ESNsurvey 2015: Local Integration, Economic Impact & Accompanying Measures in International Mobility

Jesús Escrivá Muñoz, Benjamin Helm, Adriana Pérez Encinas, Jurgita Stasiukaitytė, Bojana Zimonjić Erasmus Student Network AISBL, Brussels 2015

Jesús Escrivá Muñoz, Benjamin Helm, Adriana Pérez Encinas, Jurgita Stasiukaitytė, Bojana Zimonjić

Copyright © 2015 by the Erasmus Student Network AISBL. All rights reserved.

International Experience and Language Learning: Research Report of the ESNSurvey 2013 Authors: Jesús Escrivá Muñoz (ed.), Benjamin Helm, Adriana Pérez Encinas, Jurgita Stasiukaitytė, Bojana Zimonjić Published by Erasmus Student Network AISBL Design: Ana Luísa Santos & Gaffar Rampage Editing: Jesús Escrivá Muñoz Cover photography: Erasmus Student Network AISBL The information can be freely used and copied for non-commercial purposes, provided that the source is acknowledged (© Erasmus Student Network) For ordering additional copies of the publication, please contact secretariat@esn.org Erasmus Student Network AISBL Rue Hydraulique 15 1210 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 256 74 27 Digital version of this report is available through www.esn.org

Index

Preface 6 Introduction 7 Key results 8 Recommendations 10 Chapter 1 - Respondents’ Characteristics 11

Demographic profile 11

Background of respondents 13 Chapter 2 - Accompanying Measures for Erasmus 16

Period before and during mobility of the students 16

Period after mobility 23 Chapter 3 - Local Integration of the Mobile Students 25

Living Arrangements 26

Friendships and Community Attitudes 28 Chapter 4 - Economic Impact of International Mobility 33 Chapter 4.1 Travelling habits of exchange students 34 Visitors 36

Leisure Activities 38

Returning to your host city 38 Chapter 4.2 Finances 39

Source of support 41 Chapter 5 - Satisfaction with Students’ Associations 42

Existence of Student’s Associations 42

Satisfaction with activities 42

Integration Activities offered by Students’ Associations 44 Acknowledgements 46 Figures and Tables 47 Figures 47 Tables 48 List of Abbreviations 49 Sources 50 Annex 1: About ESN 51

Preface

The Erasmus Student Network (ESN) has become the biggest Network of student organisations in Europe and is continuously catering for the needs of international students. With the introduction of the Erasmus+ programme, the European Commission extended and improved European-wide mobility substantially. But also other mobility opportunities on national and regional levels gained more importance. This is a clear reflection of the increased importance of mobility in today’s world. It is increasingly acknowledged that spending time abroad improves academic and soft skills, thus improving participants’ levels of employability.

This year’s ESNSurvey marks the 10th anniversary. It began in 2005 and has gained in importance every year ever since. The surveys are increasingly quoted in official sources like governmental papers, academia or the media.

I am happy that for this year we have decided to explore not only issues relevant for policy makers to improve programmes but also look into the needs and behaviours of international students themselves. The results will be useful for a variety of governmental and non-governmental actors to understand students better and offer services tailored to their needs.

By being represented with over 500 associations in 37 European countries, ESN is striving for offering a wider range of services at improved quality to make sure that the more than 200,000 exchange students every year get the most out of their time abroad.

I would like to thank the ESNSurvey team who has made the ESNSurvey, once again, the biggest volunteer-based research project in Europe and special thanks go to its International Project Manager, Jesús Escrivá Muñoz. Without his constant dedication and motivation this publication would not have been possible.

Enjoy the read, Stefan Jahnke President ESN AISBL 2013/2015

6

Introduction

In the past few months, the media has painted an image of the European Union mainly focused on economic issues. The sovereign debt crisis has put a severe strain on public expenditures and the bickering between creditor and debtor countries delivers a gloomy picture of European integration. These facts make up most of today’s media coverage, leaving the social dimension of Europe aside. Moreover, this situation has unfortunately endangered the economic and social expectations of the youngest generation in the countries hardest hit by the crisis.

In this context, the Erasmus Student Network has the duty to remind students, decisionmakers and generally all citizens that Europe is more than an economic bloc. It is a project to reunite all European peoples under a common economic, political and also social framework.

The work that Europe has accomplished during the last years in order to make Europeans feel “united in diversity” (the EU’s official motto) must not be sacrificed in this period of economic turmoil. If there is one European project which has fostered a united Europe more than any other, it is the Erasmus programme - bringing students across Europe together since 1987.

ESNSurvey 2015 explores which actions different stakeholders put in practice to ensure that mobile students are ready to be integrated into their new environments. Moreover, new economic aspects of mobility are studied such as the difference between students who live in rented accommodation for the first time when going abroad or the economic impact of Erasmus on Europe.

On behalf of my fellow researchers and the whole Erasmus Student Network, I am glad to present the report of the ESNSurvey Research 2015. I want to thank my team for their effort, our entire Network, and the many stakeholders that have helped us to promote our questionnaire. Without all of them, the ESNSurvey project would no longer be the continuous success it is today.

I wish you an enjoyable, fruitful read!

Jesús Escrivá Muñoz ESNSurvey Coordinator 2013-2015

7

Key Results

Measures prior to the Erasmus period • Although the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) states that sending institutions should ensure that students received sufficient preparation for their mobility periods, 45% of respondents did not receive any.

• 65% of students who received some type of preparation for Erasmus claim that this was useful or very useful.

• Only 32% of students had access to language preparation but one third of those students had to pay for it.

• Only half of the students received information on their host university, city and country; 46% received information on the Erasmus Students’ Rights and Obligations and only 31% received information on courses or health and safety.

Measures after the Erasmus period • Only 17% of students received some type of counselling after their exchange but 58% of those students found it useful.

• Students who did not receive any type of counselling thought that after their period abroad career advice was missing.

Local integration of mobile students • 35% of mobile students lived with international students only while 38% lived with both local and international students. In 43% of the cases, accommodation with only international students was provided by the university.

• Mixed accommodation has a significant beneficial influence on the adaption of international students into the local communities.

• 45% of mobile students hang out with international students only while 39% prefer to socialize with both international and local students.

• More than half of respondents followed language courses but these were free for only 77% of students. Around 7% did not take any language course because these were too expensive.

8

Economic impact of international mobility • More than 25% of mobile students visited more than 10 cities in their host country and an average of 3.2 countries during their period abroad; they normally stayed in paid accommodations (68%).

• Exchange students received an average of 4.1 visits during their exchange and more than 40% of these visits stayed in paid accommodations for an average of four days.

• During their period abroad, exchange students joined cultural activities, music events and ate out more often than in their home countries.

• 21% of students returned to their host country to continue their studies or start working.

Finances • The grants students receive do not cover the surplus of the period abroad, especially when students were not paying for accommodations in their home countries.

• Funding for mobile students comes from personal sources (40%) and EU grants (41%) mainly. Other sources of funding are national grants (7%) or home universities (5%).

• 46% of students need to put up funds themselves because grant payments arrive only after their mobility period.

Role of students’ associations • 60% of students agree that ESN activities helped them integrate into their host environment.

9

Recommendations

For national governments and EU bodies • Stronger regulations are needed to implement the best practices contained in the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education, especially regarding preparation for mobility.

• New funding frameworks could be studied for students who do not pay accommodation fees in their host countries in order to compensate for this extra cost.

• Governmental stakeholders and society in general should take into account that Erasmus also brings benefits to national, regional and local levels as well because Erasmus students, together with family and friends that visit them, buy services and thus raise economic activity and tax revenues.

For Higher Education Institutions • Further efforts are needed to ensure a smooth preparation for students going on exchange, especially regarding language preparation, information and intercultural learning.

• Higher Education Institutions should also implement measures to facilitate the return of their outgoing students back into their institutions.

• Accommodations for only international students should always be avoided.

For organizations providing services to international students • Student associations should continue organizing activities to integrate mobile students into their local communities.

10

Chapter 1 – Respondents’ Characteristics

By Adriana PĂŠrez-Encinas

Demographic profile Erasmus Student Mobility for Studies, the best-known action within Erasmus+, enables students to spend between 3 to 12 months abroad in each cycle of higher education. It aims to provide students with the opportunity of studying in another country, to promote cooperation between institutions and help enrich their educational environment, as well as to contribute to building a pool of well-qualified, open minded and internationally experienced young people1.

Erasmus Mobility is growing ever since its establishment in 1987. Moreover, some destinations are more popular among European students than others. In 2012-13 Spain, France, Germany, United Kingdom and Italy were the top destinations among European students in absolute numbers. When compared to official Commission figures, Table 1 and 2 show that respondents of the ESNSurvey 2015 are fairly representative of the overall student mobility flows.

Host Country

Number of Respondents

Percentage

Percentage European Commission*

Spain

1864

14.8%

15.1%

Germany

1318

10.5%

11.4%

Italy

1102

8.8%

7.5%

France

969

7.7%

11%

United Kingdom

746

5.9%

10.2%

Poland

650

5.2%

4%

Belgium

523

4.2%

3.4%

Portugal

519

4.1%

3.7%

Finland

464

3.7%

2.7%

Netherlands

431

3.4%

3.9%

Austria

403

3.2%

2.3%

Sweden

396

3.2%

4%

Table 1. Destination Countries for ESNSurvey 2015 respondents (n=12,565) *Source: European Commission statistics from the Erasmus programme (2012-13). It displays the data of the percentage of the total number of incoming Erasmus students.

1

Erasmus: Facts, figures and trends, 2012-2013, European Commission

11

The ESNSurvey also resembles well the top sending countries according to official numbers.

Host Country

Number of Respondents

Percentage

Percentage European Commission**

Italy

2624

20.9%

9.8%

Germany

1728

13.8%

13.2%

Poland

1038

8.3%

6.1%

Spain

1027

8.2%

14.9%

France

632

5.0%

13.4%

Belgium

491

3.9%

2.9%

Austria

442

3.5%

2.2%

Portugal

413

3.3%

2.7%

Turkey

349

2.8%

5.5%

Hungary

322

2.6%

1.7%

Netherlands

284

2.3%

3.8%

Greece

279

2.2%

1.6%

Table 2. Home Countries for ESNSurvey 2015 respondents (n=12,563) **Source: European Commission statistics from the Erasmus programme (2012-13). Percentage of the total number of outgoing Erasmus students per country.

12

Background of respondents The average age of respondents is 23.2 years. This is slightly higher than the average age2 (22.4) as recorded by the European Commission statistics. 67% of the respondents are female while only 33% are male. This data is in accordance with the data gathered in previous surveys as well as the latest Commission statistics, where around 60% of students, across all types of mobility, were female.

Figure 1. Gender of the respondents (n=12,580)

In the survey the majority of the respondents were Bachelor students (61.8%), followed by Master students (31.9%) and PhD students (1.2%). This distribution is similar to the data by the European Commission, where only 1% of student mobility accrued to doctoral students, 28% for Masters and 70% for Bachelors.

Figure 2. Level of studies of the respondents (n=12,583) 2

Erasmus: Facts, figures and trends, 2012-2013, European Commission

13

The most popular study subjects among respondents were: Business and Economics (23.9%), Humanities and Arts (19.4%), Engineering and Technology (15.4%) and Social Sciences (14%).

In comparison with previous ESNSurveys these areas are very similar.

Figure 3. Majors and areas of studies of respondents (n=12,593)

The majority of respondents reached by this survey have studied abroad during the spring of 2014 and autumn of 2013, which accounts for more than 70% of the total sample.

Period

Number of Respondents

Percentage

Spring 2014

4338

35.6%

Autumn 2013

4295

35.3%

Spring 2013

732

6.0%

Autumn 2012

1257

10.3%

Spring 2012

272

2.2%

Autumn 2011

505

4.1%

Spring 2011

108

0.9%

Autumn 2010

238

2.0%

Spring 2010

63

0.5%

374

3.1%

Before 2010

Table 3. Period abroad of the respondents (n=12,182)

14

Regarding the duration of the study period abroad, most of the respondents stayed in their host countries between 3 and 6 months (66.4%). Only few respondents stayed longer than 12 or less than 3 months. The remainder (28.6%) stayed for a period of 6 to 12 months.

Figure 4. Time that respondents spent abroad (n=12,581)

15

Chapter 2 - Accompanying Measures for Erasmus

By Bojana Zimonjić

In this chapter we will explore whether students receive any preparation before going abroad and how it influences their Erasmus experience. Preparation of outgoing students is one of the pre-requisites listed in the Erasmus Charter For Higher Education (ECHE)3 .

Any Higher Education Institution (HEI) participating in the 2014-2020 EU programme for education, training, youth and sport needs to have a valid ECHE and should thus assure that “mobile participants are well prepared for their mobility”. Therefore, it is useful to investigate students’ answers related to this aspect.

Period before and during mobility of the students The results of the survey show that a whopping 45% of respondents did not receive any kind of preparation. More than a half of this group of students took measures to prepare themselves while the rest did not have any preparation at all. Our results also show that of the 55% who received some kind of preparation, 25% did not prepare for their period abroad on their own while 75% also did.

Figure 5. Percentage of students who received any kind of preparation before going on exchange (n=14,696) 3 Erasmus Charter for Higher Education 2014-2020 – Annotated Guidelines. This resource is used throughout this chapter and can be found at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/funding/2014/documents/annotated_guidelines_ en.pdf

16

Although most of the respondents who received some kind of preparation claim that they felt either prepared or fully prepared to take advantage of their experience, 58% of students that did not receive any kind of preparation also claim to have felt either prepared or fully prepared. Although the difference in the overall feeling of preparation is comparable among those receiving preparation and those who did not, the first group is slightly higher. In support of this claim it should also be mentioned that 65% of respondents stated that preparation had a positive impact on their Erasmus experience.

Figure 6. Respondents evaluation on the positive impact preparation might have on their Erasmus experience (n=8,019)

In total, 66% of respondents prepared themselves either by receiving preparation by their universities or by preparing alone. For the 34% who did not prepare themselves at all the main reason was the wish not to spoil the “adventure� (47%), they perception that sufficient preparation would be provided in the form of Orientation Weeks or Welcome Days at the host university (38%), the lack of time (38%) or simple because they were not properly informed about their rights (16%).

Figure 7. Percentage of students who prepared themselves somehow (n=16,667)

17

Figure 8. Students’ view on the main reasons they did not spend time for preparation (n=4,852)

The Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) states that sending institutions should ensure that mobile staff and students should be given sufficient preparation for their mobility periods. This includes preparation for the differences between sending and receiving institutions or enterprises and traditions between home and host countries, as well as for cultural and linguistic challenges which will be encountered.

This preparation can take different forms, such as lectures on intercultural communication, meetings and discussion groups with former mobile staff and students, on-line archives with feedback from former participants, social networking, etc.

Our results show which type of preparation students received. The most frequent ones were general information about the host university, city and country (55%) and information about ERASMUS students’ rights and obligations (46%), followed by buddy/tutor systems (35%) and assistance in finding accommodation (35%). Information on health, safety & medical insurance as well as a checklist and information on courses were offered to 31% of respondents.

18

Figure 9. Type of preparation students received before their stay abroad (n=8,058)

Students who prepared for their mobility period alone found certain preparatory information more useful than others. On average, students found it useful to search for general information about their host university, city and country on the Internet. To find information about the host culture, they read testimonials from former exchange students and engaged in linguistic preparation. On the other hand, some methods were not perceived as very useful, such as getting in contact with local students, getting information about ERASMUS student’s rights and obligations and preparing for the culture shock.

19

Figure 10. Level of satisfaction with preparation done by students (n=9,322-9,561)

As for the language preparation, ECHE states that where applicable, the sending institution should organise language courses at different levels and for specific fields of study. Although ECHE clearly states that “language preparation is a crucial element to ensure success in mobility outcomes”, only 32% of respondents received linguistic preparation. Amongst those students who had access to language preparation, 34% had to pay for courses. Furthermore, the quality was not perceived as satisfactory. More than half of respondents (55%) indicated that “linguistic preparation” could still be improved.

When it comes to insurance, the ECHE states that HEIs should, when required, provide assistance related to obtaining insurance for incoming and outgoing mobile participants. As a general rule, insurance coverage is the participant’s responsibility. However, the receiving institution should inform participants where insurance coverage is not automatically provided. As the results show, only 31% of the students received information on health, safety and medical insurance.

By signing the ECHE, the HEI undertakes to publish and regularly update the course catalogue on its website well in advance of the mobility period. This ensures that students can make informed choices about the courses they will follow. This course catalogue should contain 20

three parts: information on the institution, information on programmes (general description and description of individual courses) and general information for students. However, our results show that only 31% of respondents received or had access to information on courses beforehand.

ECHE also states that not just receiving but also sending institutions should provide guidance in finding accommodation. The receiving institution should clearly state available accommodation options for mobile participants at the institution (or in its vicinity) and the conditions for renting accommodation (i.e. costs, registration and accommodation contract details, responsibilities) to minimise any problems on their arrival. Our results show that only 35% of respondents received this assistance.

It is also important to see which types of preparation require further improvement. Contact with local students (56%), information about the host university, city and country (55%) and linguistic preparations (55%) are most frequently mentioned to require improvement.

Other types of preparation such as testimonials from inbound and returned exchange students, (33%), information about ERASMUS student’s rights and obligation (23%), internet research on the host culture (21%) and culture shock preparation, (19%) aren’t perceived by respondents as needing improvement.

Figure 11. Students view on preparation require further improvement (n=14,671)

21

We also asked students that went abroad totally unprepared (i.e. also not preparing themselves alone) to indicate how useful they find certain types of preparation. Most of them felt that the general information about the host university, city and country (55%), linguistic preparation (52%), assistance in finding accommodation (50%) and getting in contact with local students (41%) would prove most useful.

Figure 12. Respondents view on what would be useful preparation (n=6,084)

Most students who received preparation stated that they were prepared mostly by their home (53%) or host university (53%).

Figure 13. Different actors who helped students prepare for their Erasmus (n=8,002)

22

Finally, although preparing alone, only 63% of respondents felt prepared or fully prepared to take full advantage of their experience abroad.

Figure 14. Satisfaction with the level of preparation to take full advantage of Erasmus by respondent who prepared alone (n=14,667)

Period after mobility The ECHE emphasizes the importance of supporting the reintegration of participants into their home environments. The sending institution should, for example, provide mentoring and social platforms, create group activities and involve former Erasmus students that have lived through the experience first-hand.

Figure 15. Percentage of students who received counselling after their exchange (n=14,478)

According to our respondents, the vast majority of participants (83%) did not receive any type of counselling after their exchange. Those who did receive it listed the following types: feedback from prospective students (56%), keeping in touch with friends from abroad (54%), 28% received information on lifelong learning and 21% career advice, while only 16% received counselling on dealing with a reverse culture shock. In total, 58% of the students felt this counselling useful or very useful, and only 3% described it as not useful.

23

Figure 16. Type of counselling students received after Erasmus (n=9,617)

Figure 17. Students’ view on the usefulness of counselling after Erasmus (n=2,433)

Those who did not receive any kind of counselling after Erasmus felt that advice on their career was missing (55%) followed by counselling on how to keep in touch with contacts made while abroad (41%) and how to deal with the reverse culture shock (32%). We conclude from this data that more emphasis should be put particularly on getting advice on how to use one’s period abroad when seeking employment.

Figure 18. Students’ view on what kind of counselling was missing (n=9,617)

24

Chapter 3 - Local Integration of the Mobile Students

By Jurgita Stasiukaityte

International students, willing or not, often create their own “social bubble�. They integrate insufficiently with locals and relationships are formed mostly through classes, group assignments or activities organized by student associations. It is uncommon for locals to spend time with internationals, unless locals are part of such associations.

This study aims to understand the level of integration desired by ERASMUS, which it is unclear at this moment. Moreover, this study investigates whether the level of integration depends on the amount of months spent abroad and whether it impacts overall satisfaction.

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and governments may not take care of local integration; but also student associations can perhaps act more effectively in this area.

This research was carried out primarily targeting exchange students abroad via limited-period international programs such as ERASMUS. But some students were abroad either for a full degree or internship. This may complicate drawing general conclusions from the survey.

However, it will offer some ideas on how to improve local integration of all international students and, if there is a significant difference between the aforementioned groups, it will be indicated clearly in the analysis.

25

Living Arrangements The key determinant for the success of the international students abroad is their adjustment, not only in the academic context, but also to their social and cultural environment.

Redmond and Bunyi (1993) define social integration as an ’ability to initiate assimilation into the social or relational network’. Whereas, Lewthwaite (1996) describes it as the ‘degree to which international students are able to initiate interactions and maintain friendships with host nationals, ... number of host friends made, quality of contact with host families and the number of university and community organisations’.

One of the most effective ways of integration and adaptation is shared accommodation.

Therefore it is all the more alarming that over one third of our survey respondents had accommodation shared exclusively with other international students (35%). Around 38% shared their flat with both local and international students.

Figure 19. Living arrangements of international students (n=709-18,393)

Almost half of the survey respondents who lived with other international students only, did so because it was easier to find a flat (42.8%) or accommodation was provided by the university (43.3%). This is all the more disturbing as host institutions should actually encourage exchange students’ integration into the local community, rather than hinder it by providing accommodation for internationals only.

26

The respondents who lived with local students either wanted to learn or improve their local language skills (34.3%) or know more about the local culture (27.4%). Respondents that have been on a study exchange showed a greater interest in learning and improving language skills (35.5%). 86.5% of students who lived with locals either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that it was very helpful to learn more about the local culture. We take this as further indication that measures should be taken that lead to more international and local students sharing accommodation in the future. Although we did not reach local students living with international students with our survey, we are convinced that also local students benefit greatly from this experience.

Respondents were also asked with whom they would prefer to live if they could choose freely. A solid 47.7% preferred to live with local and international students. Surprisingly only 10.4% of respondents would like to live with local students only, which could indicate that students also like to have company from people undergoing the same experience. Surprisingly, 12.3% favoured living only with international students, which shows that sometimes it is also exchange students who are not sufficiently open to the host environment. Only very few students would like to live with a host family (1.8%) or on their own (0.5%).

The ESNSurvey results indicate that mixed accommodation can have significant benefits for international students in terms of integrating into local communities. It is important that local and international students live together and thus make the process of integration easier as well as give local students a chance to get to know people from other countries as well.

27

Friendships and Community Attitudes The development of meaningful relationships between international students and members of the host community impacts the way in which international students describe the success or failure of their experience abroad (R. Gresham, V. Clayton, 2011). Based on the ESNSurvey results, almost half of the respondents (44.7%) spent time with other international students, slightly less (39.1%) with both local and international students. Only few students spent time with other exchange students from their own home country (9.1%), local students (3.8%) or non-student locals (3.3%). The last finding is regrettable because students should not exclusively spend time with other students but interact with people from different backgrounds.

Figure 20. Socialising of the international students (n=18,722)

In this connection we should point out the differences among different groups of respondents. For instance, respondents who take a full degree abroad interact mainly with international and local students (49%). and trainees spend more time with locals who are not students (18.7%). Confronting students with the question if they would have liked to spend more time with locals, more than half of them (53.3%) replied yes.

To learn whether the establishment of meaningful connections between international students and locals contributes to a positive exchange experience, respondents were asked to evaluate different statements. Figure 21 shows that almost 80% of respondents felt that international students created their own international communities with few connections with locals. However, only 27.7% think that the international community was a detriment to their exchange experience. What is more, 83% of students believe that they learnt a lot about the local culture during their stay abroad.

28

Figure 21. Establishment of the meaningful connections (n=18,720)

Based on the research conducted by the researchers R. Gresham and V. Clayton (2011), the establishment of superficial relationships is relatively easy to achieve with local members of host communities. However, it is difficult to move these relationships beyond small talk and it is the establishment of meaningful connections that international students most desire and that contribute significantly to a successful exchange period. To examine this, respondents were asked about the main obstacles to connect with locals: 46.3% voiced the opinion that locals seemed uninterested in interactions, while 36.7% think that the main barrier was language. Another 21.7% identify different cultures and styles of communicating as the primary problem.

Taking into account that one of the main barriers identified by students is language, respondents were asked whether they were attending language classes while living abroad. As we can see from Figure 22, more than a half of the respondents (57.7%) chose to follow the language course while abroad. 77.5% of them attended courses free of charge (especially those abroad for studies, not internships).

29

Figure 22. Language training during the exchange (n=582-16,322)

Other respondents did not follow courses due to the lack of time (9.2%), lack of interest (26.3%) or financial constraints (6.8%). This confirms that it is important to foster the learning processes of the host language (either through courses or informal learning processes) to increase overall satisfaction of students and cultural integration.

Only 18.5% of the respondents had a paid job while abroad. However, it is worth pointing out that 67.6% of them thought they interacted more with locals thanks to their job. In addition, students were asked whether they attended any courses where the majority of students were international. 64.4% confirmed this question and less than a half (48.3%) expressed interest in having classes with more local students.

According to D. Gutteridge (2011), activities such as project-based learning approaches, regular social events (e.g. barbeques) or even motivating text messages can enhance international students’ connection with their peers and the local community. In the ESNSurvey students were asked to identify activities that allowed them to meet locals. These were through the university (62.3%), international associations (41.5%), social networks (22.8%) and events organised by the local municipality (21.2%). Other frequent answers include doing sports (19.9%), local associations (18.9%), the local job (9.7%) and other activities such as parties. This confirms the importance of common activities to facilitate cultural integration.

30

Figure 23. Institutions that initiated activities to meet locals (n=614-16,737)

According to respondents, activities to meet locals were overwhelmingly organized by the Erasmus Student Network (50.4%), the university (47.3%), other student associations (24.7%).

More than a half of the students (62.3%) confirmed taking part in integration activities. The majority of respondents (85.5%) agreed that regular integration activities were useful to get a better understanding of the local culture, cultural differences and meet locals.

Figure 24. Students’ perception of their integration

31

Figure 24 shows students’ perception of their level of integration. 84.1% of respondents totally or somewhat agree that they were very interested in getting a better understanding of the local culture and planning to integrate with locals before leaving for their period abroad.

65% stated that they tried very much to integrate and felt integrated in their host institution.

Students were also asked whether they would try to integrate with locals more after their period abroad, and 84.2% of the respondents strongly or somewhat agreed.

As we can see from this chapter, students who spend time abroad communicate more with other exchange students than with locals. Universities and international student organisations are an important source of support to meet local students and integrate into the host environment. However, this question needs to be further addressed because integration is key not only to a better understanding of the local culture, but also in determining the success of the exchange period overall.

32

Chapter 4 - Economic Impact of International Mobility

By Benjamin Helm

The educational and cultural impact of the Erasmus program has been proven more than once. Consequently, the Erasmus+ budget has been raised by around 40% compared to the previous funding period. However, the question how students spend their grant and whether it is enough to meet expenses abroad is still unresolved and requires further investigation. In particular, we want to know if everyone can afford to go abroad or if Erasmus is available primarily for better-off students or those who are risk-taking and finance it with a student loan.

33

Chapter 4.1 - Travelling habits of exchange students

In the first place, our survey investigated the travelling habits of exchange students.

To understand how many students travelled around their host country, it is important to know how many cities they visited. But why is travelling that important? With each trip students discover more about the host country’s culture and meet different people. Figure 25 shows that most students visited between two and seven cities. While travelling, exchange students achieved a broader and deeper impression of the host country’s culture, but also spent money for accommodation, activities, food, etc. and in this manner supported the local economy. It is remarkable that only eleven of 16,630 people said that they did not visit a single city, but more than 25% visited ten or more.

Figure 25. Number of cities visited by exchange students in the host country (n=16,330)

With an average of 3.23 visited countries during the exchange period Erasmus truly is synonymous with mobility (see Figure 25). The amount of countries and cities visited shows that international education and intercultural curiosity go hand in hand and promises to have a wider economic impact.

34

Figure 26. Number of countries visited by exchange students (n=12,737)

Finally, when staying overnight, hostels are the primary source of accommodation. As can be seen from Figure 27, paid accommodations were frequented by 68.2% of students while free options were only used by 31.8%.

Figure 27. Exchange students’ options for staying overnight when travelling (n=27,453)

35

Visitors Although the travelling behaviour of the exchange students has already been analysed, each student is visited by friends or relatives who effectively represent additional tourists for host countries.

Figure 28. Number of visits each exchange student received (n= 13,573)

With an average of 4.1 visits, every exchange student equals four additional tourists. Not only to these support the host country’s economy, they also have the chance to see other parts of Europe. Those visitors stayed mainly in non-paid accommodation provided by the exchange students they visited (53%). But over one fifths also stayed in hotels and another tenth in hostels .

36

Figure 29. Types of accommodation where visitors stayed (n= 19,353)

The average duration of four days suggests that most visits have been over long weekends, but in more than 23% of cases visitors stayed for a week or longer. This finding, combined with the previous, leads to the conclusion that each Erasmus student leads, on average, to 16 more overnight stays in the host country (4 visitors for 4 days). When weighted in accordance with Figure 29, this results in three additional nights in hotels, 1.5 additional nights in hostels, and around one additional night in B&B for each Erasmus student.

Figure 30. Duration of the stay of student’s visitor (n= 16,459)

37

Leisure Activities Students were also asked if they joined sports events, cultural activities, music events and went out to eat. There is a strong correlation between attending cultural activities and eating out and both increase substantially during the exchange period. This means that if students are given financial support, they will spend this in his host country and stimulate its economy.

Figure 31. Activities before and during mobility (n= 16,456)

Returning to your host city Up to 21% of respondents came back to their host city to continue their studies or start working. However, we did not asked whether students moved to any other of the cities visited during their exchange.

Figure 32. Amount of students which returned to their host city (n=16,456)

38

Chapter 4.2 - Finances

By Benjamin Helm and Jesús Escrivá Muñoz

Funding is usually the most complicated issue in the exchange experience and, in some cases, it constitutes a real burden on mobility. Previous studies such as the ESNSurvey have shown that the lack of economic resources is one of the major obstacles for mobility. In this edition, students were asked whether they had to pay for housing in their home country. From these data, we can proceed with two different analyses. On the one hand, the situation of the 41% of students who were living with their parents prior to their mobility period. On the other hand, the situation of the 59% of the students who were already paying accommodation in their home countries.

To start with, from our data it is clear that students living with their parents had fewer expenses prior to mobility than those paying for accommodation. However, the expenses not associated with housing were also lower in the case of students with no housing costs compared to those paying accommodation in their home countries: a monthly average of 233€ for the former and 319€ for the latter (see Table 4).

Housing Other Expenses

Students with no housing costs in home country (41%)

Students with housing costs in home country (59%)

Home Country

Parent’s House or similar

289€

Host Country

315 €

319 €

Home Country

233 €

319 €

Host Country

364 €

404 €

386 €

378 €

Grant

Table 4. Students’ expenses in their home and in their host countries

Secondly, housing charges during mobility were practically identical for both groups (a monthly average of 315€ compared to 319€). Moreover, other expenses during mobility were similar among both groups, although it was slightly less for students without accommodation charges in their home countries (364€ compared to 404€). The grants which both groups received were also very similar (386€ compared to 378€).

39

From these data, one can argue that the situation for those students with no prior accommodation costs in their home countries was extremely different, since the new surcharge of paying accommodation was not compensated with the grant. If both groups are compared, there is a difference of around 90-130â‚Ź for the expenses in the host country (when housing is ignored). As argued, this money benefits the local economy through cultural and social activities that students join during their exchange.

Figure 33 shows grants received by students:

Figure 33. Monthly funding the student receive (n= 15,182)

40

Source of Support The major source of funding for exchange students is Erasmus grants (41%). Other national, regional and local authorities also provide some funding and so do some home universities. Private Institutions’ funding accounts for only 2% of the total. Personal funding is also a prominent source of funding the exchange experience. It can be divided into own savings (80%), previous job savings (12%) and family savings (20%). This shows that Erasmus is expensive and grants, on average, insufficiently cover students’ shortfalls.

Figure 34. Source of funding (n= 31,730)

Another issue which students normally raise is the fact that in many cases, public funding comes late or even after their exchange periods, which forces them to seek funds from their families or use their own savings. In fact, 46% of students faced this situation during their mobility periods, while 40% did not (14% do not remember).

Figure 35. Percentage of students receiving late payments (n=15,182)

41

Chapter 5 – Satisfaction with Students’ Associations

By Adriana Pérez-Encinas

This chapter focuses on three main aspects. First, it investigates the existence of ESN sections or any other type of student associations at the host universities. Second, it aims to identify the level of satisfaction of activities provided by ESN or any other student association. Third, it analyses whether these activities helped respondents to integrate into the local community.

Existence of Student’s Associations More than half of the respondents (50.3%) knew about the existence of an ESN section in their host country. 28.0% of students stated that there was no ESN section and 21.7% did not know.

Figure 36. Existence of an ESN section at the students’ host university (n=13,707)

Satisfaction with Activities In general terms, students are satisfied with the activities organized by ESN. When using a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), students rated their overall satisfaction of ESN with an average 3.8 points. Some activities were evaluated with higher levels of satisfaction: orientation week/welcome week (3.9), parties/informal meetings (3.9), trips and visiting tours (3.8) and SocialErasmus activities (3.6). Moreover, some additional activities have also been evaluated like: discounts offered with ESN card (3.3), language tandem and Language Cafés (3.3), Erasmus in Schools (3.2), Buddy and Mentor systems (3.2) as well as the preparation before the exchange (3).

42

Figure 37. Students’ satisfaction with their ESN section at their host university (n=13,707)

In the following figure, mean calculations for satisfaction are included:

Figure 38. Average level of satisfaction with ESN´s activities on a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), (n=4,026-6,310)

Therefore, ESN continues to play an important role in welcoming international students by organizing orientation or welcome weeks and by being present from the moment international students arrive on campus with informal events, trips and visiting tours.

43

Integration Activities offered by Students’ Associations The respondents are mainly satisfied with ESN sections and with the help provided to integrate international students into the local community. The average satisfaction with activities and the integration into the local community is 3.4 from a five-point scale. In total, almost 60% completely agree or rather agree with the fact that ESN activities helped exchange students integrate into their host environment.

Figure 39. Integration into the local community through activities offered by ESN (n=2,559)

It is important to note that more than half of the respondents completely agree or rather agree that ESN activities helped them integrate with local students. According to the report about key influences of international student satisfaction in Europe (StudyPortals), ESN promotes active involvement of both local and international students. This action helps international students connect with locals and avoid the “international bubble”.

There are some respondents that regarded other student associations at the host university useful. Some remembered names of them while others did not. Some of the named associations were: AEGEE, AIESEC, BIEN (Business International Exchange Network) and ISU (International Student Union). Some of them mixed up the buddy/mentor programme or the international relations offices with a student association. Of all student associations, ESN was the best known.

Respondents were also asked if they joined ESN after their exchange. A significant result of 17.3% of the respondents joined Erasmus Student Network after their exchange while 5.7% were already part of ESN before going abroad.

44

Figure 40. Participation in ESN after exchange period (n=14,478)

Most of the respondents agreed that the main reasons why they joined ESN were to help students make the most of their experience and to meet new people from different contexts and backgrounds. Some others joined because they missed their own international experience or because they wanted to ‘give something back’ after their own positive exchange experience.

Figure 41. Reasons to join ESN (n=2,488)

45

Acknowledgements

Gathering more than 22,000 responses has only been possible thanks to the help of all the local sections of the Erasmus Student Network and the support of many other associations and institutions active in the field of international education.

Our special gratitude goes to all supporters of the ESNSurvey 2014 who helped disseminate the questionnaire – AEGEE, Academic Cooperation Association (ACA), British Council, Centre for International Mobility (CIMO), Coimbra Group, Compostela Group, Erasmus Mundus Association (EMA), European Students Union (ESU), Network of Universities from the Capitals of Europe (UNICA) and European Association International Education (EAIE).

Furthermore, ESN wishes to thank the Erasmus Unit of the European Commission for their kind and highly appreciated support of the ESNSurvey. Our gratitude goes to all the National LLP Agencies and universities that helped us promote the ESNSurvey and reach their students and members.

Last but not least, the ESNSurvey is a product of countless days of work of the ESNSurvey team, composed of ESN members from different countries and cultures.

It consists of Stefan Jahnke, President of ESN International 2013/2015, Jesús Escrivá Muñoz, ESNSurvey Project Manager 2013/2015, Benjamin Helm (Germany), Adriana Pérez Encinas (Spain), Jurgita Stasiukaitytė (Lithuania) and Bojana Zimonjić (Serbia). Our gratitude also goes to Safi Sabuni, President of ESN International 2015/2016, Ana Luísa Santos, Communication Intern of ESN International 2015 and Gaffar Rampage, member of the International board 2015/2016 for the design of this booklet and the members who have proofread the text: Andrea Busuttil, Fionnuala Shakespeare, Matt Clemo, Sara Sirnik and, especially, Markus Gastinger.

It is thanks to their dedication, motivation and enthusiasm that the ESNSurvey continues to be one of the most successful projects of ESN AISBL.

46

Figures and tables

Figures Figure 1. Gender of the respondents (n=12,580) Figure 2. Level of studies of the respondents (n=12,583) Figure 3. Majors and areas of studies of respondents (n=12,593) Figure 4. Time that respondents spent abroad (n=12,581) Figure 5. Percentage of students who received any kind of preparation before going on

exchange (n=14,696) Figure 6. Respondents evaluation on the positive impact preparation might have on their

Erasmus experience (n=8,019) Figure 7. Percentage of students who prepared themselves somehow (n=16,667) Figure 8. Students’ view on the main reasons they did not spend time for preparation

(n=4,852) Figure 9. Type of preparation students received before their stay abroad (n=8,058) Figure 10. Level of satisfaction with preparation done by students (n=9,322-9,561) Figure 11. Students view on preparation require further improvement (n=14,671) Figure 12. Respondents view on what would be useful preparation (n=6,084) Figure 13. Different actors who helped students prepare for their Erasmus (n=8,002) Figure 14. Satisfaction with the level of preparation to take full advantage of Erasmus by

respondent who prepared alone (n=14,667) Figure 15. Percentage of students who received counselling after their exchange (n=14,478) Figure 16. Type of counselling students received after Erasmus (n=9,617) Figure 17. Students’ view on the usefulness of counselling after Erasmus (n=2,433) Figure 18. Students’ view on what kind of counselling was missing (n=9,617) Figure 19. Living arrangements of international students (n=709-18,393) Figure 20. Socialising of the international students (n=18,722) Figure 21. Establishment of the meaningful connections (n=18,720) Figure 22. Language training during the exchange (n=582-16,322) Figure 23. Institutions that initiated activities to meet locals (n=614-16,737) Figure 24. Students’ perception of their integration Figure 25. Number of cities visited by exchange students in the host country (n=16,330) Figure 26. Number of countries visited by exchange students (n=12,737) Figure 27. Exchange students’ options for staying overnight when travelling (n=27,453) Figure 28. Number of visits each exchange student received (n= 13,573) Figure 29. Types of accommodation where visitors stayed (n= 19,353) Figure 30. Duration of the stay of student’s visitor (n= 16,459) 47

Figure 31. Activities before and during mobility (n= 16,456) Figure 32. Amount of students which returned to their host city (n=16,456) Figure 33. Monthly funding the student receive (n= 15,182) Figure 34. Source of funding (n= 31,730) Figure 35. Percentage of students receiving late payments (n=15,182) Figure 36. Existence of an ESN section at the students’ host university (n=13,707) Figure 37. Students’ satisfaction with their ESN section at their host university (n=13,707) Figure 38. Average level of satisfaction with ESN´s activities on a scale from 1 (very

dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), (n=4,026-6,310) Figure 39. Integration into the local community through activities offered by ESN (n=2,559) Figure 40. Participation in ESN after exchange period (n=14,478) Figure 41. Reasons to join ESN (n=2,488) Tables Table 1. Destination Countries for ESNSurvey 2015 respondents (n=12,565) Table 2. Home Countries for ESNSurvey 2015 respondents (n=12,563) Table 3. Period abroad of the respondents (n=12,182) Table 4. Students’ expenses in their home and in their host countries

48

List of Abbreviations ACA: AEGEE: Students’ Forum CEFR: ESN: EC: EHEA: EP: EU: HEI: LLP: n: NARIC: PRIME:

Academic Cooperation Association Association des États Généraux des Étudiants de l’Europe / European Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Erasmus Student Network AISBL European Commission European Higher Education Area European Parliament European Union Higher Education Institution Lifelong Learning Programme Number of valid responses National Academic Recognition Information Centre Problems of Recognition in Making Erasmus

49

Sources

Bucharest Communiqué, 2012. Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area, Bucharest.

Erasmus Student Network, 2010. Problems of Recognition In Making Erasmus (PRIME 2010), Erasmus Student Network AISBL, Brussels.

Erasmus Student Network, 2012. Exchange, employment and added value: Research Report of the ESNSurvey 2011, Erasmus Student Network AISBL, Brussels.

Problems of Recognition in Making Erasmus, 2011. Erasmus Student Network AISBL, Brussels.

English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education, 2007. ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education.

Gresham, R., Clayton, V. (2011). Community Connections: A Programme to Enhance Domestic and International Students’ Educational Experience. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Volume 33, Issue 4, 2011.

Gutteridge, D. (2011). Strategies for the integration of adult international students into the local community. NCVER, Adelaide.

Graham, S. (2012). Schools’ Provisions for International Students. Evaluation done by New Zealand Government.

Kücking, S. (2011). Internationalisation and the Integration of International Students at the University of Twente. Thesis to obtain the degree of Master of Science.

The National Integration Working Group for Schools (2010). Integration in Singapore Schools: A Best Practises Package. SilliconPlus Communications Pte Ltd, Ministry of Education.

Strang, A. Ager, A. and O’Brien, O. (2003) Indicators of Integration: The Experience of Integration. Report to the Home Office on behalf of Michael Bell Associates.

The British Council (2014). Integration of International Students. A UK Perspective. Education Intelligence.

Spencer-Oatey, H., Dauber, D. and Williams, S. (2014). Promoting Integration on Campus: Principles, Practise and Issues for Further Exploration. The case study commissioned by UKCISA.

50

Annex 1: About ESN

The Erasmus Student Network (ESN) is the biggest inter-disciplinary European student organisation in the field of mobility. ESN is a non-political, non-profit and non-religious organisation with over 13,000 volunteer members from local student groups (so called sections) in more than 450 Higher Education Institutions in 37 countries. ESN supports educational, social and cultural integration of international students and provides practical information for incoming and outgoing students about various exchange programmes. Furthermore, ESN provides intercultural experiences to students who cannot access a period abroad (internationalization at home). The vision of ESN is the enrichment of society through international students – thus, ESN works to foster the mobility of students under the principle of SHS – students helping students. ESN provides its services annually to about 180,000 international students in Europe and beyond. ESN’s activities comprise hundreds of projects developed at all levels. The main international projects of Erasmus Student Network are: 1.

ESNSurvey (http://esn.org/content/esnsurvey) is a European-wide research project covering different topics concerning mobility and education. It is conducted annually and surveys students at higher education institutions, with an average response rate of 10,000 answers. Starting in 2005, the ESNSurvey is the biggest regular European research project planned and carried out entirely by students for students. So far, the ESNSurvey has investigated upon the following topics – Experience of Studying Abroad (2005), Exchange Students’ Rights (2006), Generation Mobility (2007), Exchanging Cultures (2008), Information for Exchange (2009), E-Value-ate Your Exchange (2010), Exchange, Employment and Added Value (2011) and Exchange: Creating Ideas, Opportunities and Identity (2013).

2.

PRIME (Problems of Recognition in Making Erasmus, http://www.prime.esn.org/) is a research project addressing the continuing challenges concerning recognition procedures for outgoing exchange students. PRIME has been carried out in 2009 and 2010 following up on the results of the ESNSurveys 2006 and 2007, showing that full recognition is not yet a reality. The aim of PRIME is to collect best practices among participating higher education institutions and through their dissemination contribute to the improvement of the situation. A new study was conducted in 2013.

3.

STORY (http://storyproject.eu/) means Strengthening the Training Opportunities for InteRnational Youth and aims to improve the accessibility and quality of international

51

traineeships and to increase the awareness regarding the existence of such opportunities for youth. This will happened through a research on the issue and an online platform (ERASMUSINTERN), in order to enhance students’ international opportunities on the European job market.

4.

SocialErasmus (http://socialerasmus.esn.org/) gives international students an opportunity to help local communities in several ways through the interaction between students and local communities. It was the flagship project of ESN in 2011/2012. Projects are mainly carried out in three areas: Charity, Environment and Education. At the same time, international students gain experience, knowledge, openness and discover their love for Europe! Erasmus in Schools (EiS) was the flagship project of ESN for 2013 within the framework of SocialErasmus. These activities aim to promote mobility at an early age. ESN’s local sections organise visits to elementary and secondary schools so that international students can do a wide range of activities that include country and culture presentations, language sessions and mobility promoting activities.

5.

Erasmus Voting Assessment (http://erasmusvoting.eu/) With both the financial and practical support of the European Youth Forum, ESN launched a survey exploring issues concerning Visas and Residence Permits in July 2013. In a moment when the European Commission was revising its Visa Directive regulating how Visas and Residence Permits are treated in the European Union, the survey gave meaningful insight into the needs and problems of mobile people. The results and recommendations fed into the consultation process. For ESN, the topic is very important since Visas and Residence Permits are a major obstacle for mobility.

6.

ExchangeAbility and MapAbility (http://exchangeability.esn.org) aims at allowing students with disabilities to be fully involved in the activities of the local sections of ESN. Sections are encouraged to engage disabled students at their universities in the work for international students. Through participation and involvement in different activities, students with disabilities are given an opportunity to experience the international and intercultural atmosphere associated with the exchange programmes. The long term goal of the project is to encourage an increasing number of disabled students to go on an exchange. MapAbility is a EU-funded project which aims at mapping the accessibility of European HEIs to students with disabilities and special needs. The main aim activity planned for the project is a European Conference to evaluate the process of integration of students with special needs and to enhance their inclusion to the local community.

The promotion of student mobility in Higher Education is of great necessity and to facili-

52

tate an increase of student mobility among students with disabilities, socially oriented students and ExchangeAbility coordinators from each member country will gather together in Brussels to share best practices and experience, map different European universities according to their architectural barriers and accessibility and create a common vision regarding social inclusion of disabled youth in student mobility.

7.

ESNcard (http://esncard.org/) is the membership and discount card of ESN and ESN sections distribute the card to their volunteers and international students. The card offers a number of discounts at the local, national and international level. Annually, ESN issues about 80.000 cards.

8.

ESN Galaxy (https://galaxy.esn.org/) is a web platform based on the Web 2.0 technology. It brings all ESN sections together, allows them to communicate and share information in real time. This unique system allows international students and ESN members to look for accommodation or to get information about their host country. ESN Galaxy also supports local sections via the provision of web-based services.

9.

eXpress, the ESN Magazine (http://esn.org/magazine) is published three times a year.

It is an informative, high-quality magazine about issues concerning ESN, Europe and the European Union in particular, exchange and mobility. The articles are written by ESN volunteers and students from all around Europe.

10. ESN Newsletter (http://esn.org/newsletters) is an ESN online communication tool, sent twice per month (at the beginning and in the middle of each month) to over 7.200 subscribers informing them about the network, ESN events and other interesting initiatives happening in Europe and beyond.

11. ESN Events – the International Board of ESN conducts open calls for various international events, taking place every year. These events include Regional Platforms (Central European Platform, Northern European Platform, South Eastern European Platform, South Western European Platform and Western European Platform), Committee Meetings, National Board Meetings, Cultural Medley, Councils of National Representatives, Council of National Delegates and the Annual General Meeting of ESN. Erasmus Student Network is a full member of the European Youth Forum since April 2010 and is a member of the Advisory Council on Youth of the Council of Europe for the mandate 2014/2015. ESN is also a courtesy member of the European Association for International

53

Education, full member of the Informal Forum of International Student Organizations (IFISO), full member of the European Movement International (EMI) and a full member of the European Civil Society Platform on Lifelong Learning (EUCIS-LLL).

Contact: If you have any questions or would like to know more about ESN, please contact us directly at secretariat@esn.org.

ESN AISBL Rue Hydraulique / Waterkrachtstraat, 15 B-1210 Saint-Josse-Ten-Noode / Sint-Jost-ten-Node Brussels BELGIUM Tel.: +32 (0) 22 567 427 Mob.: +32 (0) 477 567 889 www.esn.org

54

ESN AISBL Rue Hydraulique / Waterkrachtstraat, 15 B-1210 Saint-Josse-Ten-Noode / Sint-Jost-ten-Node Brussels BELGIUM Tel.: +32 (0) 22 567 427 www.esn.org If you have any questions or would like to know more about ESN, please contact us directly at secretariat@esn.org.

For any information regarding the ESNSurvey, directly contact the ESNSurvey team at survey@esn.org.

ESNSurvey 2014 International Experience and Language Learning

ESNSurvey 2013 Creating Ideas, Opportunities and Identity

ESNSurvey 2011 Exchange, Empolyment and Added Value

ESNSurvey 2010 E-Value-ate Your Exchange

ESNSurvey 2009 Provision and Quality

ESNSurvey 2008 Exchanging Cultures

ESNSurvey 2007 Generation Mobility

ESNSurvey 2006 Exchange students’ right

ESNSurvey 2005 The experience of studying abroad for exchange students in Europe

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.