Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

This section presents the main findings obtained from multiple lines of evidence used to examine the evaluation issues for relevance, design and delivery, and short-term benefits. Given the small sample sizes, the results should be viewed as being for the respondents to the surveys rather than for the larger population of IAM participants or unsuccessful applicants.

3.1 Relevance

The formative evaluation examined three evaluation issues regarding relevance:

• Is there a continuing need to encourage exchange and co-operation among higher education institutions internationally? Is there still a need to prepare students for working in a global economy?
• What is the role and the nature of involvement of the IAM Initiative in encouraging exchanges and co-operation among higher education institutions from various countries?
• Would the participating institutions have been able to make progress in internationalizing their institution and/or strengthening student mobility if they had not had access to IAM funding?

Findings on Relevance

Eighty-eight percent of the surveyed faculty members reported that their institution or department participates in other non-IAM funded exchanges. Fifty-six percent (n=22) of the surveyed faculty members reported an increase in participation in non-IAM funded exchange programs in the last five years.

A recent study by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) also shows that institutional interest in providing exchange opportunities is high, with 90 percent of responding institutions indicating a medium or high interest in providing student exchange experiences.⁵ In 1999, Canadian universities were participating in almost 2,500 international exchange agreements. These agreements are providing exchange experiences for several thousand students a year. For example, during the 1997/98 academic year, institutions reported 5,058 Canadian students studying abroad as part of an exchange.⁶ However, even this level of participation means that less than one percent of Canadian university students (full-time graduate and undergraduate students) were studying abroad in an exchange program during the 1997/98 academic year.

The AUCC study reports a need for continued funding of student mobility programs. This position is reinforced by a focus group conducted by HRDC/IAM with project directors in the Canada-NA Program.⁷ The focus group study indicates that project directors believed that even with increasing participation in international activities by their universities/colleges, the Canada-NA Program is still needed to promote student mobility. The project directors noted that funding for international mobility continues to be scarce, and that most institutions still have room to improve their international programs.

Although the majority of the faculty members surveyed for the IAM evaluation are in institutions where exchange participation is on the rise, 77 percent of those faculty believe that IAM is still needed to support international exchange at their institution. When asked to explain why they believe that the IAM Initiative is still needed, the surveyed faculty members focused primarily on the importance of IAM funding but also noted that IAM provides unique opportunities, such as allowing institutions to enhance their programs and expertise through deepened relationships and bringing a wide range of students together.

The respondents to the survey of unsuccessful applicants also noted the need for more funding for international exchanges. They unanimously agreed (n=29) that a continuing need exists to encourage international exchange programs and co-operation among higher education institutions internationally. They hold this view even though they reported that their departments and institutions already participate in student exchanges and that their own participation in international exchange programs has increased in the last five years.

The continued need for the funding of exchange projects is illustrated by the fact that over four-fifths (86 percent or n=25) of the surveyed unsuccessful applicants reported that their project did not proceed after being denied IAM funding. Only three of the respondents (10 percent) found alternative funding for their projects, and all of them had to modify the projects due to lack of funds.⁸

The survey of unsuccessful applicants also appears to show a greater need for opportunities in more innovative areas of international exchange, which are areas supported by the IAM Initiative. Unsuccessful applicants reported most faculty involvement in the more traditional forms of international exchange (i.e., student exchanges, research with foreign partners, faculty exchange), while less traditional areas of international exchange had less faculty involvement. About a quarter of unsuccessful applicants reported participating in the development of shared or common curricula with foreign educational institutions or the development of joint degree programs during the past two years.

The questionnaire for participating students considered IAM's relevance by asking about the students' desire for exchange opportunities and what they would have done had the IAM exchange not been available. Over two-thirds (67 percent of n=76) of the surveyed students said that they would have looked for other student exchanges had the IAM project not been available. The continued need for IAM may be seen in the fact that only 8 percent (n=9) think that they would have studied abroad in the absence of their IAM project.

3.2 Program Design and Delivery

The formative evaluation examined two issues regarding design and delivery:

• Has IAM reached targeted institutions' faculties and students?
• Are there design elements that constitute obstacles to effective implementation? If so, can and how could they be changed?

Reaching Institutions and Students

The project profile information presented in Section 2 indicated that the IAM projects were in a variety of disciplines including agricultural and natural resources, biological sciences, business management, education, engineering and applied sciences, social sciences, and health professions and occupations.

Also, Section 2 indicated that the surveyed students came from 28 post-secondary institutions. Their areas of study included law, engineering, applied science, agriculture and natural resources.

Overall, surveyed faculty reported three primary sources for their knowledge of IAM: other faculty (43 percent or n=17), IAM promotional materials (28 percent or n=11), and university or college administration (15 percent or n=6). These results show that while investment in IAM promotional materials is well spent, there is also a strong "word of mouth" quality to how faculty members hear about the IAM Initiative (58 percent of faculty surveyed hear of IAM through other faculty and/or administrators).

Faculty recruited students mainly by advertising the program with posters/flyers (83 percent or n=33), personally approaching students (63 percent or n=25), announcing the project in class (73 percent or n=29), and asking other faculty to assist with recruiting (55 percent or n=22). A slight majority of the surveyed students (54 percent or n=61) reported hearing about the IAM project from a faculty member, while 16 percent (n=18) learned of IAM through recruitment posters or flyers. The surveyed students also learned about the project from their academic department (17 percent of n=19) and from their university or college international studies office (12 percent or n=14).

Less than half (40 percent or n=16) of the surveyed faculty members reported absolutely no obstacles in recruiting students, meaning that most had experienced some difficulties. These obstacles took many forms, including finding students available for an exchange (28 percent or n=11), the stipend amount (23 percent or n=9), difficulty finding qualified students (13 percent or n=5), home institutional structures, such as academic programs or curricula that made scheduling exchanges difficult (13 percent or n=5), and insufficient language skills (10 percent or n=4). In spite of the obstacles in recruiting, however, almost half (48 percent or n=19) of the faculty had to limit the number of mobile students accepted for the project.

The evaluation conducted by the European Union of its Co-operation Programme in Higher Education and Training between the European Community and Canada (the EU's title for its side of the Canada-EC Program) found that a significant proportion of the costs of studying abroad are borne by the individual student and family.

The surveys of participating students and faculty conducted for the IAM evaluation also found that the student pays much of the cost of studying abroad.^{9 10}

• Almost two-thirds (64 percent or n=72) of surveyed students reported that the cost of the IAM project was higher than the cost of studying at their home institution for the same period of time. Surveyed students estimated that on average, the incremental cost of participating in IAM was $2,778 (median of $2,000).
• The surveyed students reported an average stipend of $2,162. The stipend amount ranged from zero (8 percent or n=9) to $6,000 (1 percent or n=1). These figures appear to be in agreement with the amounts reported by surveyed faculty: an average stipend of $2,870, with the amounts ranging from $1,000 to $5,400.
• The stipends received by the surveyed students did not cover the full cost of participation in the exchange. Students reported an average cost (excluding reimbursements and travel costs) of $4,798 (median cost of $3,500), and 82 percent (n=85) stated that the stipend did not completely cover their costs associated with the IAM project.¹¹
• A minority of students (34 percent or n=38) said they found additional funding to offset the costs of the exchange. These surveyed students averaged $4,654 in outside funding, with a median amount of $2,500. Most reported outside funding from bursaries or scholarships (24 percent or n=9 or 38), student loans (16 percent or n=6), university or college funds (13 percent or n=5), and parents/family (8 percent or n=3).
• Faculty used very different methods for determining the amount of funding to be awarded to students. The three most common methods are: basing the decision on the cost of the project to the student (38 percent or n=15); giving each student identical amounts (20 percent or n=8); and determining the amount based on the projects budget (15 percent or n=6).

The projects in the survey had an average of $147,283 in funding. This amount covered, on average, 73 percent of the total project cost. Table 4 shows the allocation of the project funding reported by the surveyed faculty members. Many of the survey respondents did not know or did not respond to this question, however.

Slightly over half (55 percent or 18/33) of the projects in the survey received funding from IAM only. Thirteen projects reported additional sources of funding, which were mainly from other partner institutions or the general budget of their post-secondary institution.¹²

When the unsuccessful applicants were asked if they would apply to the IAM Initiative in the future, a little over one-third (35 percent or n=10) responded that they would definitely apply again. Forty-five percent (n=13) reported that they would not apply again and they gave the following reasons:

• The application process is too time consuming (n=13, which corresponds to all of those who said that they would not apply again);
• The decision process seems unfair and arbitrary (n=8 of 13);
• The consortium partner requirements are too difficult to comply with (n=7 of 13);
• Funding for projects is insufficient (n=5 of 13); and
• The requirement for academic partner contributions is a burden (n=3 of 13).

Also, many of the surveyed unsuccessful applicants found feedback on their applications lacking. Over half (52 percent or n=15) of the unsuccessful applicants reported not receiving reasons for the rejection of their application. Among the group that did receive reasons for their rejection (45 percent or n=13), over three-fifths (62 percent or n=8 of 13) did not consider the reasons for their application's rejection appropriate.

Design Elements

Both the surveyed faculty members and unsuccessful applicants were asked to comment on the application process. The results of the two surveys were very similar. Both groups found the clarity of the IAM guidelines and forms to rate less than 4.0 (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "very unclear" and 5 means "very clear").¹³ They considered eligibility requirements and the types of costs covered to be the most clearly presented elements of the application forms and guidelines. The lowest rated items by the faculty members were selection criteria (3.2) and administrative requirements (3.1). For the unsuccessful applicants, it was activities eligible for support (3.4) and selection criteria (2.9).

When asked about their level of agreement with the program elements of IAM (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree"), the surveyed faculty members evidenced mild agreement, with no program element rating a 4.0 or above. Faculty members:

• Had the most positive reaction to the requirement of a national distribution of partners (mean of 3.6);
• Were essentially neutral on the level and duration of project funding, with current funding levels receiving a 3.3, and funding duration and the required institutional contribution receiving 3.0 ratings; and
• Disagreed with the requirement that funding was only available for new projects (i.e., no funding to continue a pre-existing project), with this element receiving a 2.0 rating and indicating that many faculty members believed that successful projects should be eligible for renewed funding.

The surveyed faculty members were divided in assessing their overall experience in administering a project under the IAM Initiative. Half (53 percent or n=21) reported being "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied", 15 percent (n=6) characterized their experience as neutral, while 25 percent (n=10) were "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied."

Overall, the surveyed faculty members expressed satisfaction with their experiences of collaborating with partner institutions. Almost half (48 percent or n=19) of them reported being "very satisfied" and over one-third (38 percent or n=15) were "somewhat satisfied." Four faculty members (10 percent) felt "somewhat dissatisfied" with the experience, and none rated their level of satisfaction as "very dissatisfied."¹⁴

The questionnaire of participating faculty members asked them to discuss the forms of collaboration their consortium engaged in. The key findings are:

• Collaboration (either formal or informal agreements) occurred most often in the following areas: credit recognition and transfer agreements (65 percent), common curricular materials (58 percent), and faculty or staff exchanges (56 percent).
• Collaboration with consortium partners tended to be through informal rather than formal agreements. The main exception was in the area or credit recognition and transfer agreements, where half of the agreements were formal. Consortia used informal agreements for all other areas of collaboration, if they collaborated at all.
• About 41 percent of the surveyed faculty members reported that no collaboration or discussion surrounding collaboration occurred in the areas of partnerships with non-academic organizations.
• Even though the program was not aimed at developing the collaboration in the areas of joint degree programs and common certification programs, more than two-thirds of the faculty members reported that it occurred during the project.

Generally, the surveyed faculty members were satisfied with all forms of partner co-operation included in the survey. On average, as shown in Table 5, the faculty members rated their satisfaction with various areas at 3.4 or above (using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "very unsatisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied"). The surveyed faculty members reported the most satisfaction in facilitating entry of students into the country and providing a quality experience for students. A close second was co-operation concerned with issues of academic credit (i.e. procedures for evaluating student work, academic credit transfers, schedules for exchanges).

Table 5 shows that ranking among the lowest satisfaction were the following:

• Co-operation in preparing students academically, culturally, and linguistically for the exchange ranked among the lowest in satisfaction, as did finding qualified students.
• Securing internships for students had the lowest satisfaction rating. This is an area where three-fourths of the faculty reported that they relied on the host institution for this assistance.
• Although developing course content and curricula were two of the most common forms of collaboration, the co-operation in these areas received relatively low satisfaction ratings.

Faculty cited many ways to improve co-operation among consortium partners:

• more contact with partner (n=8);
• more money for travel or other consortium-building expenses (n=4);
• better management of projects (e.g., have two project directors, create more trust) (n=3);
• choosing partners with experience in co-operative projects (n=2); and
• more time to develop projects (n=2).

Sixty percent (n=24) of the surveyed faculty members reported that their projects provided students with orientation courses to prepare the students for the culture, politics, business climate, or educational system of the host country. Similarly, almost two-thirds (63 percent or n=71) of surveyed students reported that their home institutions provided orientation programs or meetings to prepare them for their IAM project. Eighty-seven percent (n=62 of 71) of these students found the orientation offerings at least "somewhat helpful".

The one-third (35 percent or n=40) of surveyed students who did not receive any orientation did not appear to have greatly missed it. A majority (55 percent or n=22 of 40) of them reported that they did not wish they had received any orientation. The results for the host institution were, for the most part, similar.

The types of contacts that students had with host institutions prior to going abroad took many forms, with most of the contacts being either written or e-mail contact rather than in-person contact. For over four-fifths (84 percent or n=95) of the students surveyed, their home institution assisted them in contacting their host institution prior to going abroad. While over one-third (39 percent or n=44) found the amount of prior contact "completely adequate," almost half (48 percent or n=54) felt that they "could have used more" contact, and 12 percent (n=14) of surveyed students considered their prior contact "totally inadequate."

The surveyed students were asked about the support they received from both their home and their host institutions in a range of areas. As shown in Table 6 (which provides the survey data for home institution supports):

• Most types of assistance received by the majority of surveyed students came from the home institution.
• Students generally reported that they received the supports they considered to be the most important. In most cases, the level of support received and the importance students placed on the support seem to track each other. The two main exceptions were registration and course selection for the host institution and arranging living accommodations. Students ranked these two types of assistance as being very important, but assistance in these areas was not as frequently provided as others they saw as less important.
• Most of the surveyed students reported being satisfied with the assistance they received, with almost all supports from both the home and host institution having a mean rating of 4.0 or higher (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "completely unsatisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied").

The two areas where surveyed students were less likely to receive assistance from their home or host institution were:

• obtaining health insurance (Table 7 shows that 56 percent did not receive support from home institution; 50 percent received no support from host institution);
• obtaining a visa or other immigration issues (Table 7 shows that 29 percent received no support from home institution; 27 percent received no support from host institution).

The current provision of language preparation in IAM projects is not clear from the survey data. This may be due to the small samples, particularly in the student survey. Table 8 compares the student and faculty survey results.

The surveyed students reported an average length of 21 weeks for the language preparation courses. The median was 11 weeks and the range was from less than one week (3 percent or n=1) to 104 weeks (3 percent or n=1). The student survey also indicates that the IAM projects either fully funded language preparation or did not cover it at all.

Almost two-thirds (65 percent or n=20 of 31) of the surveyed students who took language preparation courses believe that the course met their needs for the exchange project. Twenty-nine percent (n=9) thought that their language needs were not met by the course, and 3 percent (n=1) thought the preparation exceeded what they needed for the exchange. Of the students who were not fluent in the host country's language (either as a second or first language) and went on their exchange without any language preparation (n=17), 6 percent (n=1) believed that the lack of preparation caused difficulties during the IAM project.

Almost half of the surveyed faculty members (48 percent or n=19) believe that students receive sufficient language preparation for their study abroad, compared to a quarter (23 percent or n=9) who find the language preparation to be insufficient.¹⁶ To improve language preparation, two (5 percent) of the surveyed faculty suggested providing funding for language instruction, and two (5 percent) others proposed selecting students sooner to provide more time for language instruction.

The evaluation conducted by the European Union of its Co-operation Programme in Higher Education and Training between the European Community and Canada (the EC-Canada Programme evaluation) concluded that it was important to plan students' academic studies or their work/internship prior to their going abroad. Likewise, other research examined by the literature review showed that ensuring credit recognition and transfer of credits earned abroad is important to the success of academic mobility programs. Previous studies indicated that students might not participate if they were uncertain about receiving academic credit for their work abroad.

The surveys of participating students and faculty members appear to show that the IAM projects in both programs provided advance planning for their students' exchanges. Over four-fifths of the students reported that they planned their academic studies (87 percent or n=93) or internship (87 percent or n=26) at least partly before going abroad.¹⁷ Similarly, two-thirds (68 percent or n=27) of the faculty members indicated that students' academic study programs were decided upon before the students left their home institution, and one-fifth (20 percent or n=8) noted that students began this planning at the home institution, even if they completed it abroad. Of those faculty members who had students in internships (n=21), 76 percent (n=16) had students do at least some of the planning at their home institution before going abroad.

Both surveys also appear to show that students do not experience much difficulty with getting academic credit for their studies or work done abroad. Eighty-seven percent (n=98) of the surveyed students reported receiving academic credit at their home institution for the courses or work they did in the IAM project. For 88 percent (n=86 of 98) of them, the credit was equivalent to what they would have earned had the study/work been done at their home institution. Of the 15 students who did not receive academic credit for their work, 13 did not request academic credit.

Similarly, almost two-thirds (68 percent or n=27) of the surveyed faculty members reported that their mobile students enrolled in courses that would earn them credit at their home institution. Of the faculty whose students received academic credit, over three-quarters (71 percent or n=25) reported that their students received equivalent credit for their courses abroad.

Three faculty members (8 percent) reported that a minority of their students had difficulty receiving academic credit at their home institution for the study or work done abroad. They noted several reasons why the students did not receive credit. Most of their reasons were institutional and not the responsibility of the student, such as the structures of the national education systems being too different, the grading systems being too different, a lack of coordination between institutions, and the host institution failing to provide sufficient information on the program abroad.

Project directors and educational partners reported collecting various kinds of project information. Because of the high "don't know" response rate, only the answers given by project directors, who most often handle the administrative work of the projects, are provided in Table 9. The results show that financial information and students' experiences are the records most often kept by project directors.

The more detailed analysis in the technical report shows that less than a majority of all the surveyed faculty members (project directors and educational partners) reported collecting information on the project's impacts on the post-secondary institution, students, faculty, the department, etc.

The information collected by project directors and educational partners is most often used for informal evaluations of the project and for HRDC's annual reports. A third (33 percent or n=13 of 40) of the surveyed faculty members reported using the information in formal evaluations of the project.

3.3 Short-Term Benefits

The formative evaluation examined three evaluation issues regarding short-term benefits:

• Has IAM encouraged international exchange and co-operation among Canadian higher education institutions (universities and colleges)? Specifically, in regard to:
  • setting up new multilateral partnerships between educational institutions and enhancing existing ones;
  • skills development and international academic work credit;
  • the development of common and/or shared curricula; and
  • the exchange of expertise and knowledge in new developments in higher education and training, including distance learning?

• Has IAM improved the quality of human resource development among mobile and non-mobile students at participating institutions? Specifically, in regard to:
  • increasing students' knowledge of languages, cultures, and institutions;
  • providing affordable access to an "internationalized" curricula;
  • providing work placements/internships in a "foreign" milieu; and
  • partnerships beyond the educational field to include businesses, professional associations, public authorities, etc.?

• Are the partnerships created through the IAM program continuing beyond the program funding? What mechanisms are being used to promote sustainability?

Perceived Institutional Effects

When asked about the IAM Initiative's contributions to their institution, the surveyed faculty members considered the most important contribution to be assistance in providing exchange experiences to students and assistance in establishing new partnerships or enhancing existing ones. Specific types of co-operation, such as forming partnerships with non-academic organizations, developing common curricula, and exchanging knowledge in new technologies scored lower in importance.

As noted in section 3.2, faculty members wanted IAM to do more to enhance existing partnerships by allowing continued funding of successful IAM projects.

Most consortium collaboration consisted of informal agreements. Formal agreements were most common for credit recognition and transfer agreements, common curricular materials, common courses or course modules, and faculty or staff exchanges. These are also the areas that faculty members considered the most successful.

Eighty percent (n=32) of the surveyed faculty members reported reaching agreements for credit recognition. Half (50 percent or n=16 of 32) considered the agreements reached on credits to be capable of serving future exchange students. Twelve respondents indicated that their agreements would only serve the current exchange project.

Seven faculty members reported using some form of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). The ECTS, developed for the European Community's ERASMUS program for student mobility, is a voluntary, decentralized system of credit agreements that is based on institutional co-operation and trust. One advantage in adopting a system like the ECTS is that it sets in place a system that could potentially benefit other students.

The surveyed students reported little difficulty in obtaining academic credit (usually equivalent) for their studies or work abroad. The figures appear comparable to the EC-Canada Programme evaluation results.¹⁸

About two-thirds (68 percent or n=27) of the surveyed faculty members reported that the collaboration with their partners has continued since their IAM funding ended. Table 10 shows that almost one-quarter (23 percent or n=9) of the surveyed faculty members consider their collaborative activity to have increased; however, a slightly greater number (28 percent or n=11) believe that their collaboration had declined. Three (8 percent) of the surveyed faculty members reported that the collaboration ceased after the IAM funding ended.

The types of activities where collaboration has continued are mostly in the area of student and faculty exchanges (as shown in Table 11), which are also the areas where faculty members reported the most collaboration during the project. Another area that appears to be successful in continuing collaboration is distance learning, where six of the surveyed faculty members reported continued collaboration (which is about half of faculty who reported collaborating in this area in their projects). In contrast, the two other areas of common curricular materials and common courses appear to experience a substantial drop-off in collaboration after funding ends, despite the fact that they are areas of substantial co-operation during the projects.

Faculty members listed money as one of the primary factors that detracted from project sustainability. Twelve faculty members said the lack of funds hurts sustainability of projects. Other reasons cited were: "too much paperwork," "personnel change, different goals among directors," "differences in professional/academic standards between institutions," and "will of the partners under the constraints of HRDC's program." Two faculty members noted factors that contributed to sustainability: "ongoing personal relationships, shared interests, trust," and "collaboration among professors allowed for the elaboration of a project with an international profile."

Perceived Student Benefits

Seventy-five percent (n=85) of surveyed students agreed with the statement that their IAM experience has helped them with other academic programs.

The surveyed faculty members also commented on the effects of the exchange experience on students' academic careers. On a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree"), faculty rated academic effects the highest (as compared to professional or personal effects) with a mean rating of 4.6.¹⁹

Surveyed students were also asked to compare their academic progress abroad with what they think it would have been at home. The results were as follows:

• Almost half (46 percent or n=52) of surveyed students believed that their academic progress abroad was greater than it would have been at their home institution.
• Forty percent (n=45) characterized their academic progress during the IAM project as "about the same" as it would have been at home.
• Fourteen percent (n=16) of surveyed students thought their academic progress abroad was less than it would have been at home.

These results seem less positive than the findings of the literature review. More than half of the students in two other studies (the Study Abroad Evaluation Program and the ERASMUS evaluation) rated their academic progress abroad as greater than it would have been at home. More than 80 percent of EC students in the EC-Canada Programme characterized their progress as greater. The small sample size of the student survey conducted for the IAM evaluation precludes inferences to the population of participating students; however, this may be an area for further study.

The literature review also noted that studies differ on whether students experience graduation delays due to participation in student mobility programs. The student survey conducted for the IAM evaluation found that 21 percent (n=24) of the students reported that they had to prolong their time to graduation because of their participation in the IAM project. The remaining 79 percent (n=89) said that their participation in IAM did not lengthen their time to graduation.

The studies examined by the literature review found that students in international exchanges reported an increase in their foreign language proficiency. For the IAM evaluation, surveyed students whose host country did not use their first language (n=73) were asked to assess their foreign language skills after they participated in the IAM project. A majority (84 percent or n=61) of these surveyed students believed that their foreign language skills improved during the exchange. Three respondents said that their language skills would have improved just as much in ordinary classes.²⁰

Also, the results of the student survey appear to align with the literature review findings that students tend to place more emphasis on the personal effects of their exchange experiences than on the academic or professional effects.²¹ Over 90 percent of surveyed students either "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that the exchange experience had the following personal effects:

• improved their knowledge of international issues (96 percent or n=108);
• helped them better adapt to new situations (94 percent or n=106);
• helped them be better prepared to meet life's challenges (95 percent or n=107);
• helped them better understand other cultures (93 percent or n=105); and
• gave them contacts they will keep for years (92 percent or n=104).

The surveyed faculty members also agreed with many of the above personal effects (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "strongly agree"):

• students are more sensitive to other cultures (mean of 4.5);
• students are more mature and self-confident (mean of 4.5); and
• students are more flexible when encountering new situations (mean of 4.3).

The student survey sought information on possible professional effects of the IAM project. While most of those surveyed were still full-time students, the following results are from surveyed student participants now employed full-time (n=60):

• Eighty-two percent (n=49) reported that their job is related to the studies or work they did in the IAM project;
• Eighty-eight percent (n=53) believe that they are using skills learned in the IAM project in their jobs;²²
• Almost half (48 percent or n=29) reported that their job has an international aspect;²³and
• Of the surveyed students who used a foreign language in their host country (n=36), over a third (36 percent or n=13) said that they use the language of their host country in their job.

A majority of students "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they learned job-specific skills that will enhance their employability and had experiences that affected their career choice.

Perceived professional effects that received the highest level of agreement from surveyed students were: enhanced professional mobility (91 percent or n=103 "agreed" or "strongly agreed") and increased interest in working abroad (88 percent or n=100 "agreed" or "strongly agreed").

The surveyed faculty members also agreed that students experienced certain professional effects. On a scale of 1 to 5, (where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree"), the faculty members rated the statements that after the exchange, students are in a better position to conduct international business and they will probably apply their IAM experience to their employment with mean ratings of 4.3.²⁴

On a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 means "completely dissatisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied") students rated their overall experience in the exchange with an average rating of 4.7. Over two-thirds (68 percent or n=77) of surveyed students were "very satisfied" with their exchange experience. One percent (n=1) of surveyed students were not satisfied. None of the surveyed students reported being "completely dissatisfied" with their experience.

Students gave a variety of reasons for their satisfaction with the exchange experience, but a few of the highlights are as follows:

• Cultural and personal experiences received the most comments from students. Some examples of what students said include:
  • "The people that I've met showed me so many different things about life — more than academic, it is the way I look at people and life."
  • "I learned a lot, I met a lot of new people, I have a different way of seeing life."
  • "I think it was a worthwhile experience to learn and study in another culture. I think I learned a lot in making my way in another culture."
  • "Fabulous opportunity to make friends and learn about culture."
  • "Invaluable cultural experience."

• Academic reasons for student satisfaction with the exchange included improved language skills (n=12), exposure to different academic approaches (n=10), and that the project was generally academically rewarding (n=9).
  • "It was a great opportunity to learn that the Canadian way isn't the only way."
  • "It was an eye-opener for me to see how other government services operated and how we in Canada could improve our government services."
  • "It was certainly useful to learn about what other people were studying and their different perspectives."
  • "It gave me the opportunity to learn about the issues that are relevant to my career choice in an international context."

• A few students (n=5) mentioned career or employment effects.
  • "It gave me better employment opportunities."
  • "I got a job immediately after the project in Mexico."

Fourteen faculty members (35 percent) had non-mobile students from their institution involved in the project.²⁵ About one-third (36 percent or n=5 of 14) had to limit the number of non-mobile students that could participate, largely because the project had a pre-determined limit on the total number of students that could participate. As Table 12 shows, non-mobile students became involved in the projects in many ways, but primarily through taking courses developed with the partner institution.

Footnotes

5	The following is based on information in Jane Knight, Progress and Promise: The AUCC Report on Internationalization at Canadian Universities (Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, 2000).
6	Knight notes that institutions are not systematically keeping this data, so this is an estimate.
7	In March 2000, a focus group was held with 13 project directors in Austin, Texas during the annual project director's meeting for the Program for North American Mobility for Higher Education. The focus group comments (as summarized by the moderator) were used for developing the main evaluation issues of the current evaluation of the Canada-NA Program and the Canada-EC Program.
8	Three percent (n=1) of unsuccessful applicants did not respond to this question.
9	It should be noted that for this evaluation, the evaluator cannot comment on the relative wealth of student participants or their parents due to the small sample size.
10	The survey asked students to provide an estimate of the overall cost to them of the exchange project. Students were told to exclude any amounts for which they were reimbursed (i.e. the stipend) or that were spent on pleasure travel. Students were then asked if this was more than they would have spent at their home institution and, if so, how much more.
11	Base for question is the students who received a stipend.
12	Circa Group, The Evaluation of the Co-operation Programme in Higher Education and Training Between the European Community and Canada (contracted by E.U. Directorate General XXII, 1999).
13	The only item rating 4.0 or more was the eligibility requirements (by participating faculty only).
14	One faculty member was neutral, and one did not respond to the question.
15	Some of the categories were not asked in both surveys.
16	The remaining faculty members either did not respond (18 percent) to the question, or their partner institutions used the students' first language (13 percent).
17	The percentages are based on the students who participated in each type of exchange, which explains why the percentage of internship students is the same as for academic studies students while the numbers of students are very different.
18	Ninety-two percent (92 percent) of EC partners said that students received formal certification at their home institution for their study abroad in Canada.
19	Twenty-one percent of faculty surveyed either did not respond or indicated that they were uncertain about any effects.
20	Eight percent (n=9) of surveyed students answered "not applicable" to the question.
21	For the studies discussed in the literature review, students placed a greater emphasis on personal effects by considering their most positive professional effects to be in personal characteristics, such as personal development, work style, and social skills.
22	This percentage appears to be much higher than in other studies that consider this issue. For a discussion of those studies, please see the Literature Review Report.
23	In the literature on student mobility, the evaluations of exchanges found that a considerable number of former study abroad students did not find jobs with an international focus. According to the literature, whether alumni/alumna of the study abroad programs found employment with an international focus appears to depend on two things: their academic field and the status of their host country (such as the size of its population and its economy and whether it had an internationally important language).
24	Twenty-one percent of faculty surveyed either did not respond or indicated that they were uncertain about using their experiences in their employment, and almost one-third (31 percent) were either uncertain or did not respond to the statement about international business.
25	However, no non-mobile students participated in the student survey.