Content uploaded by Said Abubakar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Said Abubakar on Oct 09, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
American Journal of Educational Research, 2023, Vol. 11, No. 9, 594-602
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/education/11/9/8
Published by Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/education-11-9-8
Exploring Perspectives and Expectations of
Undergraduate, and Postgraduate Students toward the
Erasmus+ Program between Mogadishu University and
Turkish Universities
Said Abubakar Sheikh Ahmed*
Education, Curriculum Development at Mogadishu University, Somalia
*Corresponding author:
Received July 03, 2023; Revised August 04, 2023; Accepted August 11, 2023
Abstract This quantitative study examines the perspectives of undergraduate and postgraduate students at
Mogadishu University in Somalia toward the Erasmus+ program with Turkish universities Viz. Sivas Cumhuriyet
University, Kütahya Dumlupınar University and Gaziantep University. The study uses a questionnaire and
descriptive statistics and The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W analyses. The result proposes
that the program provides positive advantages in intercultural communication and dialogue and improves students'
ability to communicate effectively with people from different cultures, improving the positive impact of Erasmus on
intercultural communication abilities. However, students perceive challenges, such as familiarizing themselves with
a new cultural and academic environment and balancing academic work with social and cultural activities. The study
also found that the Erasmus+ program provides high academic advantages, such as enhancing academic skills,
knowledge acquisition, access to resources, critical thinking, and research skills. Overall, the study emphasizes the
importance of study abroad programs like Erasmus+ in promoting intercultural communication and dialogue and
enhancing academic skills, while institutions should provide adequate support to students to ensure they can fully
benefit from the program.
Keywords: Undergraduate, Postgraduate Students, Erasmus+, Mogadishu University, Turkish Universities
Cite This Article: Said Abubakar Sheikh Ahmed, “Exploring Perspectives and Expectations of
Undergraduate, and Postgraduate Students toward the Erasmus+ Program between Mogadishu University and
Turkish Universities.” American Journal of Educational Research, vol. 11, no. 9 (2023): 594-602. doi:
10.12691/education-11-9-8.
1. Introduction
In today's globalized world, intercultural
communication and understanding are increasingly
important. The Erasmus Program is a popular student
exchange program that has been implemented between
universities in different countries to promote intercultural
communication and understanding. The program aims to
allow students and staff to study, teach, and work in
different cultural and linguistic environments, thereby
developing their intercultural competencies and promoting
a sense of European identity (European Commission,
2021).
The Erasmus program (European Region Action
Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) was
launched in 1987 as a consequence of a pilot student
exchange between 1981 and 1986. At the beginning, the
program included 11 European Union (EU) countries and
had expanded to 34 countries (including both EU Member
States and Non-EU countries) by 2020. Initially, the
Erasmus program concerned only student and staff
exchange, and since 1987 it has embraced such aspects as
vocational training, school education, adult education,
youth, and sport. In 2014 the Erasmus+ program was
initiated, combining into one single program all of the
initiatives in the field of education, training, youth, and
sport (Kafarski and Kazak 2022) [1].
In 2014, when the program was rebranded as Erasmus+,
with a €14.7 billion budget to provide a broader range of
opportunities for millions of Europeans to study, train, and
gain work experience abroad up until the year
2020(Version 2023) [2].
Mogadishu University has Signed Erasmus mobility
with three Turkish Universities in 2019, 2022 and 2023.
These universities include: Sivas Cumhuriyet University,
Kütahya Dumlupınar University and Gaziantep University.
The aim of the university is to promote
internationalization, academic and research collaboration
through involvement and partnership with higher
education and research institutions and to help students to
become internationally competent and well-prepared for
job requirements.
American Journal of Educational Research 595
This learning mobility is also involved in supporting
teachers and students their cultural experiences. Therefore,
there is a need to conduct a study to explore students’
perceptions of the impact of the Erasmus Program on
promoting intercultural communication and dialogue
between Mogadishu University and a Turkish
Universities1.
1.1. Related Work
The Erasmus program has been a significant initiative
of the European Union in the field of education,
promoting student mobility and cooperation among
universities in Europe since its inception in 1987. While
the program has its advantages, such as the development
of cross-cultural competence and enhancement of
professional skills, there are also challenges and
limitations associated with the program, as highlighted by
various studies illustrated below:
Engel (2010) [3] suggested that the Erasmus program
has significantly contributed to making study abroad an
experience (Engel 2010) [3]. Mitchell (2012) [4]
examined the intercultural aspect of studying abroad and
presented compelling evidence that the Erasmus
experience leads to attitudinal changes about Europe
among participants. The study also highlighted significant
differences between Erasmus students and those who do
not study abroad (Mitchell 2012) [4].
According to a study conducted by Böttcher and
colleagues in 2016, female students were found to be
overrepresented in the ERASMUS program in nearly all
of the countries studied, when compared to the overall
population of tertiary students. This trend was observed
across various subject areas. Additionally, the study
revealed a gender imbalance in the distribution of hosting
institutions, which was primarily driven by subject and
consistent with the gender ratios in different subject areas.
(Böttcher et al. 2016) [5].
According to Beerkens and colleagues' (2016) [6]
research, the most robust predictors for non-participation
in study abroad programs are home-ties and lack of
interest. However, data on student-level barriers and
motivations provides limited information to explain why
students from certain countries are more active
participants in such programs (Beerkens et al. 2016) [6].
Schnepf and Colagrossi (2020) [7] investigated the
factors that predict Erasmus mobility and found that
student characteristics, such as ability and social status,
are important but only explain a portion of unequal uptake.
The study also revealed that social segregation of
universities and fields of study contribute to the unequal
pattern of mobility. Specifically, disadvantaged students
enrolled in certain fields of study and universities are less
likely to participate in student mobility programs, even
after accounting for their individual characteristics.
Therefore, to promote more inclusive student mobility,
grant funding and incentives should be targeted towards
1 Relations Office at Mogadishu University:
https://mu.edu.so/
universities and fields of study with a high proportion of
disadvantaged students (Schnepf and Colagrossi 2020) [7].
Lesjak and colleagues (2020) [8] found that the level of
study and gender have a significant impact on the travel
behavior of students, making them useful attributes to
consider when targeting Erasmus+ travelers. Based on
their perception of destination attributes, male students
tend to seek cities with attractive nightlife, while female
students prefer easily accessible cities that are safe and
offer attractive cultural sites. (Lesjak, Juvan, and
Podovšovnik 2020) [8].
In Pavlina's (2021) [9] research, the most notable
advantages of participating in the ERASMUS program
were found to be the development of cross-cultural
competence, as well as the enhancement of professional
skills and personal growth. Students who worked with
international participants in their home university as part
of the program had a highly positive experience (Pavlina
2021) [9].
According to Koris and colleagues' (2021) [10] study,
Erasmus students faced significant challenges while
studying online (such as during COVIP-19 Pandemic)
with limited social interaction. They lacked cultural
knowledge of the destination country and missed out on
the valuable insights that come from face-to-face teaching
and social interactions. However, the study also revealed
that students were satisfied with their academic
achievements (Koris, Mato-Díaz, and Hernández-
Nanclares 2021) [10].
Marinescu and colleagues (2022) [11] found that when
choosing a university for mobility purposes, the initial
desire to study abroad is a more significant factor than the
financial expense, which may have been expected. The
study also revealed that students consider the
improvement of their academic performance to be just as
important as the social aspect of experiencing other
cultures when embarking on mobility programs
(Marinescu et al. 2022) [11].
Cuzzocrea and Krzaklewska (2023) [12] suggested that,
based on their examination of students who have
participated in multiple mobility experiences through the
Erasmus+ program, it is worth considering how their
underlying motivations evolve with each subsequent
mobility experience (Cuzzocrea and Krzaklewska 2023)
[12].
In conclusion, the Erasmus program has provided a
unique opportunity for students to gain valuable cross-
cultural competence, enhance their professional skills, and
experience personal growth. However, there are also
challenges associated with the program, such as limited
social interaction in online learning environments and
unequal uptake among disadvantaged students. To make
the program more inclusive, grant funding and incentives
should be targeted towards universities and fields of study
with a high proportion of disadvantaged students. It is also
worth considering how students' motivations evolve with
each subsequent mobility experience.
Gender and level of study are significant factors that
influence the travel behavior of students in the Erasmus
program. Female students are overrepresented in the
program, while male students tend to seek cities with
attractive nightlife. However, a detailed analysis reveals
596 American Journal of Educational Research
that these patterns are predominantly driven by subject
and geographical location.
Despite the challenges and limitations of the program,
the Erasmus experience leads to attitudinal changes
among participants and promotes international
cooperation and understanding among universities.
However, it is worth noting that data on student-level
barriers and motivations provide limited information to
explain why students from certain countries are more
active participants in such programs. Therefore, further
research is needed to address this gap, especially for
students from underrepresented regions such as Somalia.
1.2. Research Problem Statement:
The Erasmus Mobility Program is a significant
initiative of the European Union, promoting student
mobility and cooperation among universities in Europe.
However, there is a lack of research exploring the
perspectives of students from underrepresented regions,
such as Somalia, on the Erasmus Mobility Program. This
study aims to address this gap by exploring the
perspectives of students from Mogadishu University on
the Erasmus Mobility Program between Mogadishu
University and Turkish universities.
1.3. Significance of the Study:
The Erasmus Mobility Program aims to promote
international cooperation and understanding among
universities in Europe. However, there is a lack of
research exploring the perspectives of students from
underrepresented regions, such as Somalia, on the
Erasmus Mobility Program. This study is significant as it
will provide insights into the perspectives of Somali
students on the Erasmus Mobility Program, which can be
used to inform program development and implementation.
The study will also contribute to the literature on the
Erasmus Mobility Program, particularly from the
perspective of students from underrepresented regions.
1.4. Research Objectives:
The primary aim of the study is to investigate the
perceptions of undergraduate students at Mogadishu
University towards the Erasmus+ Program with Turkish
Universities. The specific objectives of the study are listed
as follows:
1. To identify the intercultural communication and
dialogue advantages of the Erasmus+ Program
between Mogadishu University and Turkish
Universities for undergraduate students.
2. To explore the challenges that undergraduate
students face in the Erasmus+ Program between
Mogadishu University and Turkish Universities.
3. To evaluate the academic advantages of the
Erasmus+ Program between Mogadishu University
and Turkish Universities for undergraduate students
at Mogadishu University.
1.5. Research Questions:
The study is focused on the following central question:
What are the perceptions of undergraduate students at
Mogadishu University regarding the Erasmus+ Program
with Turkish Universities? The study also includes the
following sub-questions:
1. How do undergraduate students perceive the
advantages of intercultural communication and
dialogue during the Erasmus+ Program between
Mogadishu University and Turkish Universities?
2. What are the perceptions of undergraduate students
towards the challenges that may arise during the
Erasmus+ Program between Mogadishu University
and Turkish Universities?
3. How do undergraduate students perceive the
academic advantages of participating in the
Erasmus+ Program between Mogadishu University
and Turkish Universities?
1.6. Hypotheses:
1. Ha1: Based on gender, age, academic level, faculties,
and academic year, there exists a statistically
significant difference at the level (a = 0.05) among
the responses of respondents regarding the
advantages of intercultural communication and
dialogue during the Erasmus+ Program between
Mogadishu University and Turkish Universities.
2. Ha2: Based on gender, age, academic level, faculties,
and academic year, there exists a statistically
significant difference at the level (a = 0.05) among
the responses of respondents regarding the
challenges that may arise during the Erasmus+
Program between Mogadishu University and
Turkish Universities.
3. Ha3: Based on gender, age, academic level, faculties,
and academic year, there exists a statistically
significant difference at the level (a = 0.05) among
the responses of respondents regarding the
academic advantages during the Erasmus+ Program
between Mogadishu University and Turkish
Universities.
2. Methodology
This study aims to explore the perspectives of
undergraduate and postgraduate students at Mogadishu
University towards the Erasmus+ program between
Mogadishu University and Turkish Universities. The
study was designed using a quantitative approach to
collect and analyze data. The target population for this
study is undergraduate and postgraduate students at
Mogadishu University from nine faculties. A random
sampling technique was used to select the sample for this
study. The sample size for the study is 436 undergraduate
and postgraduate students, selected from the nine faculties
of Mogadishu University. A questionnaire was employed
as the primary data collection tool for this study with five
point of the Likert Scale. The collected data was analyzed
using descriptive statistics; percentages and weighted
means and The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U and
Wilcoxon W analyses. Descriptive statistics were used to
summarize the data and provide an overview of the
American Journal of Educational Research 597
responses to each question. The Kruskal-Wallis and
Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W analyses were
employed to determine any significant differences in the
perceptions of undergraduate and postgraduate students
regarding the Erasmus+ program with Turkish
Universities. The reliability of consistence of date was
examined in SPSS,and result showed acceptable value on
Cronbach's Alpha (.869). In this study, ethical
considerations were taken into account. All participants
were informed about the purpose of the study and their
voluntary participation. The confidentiality and anonymity
of the participants were also ensured. This study has some
limitations. The sample size is limited to Mogadishu
University, which may not be representative of the
broader population. Additionally, the use of a
questionnaire as the primary data collection tool may limit
the depth of information obtained from the participants.
3. Results
Table 1, Table 2 and Figure 1 present the results of a
survey that collected the responses of students on the
advantages of the Erasmus+ program in intercultural
communication and dialogue. The survey had six
questions, and students rated their level of agreement or
disagreement on a scale ranging from 1 to 5. The results
indicate that students perceive very high advantages in
developing intercultural communication skills and gaining
a better understanding of other cultures, with means of
4.28 and 4.20, respectively, and standard deviations of
0.836 and 0.86. Additionally, the Erasmus+ program is
perceived to provide high advantages in interacting with
people from different cultures, improving language skills,
developing a more open-minded attitude toward other
cultures, and developing empathy toward people from
different cultures, with means ranging from 4.04 to 4.19,
and standard deviations ranging from 0.920 to 0.997.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents N= 436
Gender
Frequency
Percentage %
Faculties
Frequency
Percentage %
Male
301
69.0
Share a &Law
61
14.0
Female
135
31.0
Education & Humanities
53
12.2
Age
Frequency
Percentage %
Economics
76
17.4
18-24
358
82.1
Health Sciences
57
13.1
25-30
61
14.0
Political Sciences &Public Administration
42
9.6
31 and above
17
3.9
Medicine
1
.2
Academic Year
Frequency
Percentage %
Dentistry
23
5.3
Year One
82
18.8
Computer Science
65
14.9
Year Two
128
29.4
Engineering
44
10.1
Year Three
97
22.2
Academic Level
Frequency
Percentage %
Year Four
129
29.6
Undergraduate
354
81.2
Postgraduate
82
18.8
Table 2. Results of Students’ Perspectives of Advantages of Erasmus Program in intercultural communication and dialogue N= 436
Items Mean
Std.
Deviation
Q1
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program helps you develop intercultural
communication skills?
4.28 .836
Q2
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program helps you gain a better understanding
of other cultures?
4.20 .861
Q3
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program helps you develop empathy towards
people from different cultures?
4.04 .920
Q4
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program helps you develop a more open-
minded attitude towards other cultures?
4.05 .931
Q5
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program provides you with opportunities to
interact with people from different cultures?
4.19 .926
Q6
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program helps you improve your language
skills ?
4.17 .997
Grand Mean
4.155
0.91
Interval Weighted Means Interpretation: 4.20-5=Very High,3.40-4.19=High, 2.60-3.39=Average, and 1.80- 2.59 = Law, and 1.00-1.79 Very Law.
598 American Journal of Educational Research
Figure 1. Results of Advantages of the Erasmus+ program in
intercultural communication and dialogue
Overall, the grand mean of all six questions was 4.155,
indicating that the Erasmus+ program between Mogadishu
University and Turkish Universities is perceived to
provide high advantages in intercultural communication
and dialogue.
The findings presented in Table 3, and Figure 2 suggest
that students perceive very high challenges in several
areas of the program, such as adapting to a new cultural
environment, communicating with people who speak a
different language, balancing academic work with social
and cultural activities, and adapting to a new academic
system. These challenges were reflected in mean scores of
4.58, 4.55, 4.49, and 4.46, respectively, with standard
deviations ranging from 1.095 to 1.169.
Table 3. Results of Students’ Perspectives of Challenges of the Erasmus Program. N=436
Items
Mean
Std. Deviation
Q7
It is difficult to adapt to a new cultural environment during your Erasmus program.
3.58
1.125
Q8
It is difficult to communicate with people who speak a different language during your Erasmus
program.
3.55
1.095
Q9
It is difficult to balance academic work with social and cultural activities during your Erasmus
program.
3.49
1.127
Q10
It is difficult to deal with homesickness during your Erasmus program.
3.31
1.140
Q11
It is difficult to adapt to a new academic system during your Erasmus program.
3.46
1.169
Q12
It is difficult to make new friends and socialize with people from different cultural backgrounds
during your Erasmus program.
3.30
1.322
Grand Mean
3.45
1.163
Interval Weighted Means Interpretation: 4.20-5=Very High,3.40-4.19=High, 2.60-3.39=Average, and 1.80- 2.59= Law, and 1.00-1.79 Very Law.
Figure 2. Results of Students’ Perspectives of Challenges of the Erasmus
Program.
On the other hand, dealing with homesickness during
the Erasmus program, making new friends, and socializing
with people from different cultural backgrounds were
perceived as having average or moderate challenges, with
mean scores of 3.31 and 3.30, and standard deviations of
1.140 and 1.322, respectively. The overall or grand mean
of the six items 3.45 mentioned above indicates that
students are likely to face high challenges during the
Erasmus+ program. Overall, the results suggest that the
Erasmus+ program presents significant challenges for
students in various aspects, particularly in adapting to new
cultural and academic environments. However, challenges
related to socialization and homesickness were perceived
as less significant. These findings can inform the
development of strategies to support students in
overcoming the challenges of the Erasmus+ program and
enhancing their overall experience.
Table 4. Results of Students’ Perspectives of Academic Advantages of Erasmus Program
Items
Mean
Std. Deviation
Q13
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program develops academic skills?
4.06
.988
Q14
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program helps acquiring knowledge in academic
field?
3.99 .985
Q15
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program provides students with access to resources
that were not available at your home University?
3.92 1.025
Q16
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program improves critical thinking skills?
3.99
1.010
Q17
How strongly do you agree or disagree that the Erasmus program improves research skills?
4.19
.940
Grand Mean
4.03
.989
Interval Weighted Means Interpretation: 4.20-5=Very High,3.40-4.19=High, 2.60-3.39=Average, and 1.80- 2.59=Law, and 1.00-1.79 Very Law.
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
4.28 4.2 4.04 4.05 4.19 4.17
0.836 0.861 0.92 0.931 0.926 0.997
Mean
Std. Deviation
3.58
3.55
3.49
3.31
3.46
3.3
1.125
1.095
1.127
1.14
1.169
1.322
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
FIGURE . RESULTS OF STUDENTS’
PERSPECTIVES OF CHALLENGES OF THE
ERASMUS PROGRAM
Mean
Std. Deviation
American Journal of Educational Research 599
Figure 3. Results of Students’ Perspectives of Academic Advantages of Erasmus Program
The study examined students' perspectives on the
academic advantages of the Erasmus program, focusing on
five questions related to the development of academic
skills, knowledge acquisition, access to resources, critical
thinking, and research skills.
The results, presented in Table 4 and Figure 3 indicate
that students perceive high academic advantages of the
Erasmus program across all five questions. Specifically,
the means for all items ranged from 3.92 to 4.19,
indicating a high academic advantage.
Moreover, the grand mean of all questions was 4.03,
indicating that the Erasmus program provides high
academic advantages for students. Overall, the findings
suggest that the Erasmus program is perceived by students
as having a positive impact on their academic skills,
knowledge acquisition, access to resources, critical
thinking, and research skills, and can contribute to
enhancing their overall academic experience.
3.1. Testing Hypotheses
In this section, the outcomes of the hypotheses
proposed by researchers on three aspects of the study,
namely Intercultural Communication and Dialogue
Advantages, Challenges, and Academic Advantages, are
presented. The responses of respondents were analyzed
based on their gender, age, academic level, faculties, and
academic years. The Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to
determine whether the alternative hypotheses were
accepted or rejected based on the variances. Furthermore,
the Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W analyses were
utilized to re-examine any variances that were identified.
Table 5. Results of Kruskal Wallis Test
Grouping Variables
Factors
Chi-Square
df
Asymp. Sig.
Decision
Gender
Intercultural
3.356
1
.067
HA not supported
Challenges
.947
1
.331
Academic
Advantages
2.139
1
.144
HA not supported
Age
Intercultural
1.557
2
.459
HA not supported
Challenges
3.718
2
.156
HA not supported
Academic
Advantages
227
2
.893
HA not supported
Academic Level
Intercultural
.000
1
.998
HA not supported
Challenges
.790
1
.374
HA not supported
Academic
Advantages
.279
1
.598
HA not supported
Facilities
Intercultural
10.011
8
.264
HA not supported
Challenges
3.130
8
.926
HA not supported
Academic
Advantages
4.751
8
.784
HA not supported
Academic Year
Intercultural
8.218
3
.042
HA supported
Challenges
2.208
3
.530
HA not supported
Academic
Advantages
12.578
3
.006
HA supported
Table 5 presents the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test
conducted to evaluate the differences in responses among
participants. The results indicate that, with the exception
of the academic year variable, the alternative hypotheses
were not supported for the factors of Intercultural
Communication and Academic Advantages, as their p-
values were greater than 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis
was maintained. However, the hypotheses related to
Intercultural Communication and Academic Advantages,
Mean
Std. Deviation
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q13, 4.06 Q14, 3.99 Q15, 3.92 Q16, 3.99 Q17, 4.19
Q13, 0.988 Q14, 0.985 Q15, 1.025 Q16, 1.01 Q17, 0.94
600 American Journal of Educational Research
based on the academic year variable, were supported, as
their p-values were less than 0.05.
3.2. Results of Mann-Whitney U and
Wilcoxon W for Determining Variances
After obtaining a statistically significant result in the
Academic Year variable, Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon
W tests were used to identify the source of the differences.
Table 6 displays the results of Mann-Whitney U and
Wilcoxon W tests used to identify differences in variance
between Year One and Year Two. The p-values for the
factors of Intercultural Communication, Dialogue
Advantages, and Academic Advantages are all below 0.05,
Viz; 0.048 and 0.002, respectively. As a result, we can
conclude that the alternative hypothesis is supported.
Table 6. Results of the Variance between Year One and Year Two
Intercultural
Communication, and
Dialogue
Advantages
Challenges Academic
Advantages
Mann-
Whitney U
4401.000 5235.000 3913.500
Wilcoxon W
12657.000
8638.000
12169.500
Z
-1.977
-.030
-3.116
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
.048 .976 .002
The findings of the Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W
tests are presented in Table 7. The analysis revealed a p-
value of 0.05 for the factor of Academic Advantages,
thereby supporting the alternative hypothesis. Conversely,
for the factors of Intercultural Communication, Dialogue
Advantages, and Challenges, the p-values are 0.838, 0.207,
and greater than 0.05, respectively, indicating that the null
hypothesis could not be rejected.
Table 7. Results of Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W for Testing
Variance for Year one and Year Three
Intercultural
Communication,
and Dialogue
Advantages
Challenges Academic
Advantages
Mann-Whitney U
3906.500
3541.000
3302.000
Wilcoxon W
7309.500
6944.000
8055.000
Z
-.205
-1.263
-1.963
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed)
.838 .207 .050
Table 8. illustrates the variance in the academic factor
between Year One and Year Four, where the p-value was
found to be 0.001, which is less than 0.05. Therefore, the
alternative hypothesis was accepted. However, for the
factors of Intercultural Communication, and Dialogue
Advantages, and Challenges, the p-values were found to
be 0.124, 0.487, respectively, which are greater than 0.05,
indicating the acceptance of the null hypothesis.
Table 8. Results of Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W for Testing
Variance for Year One and Year Four
Intercultural
Communication,
and Dialogue
Advantages
Challenges Academic
Advantages
Mann-Whitney U
4625.500
4989.000
3920.500
Wilcoxon W
13010.500
8392.000
12305.500
Z
-1.539
-.694
-3.175
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed)
.124 .487 .001
The outcomes of the analysis of variances in the factors
of Intercultural Communication and Dialogue Advantages
between Year Two and Year Three are presented in Table
9. The results demonstrated that the p-value was 0.016,
which is below the significance level of 0.05, indicating
that the alternative hypothesis is supported. However, for
the factors of Challenges and Academic Advantages, the
p-values are 0.207 and 0.210, respectively, greater than
0.05. These results suggest that the null hypothesis could
not be rejected for these factors.
Table 9. Results of Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W for Testing
Variance for Year Two and Year Three
Intercultural
Communication, and
Dialogue Advantages
Challenges Academic
Advantages
Mann-
Whitney U
5041.000 5598.000 5603.500
Wilcoxon
W
13297.000 13854.000 13859.500
Z
-2.419
-1.262
-1.254
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.016 .207 .210
Table 10. Results of Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W for Testing
Variance for Year Two and Year Four
Intercultural
Communication, and
Dialogue Advantages
Challenges Academic
Advantages
Mann-
Whitney U
7859.500 7836.500 8136.500
Wilcoxon
W
16115.500 16092.500 16392.500
Z
-.667
-.704
-.201
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.505 .481 .841
The findings presented in Table 10, which compared
Year Two and Year Four, and Table 11, which compared
Year Three and Year Four, indicate that all p-values were
greater than 0.05. These results suggest that the null
hypothesis was accepted for all factors, indicating that
there was no statistically significant difference observed
between the factors being compared in each table.
Table 11. Results of Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W for Testing
Variance for Year Three and Year Four
Intercultural
Communication,
and Dialogue
Advantages
Challenges Academic
Advantages
American Journal of Educational Research 601
Mann-
Whitney U
5332.500 5953.500 5739.000
Wilcoxon W
13717.500
14338.500
14124.000
Z
-1.904
-.623
-1.067
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
.057 .533 .286
4. Discussion of Findings
4.1. Intercultural Communication and
Dialogue:
The findings of this study indicate that the Erasmus+
program provides high advantages in intercultural
communication and dialogue. Students perceived that the
program improves their ability to communicate effectively
with people from different cultures, and provides them
with a better understanding of other cultures. This result is
consistent with the findings of Baranova, Kobicheva, and
Tokareva (2020) [13], who found that students' knowledge,
abilities, and attitudes were substantially greater after
participating in the Erasmus program, which was largely
beneficial for learning a foreign language and improving
cross-cultural communication skills. This demonstrates
Erasmus's positive impact on intercultural communication
abilities (Baranova, Kobicheva, and Tokareva 2020) [13].
4.2. Challenges of the Erasmus+ Program:
The study identified several challenges will be faced by
students participating in the Erasmus+ program. One of
the most significant challenges is adapting to a new
cultural and academic environment. Students perceived
that they will have to adjust to different norms, values, and
academic systems, which can be stressful and challenging,
and communicating with people who speak a different
language is also a significant challenge for students, as it
can impede their ability to fully participate in academic
and social activities. This findings are consistent with the
findings of the study of Keles(2013) [14] who opined that
the language barrier is one of the main barriers to
intercultural communication. Problems of vocabulary
equivalence, idiomatic equivalence, experiential
equivalence, and conceptual equivalence can cause
communication problems (Keles 2013) [14]. Balancing
academic work with social and cultural activities was also
a challenge for students, as they will have to manage their
time effectively to meet academic requirements while also
participating in social and cultural activities.
4.3. Academic Advantages:
The study found that the Erasmus+ program provides
high academic advantages to students. Students perceived
that the program contributed to the development of their
academic skills, knowledge acquisition, and access to
resources, critical thinking, and research skills. Exposure
to different academic systems and resources can broaden
students' perspectives and enhance their ability to think
critically and conduct research. Additionally, studying in a
different country can provide students with access to
unique resources and opportunities that they may not have
had in their home country. This results are consistent with
the findings of the study of Granato et al. (2021) [15],
who opined that Erasmus mobility improves graduation
results for undergraduate students in scientific and
technical fields, and the program has a positive impact on
performance at graduation appears to be stronger for
students who visit foreign universities of relatively lower
quality compared with their home university and for those
who stay abroad for more than six months (Granato et al.
2021) [15].
Overall, the findings of this study highlight the
importance of study abroad programs such as the
Erasmus+ program in promoting intercultural
communication and dialogue, enhancing academic skills,
and providing a valuable learning experience for
undergraduate students. The challenges identified in this
study underscore the need for institutions to provide
adequate support to students during their study abroad
programs to ensure that they can fully benefit from them.
5. Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded
that the Erasmus+ program provides significant
advantages in intercultural communication and dialogue,
as well as academic development. However, there are also
several challenges that students may face when
participating in the program, such as adapting to a new
cultural and academic environment, managing time
effectively, and communicating with people who speak a
different language.
6. Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, here are some
recommendations for universities and students:
6.1. For universities:
1. Offer supplementary resources and support, such as
language classes and programs aimed at promoting
cultural diversity awareness, to assist students in
adapting to unfamiliar academic and cultural
environments.
2. Provide additional resources and support to aid
students in adapting to novel academic settings.
3. Advocate the value of the Erasmus+ program as a
means for students to boost their intercultural
communication skills, expand their academic
horizons, and improve their overall personal and
academic development.
4. Cultivate a supportive atmosphere for students who
participate in the Erasmus+ program, including
access to peer networks and academic advisors.
6.2. For students:
1. Prepare in advance for the challenges of adapting
to a new cultural and academic environment, such as
by learning the local language and customs.
602 American Journal of Educational Research
2. Manage time effectively to balance academic
work with social and cultural activities.
3. Seek support from academic advisors and peer
networks to help navigate the challenges of the
program.
a） Take advantage of the opportunities
provided by the Erasmus+ program to broaden their
academic perspective, develop intercultural
communication skills, and enhance overall academic
and personal growth.
References
[1] Kafarski, Krzysztof, and Jan K. Kazak. 2022. “Erasmus Staff
Mobility in the Building of a European Network: The Case of a
Central European University.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 14(9).
[2] Version, Accepted. 2023. “Repositório ISCTE-IUL Part 3
Institutionalized Mobility inside and Outside Erasmus.” (351).
[3] Engel, Constanze. 2010. “The Impact of Erasmus Mobility on the
Professional Career: Empirical Results of International Studies on
Temporary Student and Teaching Staff Mobility.” Belgeo (4):351–
63.
[4] Mitchell, Kristine. 2012. “Student Mobility and European Identity:
Erasmus Study as a Civic Experience?” Journal of Contemporary
European Research 8(4):490–518.
[5] Böttcher, Lucas, Nuno A. M. Araújo, Jan Nagler, José F. F.
Mendes, Dirk Helbing, and Hans J. Herrmann. 2016. “Gender Gap
in the ERASMUS Mobility Program.” PLoS ONE 11(2):1–8.
[6] Beerkens, Maarja, Manuel Souto-Otero, Hans de Wit, and Jeroen
Huisman. 2016. “Similar Students and Different Countries? An
Analysis of the Barriers and Drivers for Erasmus Participation in
Seven Countries.” Journal of Studies in International Education
20(2):184–204.
[7] Schnepf, Sylke V., and Marco Colagrossi. 2020. “Is Unequal
Uptake of Erasmus Mobility Really Only Due to Students’
Choices? The Role of Selection into Universities and Fields of
Study.” Journal of European Social Policy 30(4):436–51.
[8] Lesjak, Miha, Emil Juvan, and Eva Podovšovnik. 2020.
“Erasmus+ Mobility: Empirical Insights into Erasmus+ Tourists⇔
Behaviour.” Academica Turistica 13(1):35–50.
[9] Pavlina, Svetlana Yu. 2021. “Cross-Border Education: Students
Exchange Programme Participants’ Perspective on ERASMUS.”
Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii 30(4):146–56.
[10] Koris, Rita, Francisco Javier Mato-Díaz, and Núria Hernández-
Nanclares. 2021. “From Real to Virtual Mobility: Erasmus
Students’ Transition to Online Learning amid the COVID-19
Crisis.” European Educational Research Journal 20(4):463–78.
[11] Marinescu, Nicolae, Anca Madar, Nicoleta Andreea Neacsu, and
Camelia Schiopu. 2022. “An Empirical Research on the
Behavioral Perceptions of University Students on Their
ERASMUS Mobilities Abroad.” International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 19(9).
[12] Cuzzocrea, Valentina, and Ewa Krzaklewska. 2023. “Erasmus
Students’ Motivations in Motion: Understanding Super-Mobility
in Higher Education.” Higher Education 85(3):571–85.
[13] Baranova, Tatiana, Aleksandra Kobicheva, and Elena Tokareva.
2020. “The Impact of Erasmus Program on Intercultural
Communication Skills of Students.” E3S Web of Conferences 164.
[14] Keles, Yener. 2013. “What Intercultural Communication Barriers
Do Exchange Students of Erasmus Program Have During Their
Stay in Turkey, Mugla?” Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 70:1513–24.
[15] Granato, Silvia, Enkelejda Havari, Gianluca Mazzarella, and Sylke
V. Schnepf. 2021. “Study Abroad Programmes and Students’
Academic Performance: Evidence from Erasmus Applications.”
SSRN Electronic Journal (14651).
© The Author(s) 2023
. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
