• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

Evaluation of students' engagement with

PROMES2015 as a university mobility

experience

Evaluación de la participación de estudiantes con PROMES2015

como experiencia universitaria de movilidad estudiantil

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO1, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES1,

LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ1 Y JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO1,2

Abstract

Received: March 14, 2019 Accepted: April 2, 2019

Resumen

Student mobility is among the most important internationalization

initiatives for higher education institutions. This article describes the

influence that student academic mobility has on the training of future

professionals at the Autonomous University of Chihuahua (UACH,

Mexico) and its students’ perceptions toward UACH’s Student Mobility

Program (PROMES). Under such aim, the research objectives were to

determine the opinion of participating students regarding the exchange

process, the academic quality of the destination universities, the

academic cooperation offices of the destination universities, and toward

PROMES’ management. This research was quantitative, non-

experimental, and transversal. The methodology used was a case study

conducted only within UACH using simple random sampling, which was

selected from the 170 undergraduate students that participated in

PROMES during 2015 (confidence level of 90%, margin of error of 7.5%).

The survey consisted in four main sections, which were intended for

students to evaluate four factors related to PROMES: a) exchange process;

academic quality of the destination university; c) support of the

academic cooperation offices; and d) PROMES’ management at UACH.

Results are presented according to four dimensions that the survey

evaluated, which include: the exchange process, academic quality of the

destination university, support of the academic cooperation offices, and

PROMES’ management at UACH. These results point toward important

statistical correlations regarding the relationship between how

students value their academic development and the quality of the facilities

in the destination universities, as well as with the quality of the

educational programs.

Keywords: Mexico, student mobility, academic mobility, internatio-

nalization, higher education.

La movilidad estudiantil es una de las iniciativas de internacionalización

más importantes para las instituciones de educación superior. Este

artículo describe la influencia que tiene la movilidad académica de los

estudiantes en la formación de futuros profesionales en la Universidad

Autónoma de Chihuahua (UACH, México), y las percepciones de sus

estudiantes hacia el Programa de Movilidad Estudiantil de la UACH

(PROMES). El objetivo de la investigación fue determinar la opinión de

los estudiantes participantes con respecto al proceso de intercambio, la

calidad académica de las universidades de destino, las oficinas de

cooperación académica de las universidades de destino y la gestión de

PROMES. Esta investigación fue cuantitativa, no experimental y

transversal. La metodología utilizada fue un estudio de caso realizado

solo en UACH. Utilizando un muestreo aleatorio simple, se seleccionaron

170 estudiantes de pregrado que participaron en PROMES durante 2015

(nivel de confianza del 90%, margen de error del 7.5%). La encuesta,

dirigida a los estudiantes, constó de cuatro secciones principales para

evaluar los siguientes factores relacionados con PROMES: a) proceso de

intercambio; b) calidad académica de la universidad de destino; c) apoyo

a las oficinas de cooperación académica; y d) la gestión de PROMES en la

UACH. Los resultados se presentan según las cuatro dimensiones que

evaluó la encuesta, que incluyen: el proceso de intercambio, la calidad

académica de la universidad de destino, el apoyo de las oficinas de

cooperación académica y la gestión de PROMES en la UACH. Estos

resultados muestran importantes correlaciones estadísticas en la

relación entre la forma en que los estudiantes valoran su desarrollo

académico y la calidad de las instalaciones en las universidades de destino,

así como con la calidad de los programas educativos.

Palabras clave:

México, movilidad estudiantil, movilidad académica,

internacionalización, educación superior.

_________________________________

1 UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE CHIHUAHUA. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Rúa de las Humanidades s/n Campus Universitario I, Ciudad

Universitaria, Chihuahua, Chih., México. C.P. 31170. Tel: (614) 413-54-50 Ext: 3819.

2 Corresponding author: jmachin@uach.mx

Educación y Humanidades Artículo arbitrado

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

Introduction

n 2015, The Autonomous University of Chihuahua (UACH) implemented a Student Mobility

Program (PROMES), an initiative that has been growing over the past years and is

currently reinventing itself (UACH, 2018). PROMES is managed by the Coordination of

International Relations Services. As of 2016, it managed to increase the number of students

enrolled in mobility activities from 41 in 2010, to 443 in 2015 and also to "extend its

collaboration with 38 countries and 2,026 exchange students and professors" (Cortez, 2016).

PROMES' eligibility criteria include that students must be enrolled in an undergraduate program

in any of 15 faculties, to have a minimum average grade of 8.5, and they must have completed

at least 50% of their credits.

The institutionalization of academic and student

mobility within a formal framework at UACH

(including PROMES and other initiatives) has been

developed in accordance with internationalization

policies dictated by national and international

organizations, such as: Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD), United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO), the National Association of

Universities and Higher Education Institutions

(ANUIES), the Mexican Association for International

Education (AMPEI) and the Secretariat of Public

Education (SEP).

National and international higher education

evaluation and accreditation bodies increasingly

demand evidence of higher education institutions’

(HEI) internationalization processes, and for auditing

the work of academic cooperation offices and their

programs. In UACH’s case, this was recently evaluated

and accredited for the period 2015-2020 by the

Interinstitutional Committee for the Evaluation of

Higher Education (CIIES), which is responsible for

evaluating HEI’s institutional functions and their

academic programs, as well as presenting recommen-

dations for improvement.

This article offers a brief institutional diagnostic

on the effects of UACH’s student mobility program

(PROMES). It is organized in five main sections; the

current section contains a brief review about

internationalization and mobility in higher education,

as well as internationalization and student mobility

in Mexico. The second section of this article details

the aims, objectives and research design employed in

this study, including the description of the survey used.

The results and discussion section presents the

gathered data and is subdivided according to different

levels of analysis, which include: the exchange

process, academic quality of the destination

university, support of the academic cooperation

offices, and PROMES’ management at UACH. Then,

we provide further insights derived from the data

gathered and points toward the correlations found.

Finally, the conclusions presented deal with the

increase of efforts invested in mobility programs

within Mexican universities, the opportunities for

further research, and we discuss the value of this

article for other universities, both from developing

and developed countries.

Internationalization and mobility in

higher education

According to Morley et al. (2018), «mobility is

one of the key mechanisms through which

internationalization occurs» (p. 537). Student

mobility is an important element for any HEI and it

may be even more important than teachers’ and

researchers’ mobility because it provides students

with opportunities to acquire valuable benefits from

personal and training experiences in international

contexts, hence, HEI prioritize student mobility

mechanisms (Ferrer, 2012). Guo and Chase (2011)

state that «as part of internationalization of higher

education, colleges and universities continuously

recruit and accept international students (cited by

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

Jamaludin et al., 2017, p. 38). Internationalization

programs are beneficial for international students, for

their home university, and for the community of the

institution they visit, because it improves cultural

awareness and intercultural communication (Bista

and Foster, 2016).

Setting mobility mechanisms generates interest

toward HEI in prospective students that come from

upper-secondary educational systems. Hence, HEI

devote many resources to promote and publicize their

exchange programs, so new students and enrolled

students are motivated to participate in exchange

activities. According to Jamaludin et al. (2017), it is

important to monitor the motivation and satisfaction

of students participating in mobility programs,

because it allows students to take better advantage of

their mobility experiences, and if students are more

satisfied with their experiences abroad, they are

more likely to recommend them to their peers.

International mobility emerged in Europe during

the 1980s, as an activity where the brightest and most

adventurous students engaged with, at an individual

basis (Wächter, 2003). During the 1980s and 1990s,

neoliberalism, capitalism and globalization had a

worldwide influence (Kim, 2017). Pherali (2012)

claims that academic mobility is a consequence of

educational globalization and points toward the need

of reaching a better theoretical understanding of such

phenomenon, given the rich experiences of academics

involved in mobility activities, including linguistic,

social, and cultural elements. Many countries started

to engage in integration projects that were

characterized by: being conducted from cost-benefit

analysis models, following markets’ operations,

increasing productivity, and diversifying and adapting

nations to the modernization prevailing in the rest of

the world (González and Gómez, 2012).

Within such context, educational systems sought

to develop balanced mobility models that conciliated

economic changes with innovations destined to

satisfy human capital needs. For this reason,

worldwide higher education subsystems began to

manage student mobility programs, with the aim of

adjusting to market requirements (González and

Gómez, 2012). With a steadily-growing demand and

funding support, mobility numbers quickly increased

and mobility activities started to be organized by

international networks of institutions; as institutions

and policy makers believed that «it would somehow

be good for the future citizens and professionals

in an increasingly internationalized society»

(Stronkhorst, 2005, p. 292).

Knight (2005) sees internationalization as the

process of integrating the international, intercultural

and global dimensions with postsecondary

education’s objectives, functions and academic offer.

Gacel (2000) states that internationalization’s

objectives must consider the institutional scope and

universities’ formative function. Such conception

sees internationalization as an educational and

institutional renewal process, which is obliquely

incorporated to the institutional strategies and

transcendental functions embedded in universities’

culture, mission and vision. Hence, internationaliza-

tion includes global, international, intercultural,

comparative and interdisciplinary dimensions, all of

which aim to improve institutions, by optimizing

their quality, their teaching programs, research

products, and the relevance of graduates’ profiles

(Voloschin, 2011). Sebastián (2004) states that

internationalization allows, by integrating an

international perspective, improving institutional

processes (e.g. training, research, extension, offer and

capabilities), as well as enhancing community’s

mentalities, values and perceptions, while it also

represents a way of disseminating universities’

educational levels and milestones.

Internationalization strategies, apart from

offering mobility opportunities for students and

professors, can include: cultural extension, teaching,

academic training, management, patent development

and scientific research and publishing (Rodríguez-

Bulnes et al., 2016). These activities are sources of

evidence, which are useful when institutional policies

require internationalizing the curriculum, integrating

academic groups in international research networks,

participating in inter-institutional research projects

funded by international cooperation agencies, co-

publishing articles with researchers from foreign HEI,

providing an international scope to extension

programs, and enabling mobility for the teaching,

research, administrative and student functions

(Voloschin, 2011).

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

However, if internationalization processes are

conducted by an individual area, they will obtain

results that are partial and disintegrated from the

university community (Voloschin, 2011). Hence, it is

essential to understand the inherent transversality of

internationalization within the organizational culture

of sustainable HEI. Some Latin American universities

have understood the need to engage different

institutional areas in such processes. For instance, the

University of Costa Rica (UCR) includes internatio-

nalization within institutional policy and their

internationalization actions are aimed at the

«generation of contributions for academic reform

scenarios, training at undergraduate and postgraduate

levels, and evaluation and accreditation» (Varela,

2005, p. 18).

Internationalization and student

mobility in Mexico

In Mexico, the first internationalization actions

emerged during the post-war period, after the

relatively stable and empowered nations sought to

export their educational models to peripheral

countries (some of which were their former

colonies). Knowledge was generated and transferred,

especially from developed countries to developing

countries, but such phenomenon was conditioned by

the brain drain; a circumstance originated by an

absence of scientific policies and the lack of

reinsertion for professionals within their countries

(Pallán, 1994, cited by Gacel, 2000). Most Mexican

public universities’ objectives started to focus on the

mobility of academic staff and research cooperation,

while private institutions prioritized receiving

foreign students first, and then concentrated on their

own students’ mobility (Gacel, 2000). Cantwell et al.

(2009) point out that «Mexico is a net sending

country. This means that there are more Mexican

students who study abroad than students who travel

to Mexico to study» (p. 338).

In the 1990s, globalization and the Free Trade

Agreement stimulated international cooperation,

forcing HEI to find ways of expanding their academic

and student mobility flows, as well as conducting

other international actions. Concerning Mexico,

particularly since the Wingspread Conference, a

Trilateral Working Group was formed to foster higher

education collaborations within North America and

to develop a strategic plan in five basic areas, which

was presented in Vancouver in 1993 (Espinoza, 1997).

International experts have proposed within the

missions and functions of higher education, that

«quality also requires that higher education should

be characterized by its international dimension:

exchange of knowledge, interactive networking,

mobility of teachers and students, and international

research projects, while taking into account the

national cultural values and circumstances»

(UNESCO, 1998, p. 26).

A reflection exercise about academic and student

mobility emerged from the XIII National Congress of

Educational Research, in Chihuahua (Mexico). This

event allowed exchanging experiences, challenges and

questions about the impact of mobility programs

from various Mexican HEI that also conducted

research on the topic. A general review compiled the

most relevant information on these proceedings

(Flores, 2015). This compilation includes the

historical origins of academic mobility within the

leading Mexican HEI, which dates back to the early

1990s. This document also mentions the important

mobility mechanisms developed, which were

coordinated by ANUIES and the SEP. Data from these

student mobility initiatives were collected and

processed using instruments such as PATLANI in the

case of ANUIES (Camino, 2018), and Statistics 911 in

the case of SEP.

PATLANI compares its results with those

of Statistics 911. According to this database, 4%

of higher education enrollment has had

mobility experiences, however, only 2% of

enrollment corresponds to incoming popula-

tion. The results of PATLANI and 911 differ in

this last point (…) a problem lies in how the

data are generated in the participating HEI and

in the non-distinction between undergraduate

and postgraduate or types of institution to

which the data refer (Flores, 2015, para. 17).

There has been a recent increase in interest and

efforts for providing Mexican students with

opportunities that include scholarships to study

abroad and also to offer international students to come

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

to Mexico (e.g. University of Windsor, 2018; Secreta-

ría de Relaciones Exteriores, 2018); something that

Cantwell, Luca and Lee (2009) state is important for

developing countries, which should be senders and

receivers of international students. Moreover, a

significant proportion of Mexican academics study

their doctorate abroad and then return to Mexico to

work at academic positions (Bennion and Locke,

2010).

Methods

There are two approaches for characterizing an

internationalization model and for measuring

internationalization in a given institution. The

quantitative-descriptive approach assesses inter-

nationalization intensity, by evaluating the number

of international cooperation activities within an

institution, with respect to its capabilities and

potential. Then, the qualitative approach studies the

integration of the internationalization process,

through the assimilation of new capabilities and

creating new opportunities for institutional develop-

ment. Both approaches are complementary, so we

avoided focusing exclusively on a single perspective,

which may risk concentrating on a purely descriptive

stance, while avoiding the objectives and contents of

internationalization itself (Voloschin, 2011).

According to the cited author, global analyses of

internationalization would include assessing the

following:

- The strategic internationalization plan.

- Number of academic programs with interna-

tional accreditations and double-degrees with foreign

universities.

- Incorporation of the international dimension

in curricula.

- Academic programs with international colla-

borations or with foreign professors, and the partici-

pation of university’s professors in foreign programs.

- Joint research projects, co-publications and

networks.

- Internships of foreign researchers in the insti-

tution and internships of local researchers abroad.

- Cultural and extension activities.

- Promotion of internationalization activities in

the institutional website.

- Language proficiency by professors and

students.

- Availability of a social center for foreigners.

- Evolution of the budget dedicated to internatio-

nalization.

- Agreements with foreign counterparts and

actions conducted within such agreements.

Objectives

Given the above considerations, for our study,

we selected to evaluate the aspects that Voloschin

(2011) identifies as important when assessing

internationalization initiatives and that were present

in PROMES. Therefore, the general purpose of this

study was to evaluate the general perception of the

students that participated in PROMES during 2015;

and so, we sought to fulfill four objectives:

a) Determine the opinion of the participating

students in relation to the exchange process in

PROMES.

b) Determine the opinion of the participating

students in relation to the academic quality of the

destination universities.

c) Determine the opinion of the participating

students in relation to the academic cooperation

offices of the destination universities.

d) Determine the opinion of the participating

students in relation to the management of PROMES.

Research design

This research was quantitative, non-experimen-

tal, and transversal. The research procedure consisted

on developing the survey, select the sample from the

total number of students that successfully finished

their mobility activities, having the selected students

(through sampling) complete the survey, and then

analyze the data gathered through the survey by using

the IBM SPSS Statistics software.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

The methodology used was a case study

conducted only within UACH using simple random

sampling, which was selected from the 170 under-

graduate students that participated in PROMES during

2015 (Table 1 presents the distribution of the total of

students by faculty) and fulfilled the characteristics

of being a probabilistic sampling with a confidence

level of 90%, a probability of success of 50%, a margin

of error of 7.5%, and the selection of the sample was

carried out in a simple random way by means of the

table of random numbers. Such sample consisted of a

total of 71 students.

Table 1. Population of students participating in PROMES 2015.

The number of participating students is not

proportional to the total number of students enrolled

in each faculty, because access to PROMES depends

on factors such as students’ personal motivation, the

dissemination of the program within each faculty, and

students’ fulfillment of the program’s eligibility

criteria. The data collection instrument used was a

survey that required students to rate each item using

a scale from one to ten, where one represented the

lowest score and the highest was ten; such rating scale

was used throughout the survey for students to rate

each item. The survey consisted in six parts, the first

one had demographic questions such as sex, faculty,

destination university, date of birth and exchange

period dates. The following four sections of the survey

were intended for students to evaluate four factors

related to PROMES. These factors were: a) exchange

process; b) academic quality of the destination

university; c) support of the academic cooperation

offices; and d) PROMES’ management at UACH. The

last question asked students to provide a general rating

to PROMES from one to ten. These surveys were

applied at the Coordination of International Relations

Services and for the students that were not available

to respond in person, it was applied through e-mail.

Regarding ethical considerations, this study did

not pose any psychological or physical risk. Students’

details that would be needed to identify them are not

shared outside of the staff responsible for PROMES,

as this research only presents the number of students

going to a certain institution, but without the names

of the students, the identification of a single student is

not possible. The survey communicated the purpose

of the study to participants, and it contained a

statement ensuring them that their details cannot be

used for identifying them. The purpose of the survey

was merely academic and in no way the identity of

respondents was disclosed. Apart from the staff

involved with the mobility program, third parties

cannot identify students’ identities, as the administra-

tive details of students’ names and where they went

for mobility purposes was not and will not be shared

with anyone outside PROMES’ staff.

Results and discussion

The random sample used consisted of students

from all faculties (see Table 2). Regarding gender,

50% of the respondents were female. Regarding their

ages, they ranged from 20 to 28 years old, the age

group that concentrated the largest number of

students was from 21 to 23 years old, with an

accumulated percentage of this group of 73.6%. Three

students did not specify their age. Regarding measures

of central tendency and dispersion, the average was

22.5 years the standard deviation was 1.585, a

relatively low deviation, which indicates certain

homogeneity of the students who participated in

PROMES2015.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

Table 2. Students surveyed by faculty.

Table 3. Variables 1 to 5 of the exchange process.

The exchange process

The survey contained 15 items related to the

exchange process. In order to easily visualize the data

given the space constraints of this article, statements

were separated into groups of five. The first five

variables analyzed were the following: a) I received

avant-garde academic education (highest average);

b) I can adapt to high levels of demand (lowest

average); c) it improves my academic and professio-

nal profile; d) I can integrate theoretical and practical

activities; and e) I updated in disciplinary debates of

my career (see Table 3). The most important value

for the analysis is the average, so it has been

highlighted in bold in the table and it can be seen that

the average scores given to these five variables are

all above nine.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

The next group of five variables were: a) I

improved my performance as a student (highest

average); b) I improved my grades (lowest average);

c) the exchange process encouraged my dedication

and responsibility in future studies; d) the exchange

process broadened my perspective of pursuing a

career as a researcher; and e) the exchange process

stimulated my interest in extension activities (see

Table 4). Within these variables, the statement I

improved my grades was rated with an average of 8,

which could mean that for some students, mobility

might have caused them to overlook their studies,

thus generating a drop in their grades. However, and

interestingly, the variable I improved my performance

as a student had the highest average, so students might

understand that many elements conform their

performance, not just their grades.

The last grouping of the survey’s first part

included the last five variables, namely: a) encouraged

my interest in generating publications; b) generated

contacts with foreign teachers or researchers; c) I

perfected or learned another language (lowest

average); d) being curricularly valued in the labor

market; and e) being valued for a graduate scholarship

(highest average) (see Table 5). Interestingly, in this

group of variables, the data with lower averages are

observed and none of the evaluated variables was

rated higher than 9. The variable with the lowest

average was about learning another language, which

is explained by the list of institutions were students

had their mobility activities (see Table 6), as most of

them are from Mexico and other Spanish speaking

countries. In fact, only 8 respondents opted for mobility

in a university belonging to a country with a language

other than Spanish; so such low rating does not

necessarily mean that it was seen as a negative aspect.

Finally, a global average was calculated for the

exchange process, integrated by the 15 variables of

the first block of the measurement instrument. This

resulted in an overall score of 8.83.

Table 4. Variables 6 to 10 of the exchange process.

Table 5. Variables 11 to 15 of the exchange process.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

Table 6 presents the complete list of participating

universities. There were 8 cases in which students

left the question about their destination university in

blank, which may point toward the need of

supervising the application of the survey to ensure

this answer is always provided. The rest of the

answers, which are valid, indicate that there were 17

different destination universities located in different

parts of the world. Administratively, these data also

indicate that there is an arduous task involved in

sustaining mobility initiatives with such universities

and for incrementing their number, because each case

implies a separate negotiation and signature of

agreements between UACH and each destination

university.

Academic quality of the destination university

The survey contained three statements that

measured the academic quality of the destination

university: a) quality of teaching at the destination

university (highest average); b) quality of research

at destination university; and c) quality of

infrastructure in destination university (lowest

average). Table 7 summarizes the results. As it can be

seen, students expressed a generally satisfactory

rating of the destination universities, and an average

of less than 9 was given to the infrastructure quality

variable. These data raised the need to identify which

universities provide the best and the worst

evaluations. As such, there are several universities

with perfect ratings. Universities with low ratings

were (from the lowest): University of Buenos Aires

(Argentina), University of Valparaíso (Chile) and

University of Oviedo (Spain). However, these ratings

could imply biases, since in the cases of Valparaíso

and Oviedo, only one student had their mobility

activities at these universities. A global average was

calculated to evaluate the quality of the destination

university, considering the three variables that were

included for this purpose (see Table 7), which resulted

in a score of 9.09.

Support of the academic cooperation offices

The survey contained four statements that sought

to evaluate the support of the academic cooperation

offices at their destination universities, which

included: a) reception at the destination university

(highest average); b) orientation at the destination

university; c) follow-up on the stay at the destination

university (lowest average); and d) logistical support

at the destination university. Table 8 summarizes the

results obtained. The reception and orientation at the

destination university were rated with an average

higher than 9.3, so it can be considered satisfactory.

In the case of follow-up and logistical support, the

rating dropped, indicating that the initial attention

granted for receiving and guiding students might have

dropped, once they started their activities.

Table 6. Universities of destination foreign mobility.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

Table 7. Variables 1 to 3 the academic quality of the destination university.

Table 8. Evaluation of student exchange offices of the destination university.

Figure 1. Quality of monitoring and orientation of the destination universities.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

With the purpose of determining if the quality of

the follow-up and orientation of students decreased

globally, or if the phenomenon was presented at a

specific university, we prepared Figure 1, which

shows several universities with perfect ratings, but

it also shows that University of Lima and Rey Juan

Carlos University stand out with very low ratings. A

global average was calculated when evaluating the

support of the academic cooperation offices at

destination universities, these were integrated by the

4 variables of the third block of the survey (see Table

5), with an overall score of 9.13.

PROMES’ management at UACH

The survey contained ten statements intended for

evaluating students’ perception of the management

of UACH’s Student Mobility Program. The variables

were divided into two blocks of 5 (see Tables 9 and

10). The first block contains the following variables:

a) dissemination of mobility information at UACH

(lowest average); b) dissemination on UACH’s

website; c) information about the university of

destination; d) availability of administrative

information; and e) guidance regarding aspects of

mobility (see Table 9).

Although ratings were satisfactory, none of

these variables were evaluated with an average higher

than 9, which could represent areas of opportunity

for the dissemination of information about the

program. The first three variables focus on informa-

tion dissemination processes and were evaluated with

the lowest ratings. The variable related to orientation

was slightly better rated than the other four. The

variables of the second block include: a) accompani-

ment in the procedures (highest average); b) follow

up and contact during stay; c) reception of grades

obtained at the destination university; and d) sending

grades to your academic unit (lowest average).

Variables in this second block did not get ratings

above 9 either, so these issues also represent areas of

opportunity. In the case of these variables, the lowest

rated has to do with the reception and delivery of

grades obtained by the student at the destination

university; hence, it indicated that UACH’s administra-

tive procedures related to grades might need to

improve. The last single question of the survey asked

students to provide a general rating for PROMES,

which received an average of 9.04. The analysis of

this variable is included in Table 11.

Table 9. Evaluation of PROMES’ management at UACH.

Table 10. Evaluation of PROMES’ management at UACH (cont.).

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

Table 11. PROMES’ general rating.

As shown in Table 11, the overall average rating was

9.04, which in general speaks of a good perception. In

order to contrast this opinion, the global average of the

31 study variables was also calculated (see Table 12).

Table 12. Global average of the 31 variables (without counting

PROMES’ general rating).

The averages obtained by in general rating for

PROMES and for the 31 variables have a very narrow

difference. This coincidence raised the question

about the existence of some correlation between the

general rating given by the students to PROMES with

the rating granted to the 31 variables analyzed. In

order to determine if there was any correlation, we

proceeded to obtain the Pearson correlation

coefficient. When calculating such correlation, a value

of .705 was obtained. This value is between the 0.60 =

<r <0.80 interval, which in the case of the social

sciences can be interpreted as pointing toward a high

correlation. This shows that, in general, respondents

answered the survey with sincerity and this also helps

to validate the data gathered.

As a summary, with the data obtained from the

previous analyzes, the sections of the survey, ordered

by their average rating (from higher to lowest),

were: a) support of the academic cooperation offices

(9.13); b) academic quality of the destination

university (9.09); c) PROMES’ general rating in a

single question (9.04); d) the exchange process

(8.83); e) global average of the 31 variables, without

counting PROMES’ general rating in a single question

(8.83); and f) PROMES’ management at UACH (8.48).

Interestingly, the two aspects that exclusively concern

the destination universities (academic quality and

support of the academic cooperation offices), there

was a score higher than 9.

At the moment calculating correlations, some

values that are significant for this research were

detected. Demographic variables such as age and sex

do not correlate with the different ratings, but an

interesting correlation was found among the

variables it improves my academic and professional

profile and being curricularly valued in the labor

market. The value found was .641, which is

considered a high correlation and establishes a link

between the perception of the student in relation to

the value of PROMES for improving their professio-

nal and work opportunities. Such corre-lation is

interesting, because it indicates that students primarily

value formal issues rather than substantive ones and

this could guide the efforts undertaken to improve

UACH’s internationalization program.

The quality of education and research in the

destination universities did not show important

correlations with other variables. However, an

unexpected result was obtained, since the only high

correlations were related to the variable quality of

infrastructure in the destination university. The

correlations found were with the variables it

improves my academic and professional profile (.595)

and being curricularly valued in the labor market

(.649). This suggests that, while students perceive

better quality in the infrastructure of the destination

university, they evaluate better their own academic,

professional and curricular value in the labor market.

PROMES’ general rating was also correlated with the

rest of the variables to identify which of them would

have a closer relationship (see Table 13).

Table 13. Pearson correlation for PROMES’ general rating with

other variables.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

Table 13 shows the correlation between PROMES

general score and the variables measured, which

include the information displayed on the UACH’s

website (UACH, 2018), the availability of the

administrative information that is offered to students

wishing to participate in the program, the follow up

and contact during stay, and the guidance regarding

aspects of mobility. It is not so usual for a social

sciences study to find so many positive correlations.

This is due to a certain congruence in students’

responses and the nature of the questions that

requested a rating, so they were analyzed mainly

based on the calculation of measures of central

tendency and dispersion; unlike other research, which

concentrates on analyses of the distribution of

frequencies. Moreover, we calculated the Cronbach

alpha for all 31 variables under study, to test their

internal consistency, and it resulted in 0.894. When

we eliminated the variable I perfected or learned

another language, which was the variable with the

lowest average score because most students traveled

to other Spanish speaking universities (see The

exchange process section), alpha increases to 0.909.

Both alpha scores point toward excellent internal

consistency and reliability among scores for the

variables measured.

We conducted a factor analysis using the Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin test (KMO), finding a coefficient of .684.

In a factor analysis, it is recommended to use values

from .5 onwards (Romo-González & Tarango, 2016).

However, we eliminated two variables, which had the

lowest value within the anti-image matrix: I improved

my grades (with a coefficient of .363) and I perfected

or learned another language (.319). When we

conducted the KMO again, without the mentioned two

variables, we found a coefficient of .745, which is

considered enough to accept the factor analysis.

We also conducted a Bartlett test of sphericity,

which presents a zero significance; this also indicated

that our factor analysis is useful. In the analysis of

total variance explained we chose a total of four

factors which have a theoretical relationship among

them and explain 63.44% of the variance. In this way,

we obtained the rotated component matrix using the

analysis of principal components as the method of

extraction, the Varimax as the rotation method, and

we conducted Kaiser normalization. To improve

visualization, we considered only coefficients with

an absolute value larger than .4. Table 14 shows the

results of this analysis.

Theoretically, component 1 explains elements

related to information at the various stages of the

mobility program. Component 2 relates the

perception of a better personal future with the

infrastructure of the chosen university, which is

congruent with the Pearson coefficients found.

Component 3 relates elements about the support of

the destination universities and Component 4 explains

the perception regarding the exchange of grades

between the universities involved in the mobility

process.

We can also relate our results with remarks on

the importance of motivation and satisfaction for

mobility programs (Jamaludin et al., 2017). As such,

we interpret that students might have been satisfied

with their mobility experiences, given the ratings they

provided to the questions related to their destination

universities. Hence, they might recommend these

universities to their peers on the basis of their

characteristics and not solely because of their

academic programs. We might hypothesize with these

results that students could be focusing more on

admiring the characteristics of other universities

before those available at their home institution, and

thus not paying too much attention to the quality of

the academic programs at other universities.

Conversely, academic programs at other universities

may actually have a very good level because of the

universities’ resources behind them. As suggested by

Bista and Foster (2016), universities should provide

the resources necessary for students to succeed. This

includes support services, infrastructure, programs

and policies.

Aspects related to the support of the academic

cooperation offices at destination universities,

specifically those associated with the reception that

students get, can influence their motivation and

satisfaction with the mobility program. As Bista and

Foster (2016) indicate, the university administration

is responsible for the successful implementation,

regulation, and support of mobility initiatives.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

Table 14. Rotated component matrix.

Conclusion

As we highlighted before, there has been an

increase both in interest and efforts from national

and international stakeholders for enhancing mobility

programs with and within Mexican HEI. As such, this

research is the first effort at publishing UACH mobility

program’ conditions in international and peer

reviewed journals, which is important at advancing

and developing a professional discussion from the

perspective and experiences of Mexican institutions.

We have detected that there is very limited scientific

literature about student mobility programs in Mexican

universities and from the perspective of Mexican

students studying abroad. The case we found deals with

the internationalization initiatives from the Autonomous

University of Nuevo Leon (Rodríguez-Bulnes et al.,

2016), which reflects upon the policies implemented

by this university regarding internationalization,

international accreditation, mobility of students and

professors, the impact in the academic community and

in the social, local, national and international contexts.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

This line of research will be complemented with

posterior follow-up to students involved in PROMES

and their contributions to their academic and work

lives. Further research involves setting up focus

groups with a representative sample of both students

and alumni that participated in PROMES, in order to

determine the program’s effectiveness and implemen-

ting improvements, as well as achieving a greater level

of control over the program. Such line of research

would could strengthen the relevance of this research,

by developing a strategy that should be conducted

with the alumni that studied abroad through

PROMES, in order to analyze and further determine

if there is a correlation among alumni’s professional

success and their academic mobility experiences.

Similarly, another possible area of opportunity would

require the analysis of the results and experiences

gathered by students during their mobility activities.

Moreover, an additional research instrument could

be proposed to partner institutions in order to evaluate

the impact of institutional mobility experiences of

incoming foreign students. This will help comparing

and contrasting study abroad occurrences in diverse

HEI and correlate findings among partner univer-

sities. Strengthening collaboration ties, through joint

overseas research, may help redefining institutional

academic mobility’s scope of influence in local studies,

with a broader perspective of diverse cultural and

ethnic backgrounds. This could help avoiding

ethnocentrism prejudices in the institutional research

that focuses on domestic cultures.

Given that information issues had the greatest

correlation with the overall score of the program, we

consider important to disseminate the present and

future research on this area in the scientific literature

and thus make them available to the various

stakeholders. Such action will contribute to the mobility

program’s objectives, which include ensuring its

exponential growth; according to the international

trend of knowledge sharing and production (Kim,

2017). Although this article presents a local experience

from a Mexican university, the evaluation of PROMES

as a student mobility program can be useful to conduct

similar studies in developing countries. It can also

provide useful insights into the challenges faced in

developing countries, so similar countries can prevent

common pitfalls and developed countries may take

such issues into account for setting up policies and

initiatives for collaboration and support.

References

BENNION, A. and W. Locke. 2010. The early career paths and

employment conditions of the academic profession in 17

countries. European Review 18(S1):S7-S33. DOI: 10.1017/

S1062798709990299.

BISTA, K. and C. Foster. (Eds.). 2016. Campus support services,

programs, and policies for international students. Hershey, USA:

IGI Global.

CAMINO, E. 2018. La movilidad de estudiantes en América Central:

¿En busca del hegemonic knowledge? América Latina Hoy

77:137-158.

CANTWELL, B., S. Luca and J. Lee. 2009. Exploring the orientations

of international students in Mexico: differences by region of

origin. Higher Education 57(3):335-354. DOI: 10.1007/

s10734-008-9149-x.

CORTEZ, C. 2016. Intercambios en la UACH llevaron a estudiantes

a 38 países. http://tiempo.com.mx/noticia/53075-

intercambios_en_la_uach_llevar. Accessed 16 October 2018.

ESPINOZA, E. 1997. La Educación Superior en México frente al TLC.

Comercio Exterior 44(9):205-210.

FERRER, A. 2012. La contribución de la movilidad académica a la

construcción de un espacio Iberoamericano de educación

superior. Revista Lusófona de Educação 21:53-68.

FLORES, D. 2015. La movilidad académica y estudiantil: un tema

en la agenda de la investigación educativa en México. http://

www.rimac.mx/la-movilidad-academica-y-estudiantil-un-

tema-en-la-agenda-de-la-investigacion-educativa-en-mexico.

Accessed 16 October 2018.

GACEL, J. 2000. La dimensión internacional de las universidades

mexicanas. Educación Superior y Sociedad 11(1-2):121-142.

GONZÁLEZ, J. and C. Gómez. 2012. Sugerencias para una política de

la internacionalización de la educación superior en México en

la segunda década del siglo XXI. Mundo Siglo XXI: Revista del

CIECAS-IPN 7(27):25-34.

JAMALUDIN, N., D. Sam and G. Sandal. 2017. Destination motivation,

cultural orientation and adaptation: International students’

destination-loyalty intention. Journal of International Students

8(1):38–65.

KIM, T. 2017. Academic mobility, transnational identity capital,

and stratification under conditions of academic capitalism.

Higher Education 73(6):981–997. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-017-

0118-0.

KNIGHT, J. 2005. Un modelo de internacionalización: Respuesta a

nuevas realidades y retos. In H. de Wit, C. Jaramillo, y J. Knight

(Eds.), Educación superior en América Latina: La dimensión

internacional (pp. 1-38). Bogotá, Colombia: Banco Mundial.

MORLEY, L., N. Alexiadou, S. Garaz, J. González-Monteagudo and M.

Taba. 2018. Higher Education 76(3):537-554. DOI: 10.1007/

s10734-017-0224-z.

PHERALI, T. 2012. Academic mobility, language, and cultural capital:

The experience of transnational academics in British higher

education. Journal of Studies in International Education

16(4):313-333.

RODRÍGUEZ-BULNES, M., A. Vences-Esparza and I. Flores-Alanís. 2016.

La internacionalización de la educación superior: Caso UANL.

Opción 32(13):560-582.

CÉSAR EDUARDO GUTIÉRREZ JURADO, FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES, LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ AND JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO:

Evaluation of students' engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience

• Vol. XIII, Núm. 1 • Enero-Abril 2019 •

ROMO-GONZÁLEZ, J. and J. Tarango. 2016. Métodos estadísticos con

SPSS aplicados a la educación. Buenos Aires: Alfagrama.

SEBASTIÁN, J. 2004. Cooperación e Internacionalización de las

Universidades. Buenos Aires: Biblos.

ECRETARÍA DE

ELACIONES

XTERIORES

. 2018. Mexican government

scholarships for international students 2018. https://

embamex.sre.gob.mx/finlandia/index.php/noticias/

convocatorias-calls/79-becas-gobierno-mexico-2018.

Accessed 16 October 2018.

STRONKHORST, R. 2005. Learning outcomes of international mobility

at two Dutch institutions of higher eduaction. Journal of Studies

in International Education 9(4):292-315.

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION 1998.

World Conference on Higher Education: Higher education in the

twenty-first century. Vision and action. Paris: France: UNESCO.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001163/

116345e.pdf. Accessed 16 October 2018.

UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE CHIHUAHUA. 2018. Servicios internacionales.

http://internacional.uach.mx. Accessed 16 October 2018.

UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR. 2018. Scholarships for Mexican students.

http://www.uwindsor.ca/intl/184/scholarships-mexican-

students. Accessed 16 October 2018.

VARELA, L. 2005. El referente de la internacionalización y sus

inherencias para la educación superior pública. Revista

Educación 29(2):11-33.

VOLOSCHIN, L. 2011. Interculturalidad e internacionalización en la

Universidad Nacional de Cuyo: La movilidad internacional de

estudiantes universitarios (Bachelor Thesis). Mendoza,

Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. http://

bdigital.uncu.edu.ar/objetos_digitales/6081/tesis-fcpys-

voloschin.pdf. Accessed 16 October 2018.

WÄCHTER, B. 2003. An introduction: Internationalisation at home

in context. Journal of Studies in International Education 7(1):5-

11.

Cite this paper as:

Gutiérrez-Jurado, C. E., F. González-Quiñones, L. A. Fierro-Ramírez and J. D. Machin-Mastromatteo. 2019. Evaluation of students'

engagement with PROMES2015 as a university mobility experience. TECNOCIENCIA Chihuahua 13(1):24-39.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54167/tch.v13i1.305

Curriculum of the author and co-authors

CÉSAR E. GUTIÉRREZ is a full time professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters at Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua (UACH).

He has a bachelor degree in Public Relations and Organizational Communication and master in Higher Education. His research

focuses on academic mobility processes. He is the head of UACH's International Services Office. He has recently taken a position as

General Secretary of the Mexican Association for International Education, for the 2018-2019 period.

FIDEL GONZÁLEZ-QUIÑONES is a full time professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters at Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

(UACH). He has a bachelor degree in Information Sciences, an MBA in Human Resources and another in Marketing, and a PhD in

Social Journalism. He is a creative data analyst with over 15 years of experience as lecturer and researcher and currently runs

UACH's auditory of opinion laboratory, which develops interdisciplinary studies with state and federal agencies.

LUIS ALBERTO FIERRO-RAMÍREZ is a full time professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters at Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua

(UACH), where he currently holds the position of Rector (2016 to 2022). He has a bachelor degree in Spanish Language and

Literature, and a master in Education. He is the General Executive Secretary of the National Council for School Sport, member of the

National Network of Schools of Philosophy, Letters and Humanities, and of the Journalism Education Association (USA).

JUAN D. MACHIN-MASTROMATTEO is a full-time professor and researcher at the Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua (UACH) in Mexico

and is a member of the National Researchers System. PhD in Information and Communication Science (Tallinn University,

Estonia), Master in Digital Library Learning (Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway; Tallinn University;

and Parma University, Italy), and Bachelor in Library Science (Universidad Central de Venezuela). He has more than 17 years of

work experience in archives, libraries, higher education, and professional development. He has published 30 refereed and

indexed articles, three books, 12 book chapters and has presented papers in 44 international conferences related to his various

lines of research: informational literacy, evaluation of scientific production, open access, information architecture, and digital

libraries. Machin-Mastromatteo is a permanent editorial board member of the scientific journal Information Development (Sage),

where he also publishes, since 2015, the regular column Developing Latin America. He is a peer reviewer for 14 scientific and

indexed journals within the fields of information science and education, for which he has peer reviewed over 90 manuscripts.