Program Metric Profile Presentation

Quantative Measurement for Evaluating Study Abroad Programs Indicators for defining program profile Jacques Bessieres

February 2009 [email protected]

www.eiesp.org

Participating Study Abroad Experts • Brunhilde BIEBUYCK

Director of studies

Columbia-Penn Programs in Paris (Paris)

• Bill CLABBY

Director of Research

ISA (Austin, TX)

• Monique FECTEAU

Resident Director

TUFTS U. (Paris)

• Mary-Ann LETELLIER

Paris Director

CUPA (Paris)

• Nancy MERRITT

Exchange Director

MICEFA (Paris)

• Alain MICHEL

President

EIESP (Paris)

[email protected]

www.eiesp.org

Some Available Study Abroad Tools II. « Qualitative » Methodologies

Program Perspective Oriented

?

• Standards of Good practice • QUIP • Engle & Engle Classification • Etc. I. Personal development tools

Student Perspective Oriented

IV. Program Indicators

• • • • • •

ICC IDI MAXSA SOPI (GU) U and W curves Etc.

Qualitative Tools

[email protected]

III. Global Study Abroad Statistics • Open Doors • -----

Quantitative Tools

www.eiesp.org

Historic Comparison • The study abroad profession should mobilize itself to establish a uniform standard system for evaluating programs • Comparison with the hospitality industry – Prohibition period – New York City defined a Uniform Standard System of Indicators to track and control alcohol consumption – Proved to be very effective for the management of hotels and for tracking customers behaviour – Adopted at the global level to manage all hotels worldwide. Main concepts still in operation today – How? Hotels subscribe to an independant organisation – Application to study abroad • Avoid measurement tools being imposed ex cathedra • Standardize recognized indicators [email protected]

www.eiesp.org

Key Objectives of the Research • To facilitate comparisons between programs • To help students and home institutions in selecting a program that best suits the needs and goals of students • To develop a « grid » used by all study abroad actors/participants to assess programs at a glance

[email protected]

www.eiesp.org

Scope and Limitations • Scope – Semester and Full-year programs • excluding short-term & internship programs

– In countries with a higher education system similar in structure to the U.S.

• Limitations – Exclude financial data – Degree of disclosure of information

• Constraint – Data should be easy to collect [email protected]

www.eiesp.org

Program Profile Framework Program Profile

(A) Academic Data

(H) Housing Data

(C) Cultural Data

(G) General Data

[email protected]

www.eiesp.org

Program Metric Profile Set of Standards (PMP) (See Exhibit 1) •

General Indicators (G) – – – – – – – – –

•

– – – –

Potential capacity of the program No. of students No. of semester students Year student ratio Fall/Spring index No. of sending/home universities Home university concentration ratio 50% Home university concentration ratio 75% Average No. of students per full time support staff

– – –

• •

Housing Indicators (H) – – – – –

Homestay ratio Foyer ratio Studio ratio Apartment ratio Outsourced housing ratio

[email protected]

Academic Indicators (A) No. of courses (student course load) Direct enrollment ratio Variety of courses index No. of courses by type of academic institution No. of signed agreements with host universities Exchange student ratio Courses taught in host language ratio

Cultural Indicators (C) – – – –

No. of co-curricular events per semester No. of extra-curricular events per semester No. of sponsored performances per student Variety of performance activities www.eiesp.org

Main PMP Expected Benefits • For Students prior to departure – Help in choosing the most appropriate program – Ensure that students will succeed academically – Know the level of on-site support provided

• For Home Universities – Program approval: better understanding of the key program components – Campus advisors: better guidance of students

• For Organisations like the Forum – Enhance objectivity by providing quantitative information (e.g., ratios of different types of housing) – Standardize amount & type of information available about programs [email protected]

www.eiesp.org

Discussion - Questions • Example: – PMP data collection form (see Exhibit 2) – Comparison of three programs (see Exhibit 3). What can we derive from these examples?

• How to implement research results? • Need for independent organizations to: – – – –

refine indicators gather information validate data publish results ?

• How to deal with confidential information and ensure accuracy? [email protected]

www.eiesp.org