Mobility in the European Higher Education Area: Trends and Challenges - - PDF document

1

Mobility in the European Higher Education Area: Trends and Challenges1 Laura E. Rumbley, Academic Cooperation Association 23 December 2011 One of the very central issues of interest for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is the international mobility of students and academic staff. In order to make sense of the current situation vis à vis this phenomenon, it is worthwhile to examine developments in three key areas:

• 1. the scope of the activity, including its “nature” and quantitative dimensions;
• 2. the policy landscape framing the context; and
• 3. the practical considerations that relate to reality on the “front line” of international student

mobility. A set of findings from two recent Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) studies can provide a useful framework for exploring these topics. The analysis may also point towards future challenges and considerations relevant to the aspirations of the EHEA – and Moldova more specifically – with regard to international student mobility. Scope According to the ACA (2011) study Mapping Mobility in European Higher Education2, it is critically important to keep in mind that mobility is a multi-faceted phenomenon. Indeed, the international movement of students is a question of “mobilities”, not just mobility, given the variations in evidence by virtue of:  type (degree versus credit mobility);  direction (inbound or outbound movement);  “nature” (i.e. vertical mobility from one degree level up to the next versus horizontal mobility, which implies studying internationally at the same degree level);  degree level (distinguishing between bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral students);  measurement methods (whether mobility is counted on a yearly basis, through census- like statistics, or tracked more as an “event” within the course of study, usually discernible through surveys); and  mechanisms involved (which concern mobility of self-organised and self-funded “free movers” versus mobility through structure programmes/activities). The term “mobility” is used widely, but often without attention paid to the very real distinctions apparent between mobility modes. This can introduce a great deal of confusion into the mobility discussion, and – where there is no clear agreement upon definitions or parameters – can have a particularly detrimental effect on the processes of collecting and comparing quantitative figures for mobility.

1 This synopsis is based on information provided in a presentation delivered at the international conference Implementation of the

European Higher Education Area in The Republic of Moldova, 2 December 2011, Chisinau.

2 See http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc922_en.htm

2

ACA’s Mapping Mobility study looked at mobility data3 for 32 countries (the 27 EU member states, 4 EFTA countries and Turkey), over the period 1998/99 – 2006/07. Amongst the key findings, the Europe 32 countries managed to grow the percentage hosted in Europe of the world’s internationally mobile student population over the period in question. This is good news in general, but particularly in terms of Europe’s global competitiveness in this area, given that during the same timeframe the leading host country of the world’s mobile students (the United States) saw its share of the global student market decline. Still, there is enormous variety by country when it comes to the ability to attract international students. For example, Mapping Mobility found that almost two-thirds of all international students in Europe were enrolled in just three countries—the UK, Germany and France. In addition, the ACA study concluded that Europe 32 students tend overwhelmingly (to the tune of 85.5%) to stay within Europe for international study experience. For Moldova, the larger European picture may be somewhat encouraging, in the sense that “imbalance” between ingoing and outgoing flows is not unusual (although in the case of Moldova there is a larger outflow than inflow, which may not be desirable). Moldova also mirrors a broader tendency seen in Europe whereby European students often study in nearby countries,

• r at least not outside Europe to the same extent that they study abroad within Europe. This

kind of quantitative information – which, by necessity, is barely skimmed in the context of this brief synopsis – provides important insight into mobility trends. However, it also raises many questions, particularly in a context where (amongst other challenges) “mobile student” is not yet defined consistently across Europe, and separate and consistent reporting of degree and credit mobility has not been fully established. Policy While the quantitative dimensions of student mobility provide a fundamentally important picture

• f the state of this phenomenon in the EHEA, a consideration of the policy framework helps us

to understand the vision for mobility for the future. The policy documents dealing with mobility in both the context of the EHEA and the European Union (EU) register unabashed support for mobility as a concept. There is also a clear call for “more”, and in interest in reaching a 20% mark for student mobility (although until now the 20% targets have been defined somewhat differently by the Council of the European Union4 and the Mobility Working Group of the Bologna Follow-Up Group5). An ACA study currently nearing completion at the end of 2011 has endeavoured to shed light on developments in this area, as well. Funded by the European Commission under the title European and National Policies and Practices on Mobility (ENPMOB), this project has aimed to examine (for the same Europe 32 countries covered in the Mapping Mobility exercise) the concrete set of objectives, instruments, responsible actors, monitoring actions, and timeline specifications for mobility articulated at the national level. The following figure amongst the key findings emerging from this work (although this is not an exhaustive list):

3 The study relied on data from the so-called UOE data set, which is comprised of information compiled by UNESCO Institute of

Statistics, OECD and EUROSTAT.

4 See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/126380.pdf 5 See http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Irina/Working%20paper%20on%20Mobility%20strategy%202020%20for%20EHEA.PDF

3

 Few countries have fully-fledged mobility policies or strategies in place.  There is generally less enthusiasm in the national mobility discourse than what is seen at the European level, although sometimes there are more ambitious targets (for example, Austria and Germany are aiming for 50% mobility by 2020).  National level policies for mobility are mostly focused on outgoing credit mobility and incoming degree mobility.  Where quantitative targets are named, these often lack specificity. Again, Austria and Germany mention a 50% target for mobility but do not clarify what type of mobility or whether this is an annual or somehow cumulative target.  It remains difficult to say whether the European level is driving national policies or the

• ther way around, given that there are many linkages between the two spheres.

Furthermore (and notably), there are often gaps seen between discourse, objectives and actual measures articulated or implemented. And there remains a great deal of fuzziness about the cause-and-effect linkages between “good policies” and increased mobility participation. Finally, as with the student mobility numbers themselves, from country to country the policy landscape for mobility in the EHEA shows a great deal of variability. Practice Beyond quantitative analyses and policy considerations, how mobility actually plays out in practice is obviously hugely important in any discussion of the phenomenon in the EHEA. If the goal is to get increasing numbers of students studying internationally, it may be especially useful to understand more clearly what motivates and what deters students from being mobile. ACA’s Mapping Mobility study endeavoured to synthesise the current thinking on obstacles to and incentives for student mobility, through a review of the key literature. This included the examination of a wide range of documents, publications and reports from institutional, governmental, non-governmental and academic sources. Although the obstacles and incentives may vary in relevance depending on the type of mobility under discussion (e.g. credit versus degree mobility), there appear to be at least eight main types of obstacles:  lack of information;  low levels of (or no) personal interest or motivation;  inadequate financial support;  foreign language deficiencies;  a sense of insufficient time or space in the course of study;  quality concerns about the experience abroad;  legal barriers; and  problems gaining recognition (academic or professional) for the studies completed abroad. On the incentive side of the house, three primary categories of support—focused on financial, curricular and personal issues—emerge prominently from the literature. Financial encouragement could come in the way of greater portability of loans and grants as well as

4

funding instruments designed specifically to support mobility. Students could clearly be incentivised by making financial packages for mobility more generous, but positive results might also be obtained by simply making information about financial support more easily accessible to (and understandable by) prospective mobile students. Meanwhile, curricular incentives might include the assurance to students that the institutional actors involved in the mobility activities are fully compliant with basic technical instruments such as recognition agreements, the Diploma Supplement, and ECTS. Specially designed “mobility windows”, as well as joint or double-degree programmes, can also serve to facilitate student interest and engagement in

• mobility. Targeted delivery of information about the academic relevance of mobility to under-

represented students (for example, in the STEM fields), could be helpful, as could better foreign language support for students at the home and host institutions. Finally, students may need more tailored messages to foster basic interest in the mobility experience. For many students the benefits of mobility – in the short and/or long term – may not be readily apparent. A potentially powerful role for mobility recruitment is seen for “multipliers”, credible individuals who speak from personal experience about the impact of international study. Cultivating interest on a person-to-person level may be critically important for expanding interest beyond those who are naturally predisposed to study abroad. As important, the international study experience needs to live up to the high quality promised in the recruitment phase of the process. Mobility in the EHEA (and Moldova) – challenges and considerations for the future6 As the mobility agenda evolves and matures in the EHEA, several issues stand out as important to watch and/or advance. Perhaps most importantly, the calls for more purposeful “evidence- based” policy- and decision-making bring with them certain demands for data. For mobility, this likely means that more and “better” data will be required in order to assess the “state of the art” and to clarify meaningful options for achieving policy goals in this area. Making sure that data collection is attended to in a consistent fashion across the EHEA is also fundamental. The qualitative aspect of the mobility picture is also critically important. With the EHEA’s aspiration to grow the number of students participating in international study experiences, increasing emphasis may need to be placed on assessing and assuring sufficient levels of quality for the mobile student experience. In addition, the acceptance of the notion that there are various mobility modes (as described in the Scope section above) means that the approaches to quality assurance and the efforts to achieve quantitative mobility targets may need to be customised, depending on the qualities of the specific mobility mode under discussion at any one time. Quantitative targets are very much on the minds of mobility stakeholders in the EHEA, in light of the goals articulated by both the EU and the BUFG Mobility Working Group (as indicated in the Policy section above) to achieve 20% mobility by 2020. Everyone seems to agree that quantity

• matters. At the same time, of rising interest in some circles is the question of “balance”. This

might be variously understood as an equilibrium between incoming or outgoing students to/from

6 This section presents the more personal opinions of the presenter and may not necessarily reflect the positions outlined in the two

ACA studies used as the basis for the presentation.

5

a specific country. It might also have something to do with the make-up of international student body within a specific country, or the study destinations of choice of an outgoing student

• population. However this is defined, balance may become a more pressing topic in the mobility

discourse moving forward. Another salient issue for the future may be the degree to which EHEA countries engage in and leverage opportunities for peer/mutual learning when it comes to international student mobility. The question of a place for “virtual mobility” is yet another topic for the coming period, as the demand for mobility rises and technological innovation provides new avenues for cross-border

• engagement. Very fundamentally, it will also be interesting to see how information provision

about mobility opportunities evolves. The literature on obstacles to mobility (see the Practice section above) indicates that vexing problems still remain in terms of reaching students with the information that could make the difference between these individuals becoming mobile or not. Also critical for the future is the work that needs to be done to make better sense of the

• utcomes of international student mobility, at all levels—for the individuals and institutions

involved, as well as for society more broadly. For Moldova, the issues noted above should resonate to some extent. In addition, there may be several other questions that the mobility agenda in the Moldovan context must address more

• specifically. For example, how might the demographic changes in the country (notably, a

declining student population in recent years) inform the choices for a national policy on mobility? Does the country’s higher education sector have enough autonomy and flexibility to respond dynamically to the shifting international student mobility landscape? What role does the language of instruction in Moldova, and/or foreign language training in the country, play in encouraging or inhibiting international student mobility? And what is the basic rationale for the mobility agenda in the country? Which actors are responsible for articulating the Moldovan higher education vision for this agenda, and is this group sufficiently representative of all relevant stakeholders? Furthermore, is the vision for mobility in Moldova rooted in a clear, honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses? Do the aspirations for mobility resonate with the actors charged with carrying it out? Is the mobility agenda achievable and sustainable? Many elements feed into the development of what might be considered a “healthy” mobility landscape, some of which are unquestionably beyond the control of institutions and even national ministries or governments working to advance the mobility agenda in a given context. What can be controlled to some extent, however, is the commitment to work from an authentic understanding of the national/institutional context, including such fundamental issues identity, tradition and mission. This is a critically important reference point for any efforts to address or advance the mobility agenda in a meaningful way.