all • National reports: the main work of Committee members higher education institutions and all disciplines without was to prepare a report on the state of the discipline in discrimination. Erasmus does not target subjects or regions, their country. The format for such national reports but rather has aimed at establishing a critical mass of varied according to the discipline concerned, and was individuals (some 3/4 million) who have had a direct normally worked out at the first meeting of the experience of studying and living in another Member State Committee. Common elements included a description (or, since 1992/3, in one of the then EFTA countries). of the curriculum, its structure, content, limitations, The programme has generated numerous reports and studies dependencies (such as approvals required by at national and community level (such as the well-known professional bodies, Ministries, or employer groups), student evaluations undertaken by the Gesamthochschule strong points to be developed and areas of concern to be Kassel-Universität) which examine the effects of mobility on remedied. The common approach was intended to the individual student, teacher or university. But what about facilitate cross-country comparison, and thereby to the actual teaching - what effect has Erasmus had on the enable the Committee to identify shared viewpoints and curriculum and how it’s taught? Does mobility, as well as especially issues that could benefit from university other Erasmus-style cooperation activities, such as joint cooperation, whether at national or European level. curriculum development, have any long term impact on the As the quality of cooperation, especially for student subject area? What problems have been encountered in mobility, is heavily dependent on the requirement for transnational cooperation in education - and do they still exist mutual recognition of the study period undertaken or have they been overcome? Can areas be identified where abroad, compatibility of curricula and ways of fostering transnational cooperation is most needed and/or most mutual understanding were frequently the key topics for effective? After nearly ten years of Erasmus how has higher discussion. education changed and are there new challenges to be • ERASMUS report: the Chair’s responsibility, as contractor addressed across Europe? How, in fact, is the starting base for for the evaluation, was to organise an evaluation of the the Socrates programme different from that of Erasmus? It is ICPs under ERASMUS. Most evaluations hired to begin to answer these questions that a series of Erasmus researchers for some months to examine the subject evaluations were set up during the transition phase documentation held in the ERASMUS Bureau and from Erasmus to Socrates. prepare an analysis of activity. The practice varied From 1994, the Commission has invited higher education considerably according to the discipline concerned institutions - principally their Erasmus coordinators - to (especially its size and level of involvement in the submit proposals for Erasmus subject evaluations. These different parts of the programme), but most reports gave evaluations, have had two general aims: to recognise the both a quantitative and qualitative description of the achievements of the past and to identify opportunities for the partnerships and the issues they revealed. future. Although reflecting the particularities of each discipline, the evaluation had the same basic structure in common, viz.: i-3 Erasmus: Subject Evaluations • Evaluation conference: the work of the Committee evaluations can be seen as a valuable precursor to the concept culminated in an evaluation conference open to all of a European-wide academic forum, by discipline or other interested parties - mostly teaching staff participants in linking theme, which can investigate the state of European ERASMUS ICPs in the field, but often also (depending cooperation in the field, test out new ideas for teaching, argue on the discipline) including representatives from the the future directions for the curriculum, and relate academia professional world, regional/national authorities, to the needs of the outside world, all by means of specific employers, or researchers. Typically around 200 people projects. The results of these projects should reach beyond the attended, and the core activities included presentation relatively narrow scope of the ICP by being disseminated of the national and ERASMUS reports and associated throughout a network more representative of European discussion groups. academia and other interests in the field concerned. It is critically important that analyses of the sort found here are not left to gather dust, but rather used as a starting point for • Synthesis report: after the conference, the final work further activity. Much work has been put in to assembling of the Chair was to prepare a synthesis report on the European-wide data and establishing common ground conclusions of the conference. This report, though between widely differing educational traditions in order to subject-specific (as indeed was all the work of the expand and improve cooperation and the benefits derived Committee), had a common aim with the reports of the from it. What is the next step? other committees in that it was intended to reveal the agenda for future cooperation in the discipline First, examples of good practice in university cooperation, or concerned, principally through identifying issues that interesting ideas that are ready to be put into practice, can be could be tackled at institutional, national or European incorporated by any institution into the activities it proposes levels. to carry out within the framework of the Socrates/Erasmus Institutional Contract1. An example would be the introduction of ECTS, which has emerged as a useful tool to The final outcome should therefore be a summary of what a facilitate academic recognition of periods of study, and which discipline thinks of itself - what’s important, and for whom, is encouraged in the programme through funding for the and what needs to be done in order to develop expertise and preparation of the necessary academic and administrative competence across Europe. support (e.g. information packages). Of course, responses to the evaluation conferences may also be implemented without The synthesis reports for these evaluation conferences held in reference to European programmes, such as through changes 1994-1996 are the subject of this two-volume publication. to staff recruitment policy or the development of research. Although

Load more