Erasmus Mundus students did not explicitly rate each indicator. They rated the extent to which they agreed with a series of questions which were mapped to the evidence points under each indicator, to give a useful comparison. Where the indicators were felt to be irrelevant to students, or not possible for them to know, they were not asked the question. Overall indicator scores have been calculated by aggregating the results for all questions under each indicator. Results EM students and alumni were generally more positive than staff Indicator 1: institution has an agreed marketing strategy for EM that supports the ambitions of the institution as a whole’ ‘The scored lowest, with one of the staff members saying none of the evidence factors are observed and the other saying it was developing and that just a few of the evidence factors are observed (although they did not say which ones in the earlier part of the question). This was the indicator with the largest difference between staff and student ratings. Indicator 11: students are encouraged to apply for EM’ was perceived as weakest by students. ‘All Indicator 3: EM marketing strategy is robust, specific and agreed with all relevant partners’, Indicator 8: is ‘The ‘EM consistently branded’ and Indicator 9: Erasmus+ EM web pages are clear, effective, and interesting’ were rated highest ‘Your by both staff and students. Key: Staff scored 4 of the indicators with 4s (meaning outstanding), 4 of the indicators as 3s (meaning good) and the rest of the indicators as 2s (meaning developing). Staff saw that there were many improvements that could be made, with room for development in a number of areas. Students scored three indicators as excellent, one as developing and the rest as good.
Erasmus Mundus students did not explicitly rate each indicator. They rated the extent to which they agreed with a series of questions which were mapped to the evidence points under each indicator, to give a useful comparison. Where the indicators were felt to be irrelevant to students, or not possible for them to know, they were not asked the question. Overall indicator scores have been calculated by aggregating the results for all questions under each indicator. Results EM students and alumni were generally more positive than staff Indicator 1: ‘The institution has an agreed marketing strategy for EM that supports the ambitions of the institution as a whole’ scored lowest, with one of the staff members saying none of the evidence factors are observed and the other saying it was developing and that just a few of the evidence factors are observed (although they did not say which ones in the earlier part of the question). This was the indicator with the largest difference between staff and student ratings. Indicator 11: ‘All students are encouraged to apply for EM’ was perceived as weakest by students. Indicator 3: ‘The EM marketing strategy is robust, specific and agreed with all relevant partners’, Indicator 8: ‘EM is consistently branded’ and Indicator 9: ‘Your Erasmus+ EM web pages are clear, effective, and interesting’ were rated highest by both staff and students. Key: Staff scored 4 of the indicators with 4s (meaning outstanding), 4 of the indicators as 3s (meaning good) and the rest of the indicators as 2s (meaning developing). Staff saw that there were many improvements that could be made, with room for development in a number of areas. Students scored three indicators as excellent, one as developing and the rest as good.
EM-ACE%20toolkit%20Sample%20Report.docx