6
Supporting reform: the role of Erasmus in higher education
Criteria for evaluating Erasmus Staff Mobility • H ow has staff mobility (teaching assignments and/or staff training) been strategically used at the university as a mean of achieving academic quality (e.g. change in ways of teaching, etc.), and how has it led to new cooperation with higher education institutions abroad? • In which way has Erasmus staff mobility been part of an integrated modernisation strategy? • How broad has the coverage of staff mobility in the institution been (i.e. wide spectrum of departments/ faculties involved)? • How are staff members supported, and how is the participation in staff mobility recognised?
Institutions selected for their Erasmus Staff Mobility project Number of outgoing staff involved in:
Number of incoming staff involved in:
Number of academic staff in total
Teaching Mobility 1997-2011
Training Mobility 2007-2011
Teaching Mobility 1997-2011
Training Mobility 2007-2011
250
2
4
11
0
Country (*)
Institution
Belgium
Haute École Albert Jacquard, Namur
Germany
Rheinische Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversität Bonn
3 674
./.
24
./.
./.
Spain
Universitat Politècnica de València
2 717
1 186
134
641
137
Italy
Conservatorio di Verona ‘E. F. Dall’Abaco’
72
52
4
85
4
Latvia
Vidzemes Augstskola
63
43
91
36
21
Hungary
Óbudai Egyetem
300
295
40
270
22
Netherlands
Hanzehogeschool Groningen
2 700
581
28
./.
107
Slovenia
Lesarska šola Maribor
30
8
17
2
0
Finland
Jyväskylän ammattikorkeakoulu
289
480
103
569
98
(*) Protocol order