Page 1 of 15
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 2
Publication Date: February 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/assrj.92.11582. Kavasakalis, A., & Gkiza, T. (2022). European Higher Education Area, Internationalization and Students’ Mobility in 21st Century.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(2). 60-74.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
European Higher Education Area, Internationalization and
Students’ Mobility in 21st Century
Kavasakalis Aggelos
Assistant Professor, Department of Educational
Sciences and Social Work, University of Patras, Greece
Gkiza Theodora
MSc candidate, Department of Educational
Sciences and Social Work, University of Patras, Greece
ABSTRACT
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) seem to be influenced by the evolutions of
globalization, to modernize and operate according to the knowledge society and
therefore preparing and equipping students with the appropriate knowledge and
skills required in order to respond to new situations imposed by the modern
globalized environment. A principal axis is the internationalization of the teaching
and learning provided in order to increase the competitiveness among institutions,
improve the quality of the provided services and lastly integrate an international as
well as intercultural dimension in the purpose, the functions and the mission of an
institution (De Wit, 2015; Knight, 2004). The aim of the present article is to provide
a theoretical reflection on internationalization and student mobility (which is an
internationalization policy) in European Higher Education Area in the 21st century.
The first section will attempt to delineate the concept of internationalization and
its modern dimensions in the HE, while referring to the ways that is promoted
within the European Area. The second section focuses on student mobility in the
21st century. First, there is a brief description of the history of mobility and then
the relationship between mobility and the Bologna Process is outlined. In addition,
student mobility programs are described as well as the evaluation of students'
experiences who participated in those programs, as shown in relevant research.
Reference is also made to student mobility at the time of Covid-19 spread. Lastly, in
the third section an attempt is made to link the processes of internationalization
and mobility in Higher Education in Europe.
Keywords: Internationalization; student mobility; European higher education area;
Covid-19.
INTERNATIONALIZATION AND UNIVERSITY: INITIAL DELIMITATIONS
Modern dimensions of internationalization in Higher Education (HE)
The dimensions of internationalization in HE are three: internationalization abroad,
internationalization at home and partnerships. The first one refers to the University’s activity
abroad with actions like student, teacher, curriculum and project mobility in foreign countries
as well as the branches of universities. The second dimension refers to all the internal activities
that the universities carry out in order to become known abroad and to reach students in their
own space either with their physical presence or virtually. In order to achieve this, the
Page 2 of 15
61
Kavasakalis, A., & Gkiza, T. (2022). European Higher Education Area, Internationalization and Students’ Mobility in 21st Century. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 9(2). 60-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.92.11582
internationalization of the curriculum in order to make it more attractive, the existence of
specialized academic staff for new students, the encouragement of students to participate in
the social and cultural life of the University, etc. are necessary (Georghiou & Laredo, 2015).
According to Vasilopoulos and Mavrogianni (2017), the purpose of international education is
for students to acquire a global citizenship, which refers to the ability to live and work in a
global society and is part of internationalization at home. Finally, the third one refers to the
collaborations that the University conducts with various services abroad, such as schools,
companies etc. in order to seek new knowledge and experiences for students (Georghiou &
Laredo, 2015).
More specifically, internationalization abroad includes staff mobility, degree mobility, the
implementation of the ECTS (credit mobility), and cross-border education. International
students either participate in short-term international programs, which correspond to specific
ECTS, such as Erasmus, or seek degrees when fully participating in a program abroad. The
presence of international students is as particularly important and beneficial for themselves as
it is for the host universities, governments, cities of residence and many HE-affiliated
organizations (de Wit & Hunter, 2015).
According to Brooks and Waters (2011, as cited in Harrison, 2015), the goal of
internationalization at home is to provide a comprehensive picture of internationalization to
students or academic staff who, due to financial or cultural difficulties, are unable to move
through a mobility program. According to Crowther et al. (2000, as cited in Harrison, 2015), the
key components of internationalization (at home) are three: Firstly, diversity can be used as a
resource, leading to more diverse social and academic spaces within Universities. This could
potentially enhance the experience for university students by providing access to
internationalization experiences that would not be available in different circumstances. A
second component is the internationalized curriculum that originates from the conjunction of
knowledge and integrates a wide range of national or cultural contexts into the official
curriculum. It is considered a combination of skills and abilities that enables students to
successfully apply their knowledge outside of cultural boundaries and to develop positive
intercultural relationships. Finally, the building block is a culturally sensitive pedagogy based
on the belief that universities must provide programs that are responsive and make the most
of student diversity. This includes the use of technology in order to provide more intercultural
experiences as well as structured experiences for students with the purpose of interacting
within the classroom (Harrison, 2015).
Internationalization has a significant positive impact on the universities themselves. According
to Denson, Loveday and Dalton (2010), the internationalization of the curriculum increases
students' awareness of international matters, including cultural diversity and makes students
open-minded and citizens of the world. Precisely because they come in contact with issues that
concern the international community, they acquire a different and broader perspective of
things. Thus, the curriculum is strengthened and expanded with more international terms.
Intercultural experiences prepare students for their future professional lives (Mak & Kennedy,
2012) or for the occasion where they need to live in different cultural environments, while
developing their social responsibility and global citizenship (Clifford & Montgomery, 2014).
Page 3 of 15
62
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 2, February-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
At the same time, students are provided with the unique opportunity of mobility, which allows
them to move to a different environment where they can understand the differences and
similarities of the environment in which they live, in relation to the global environment. This
can arise through the different practices followed in the country of destination or through the
student's interaction with people from different cultures (Vainio-Mattila, 2009). Finally,
according to Hayden, Thompson and Williams (2003, as cited in Jibeen and Khan, 2015), the
international characteristics acquired by students have a positive effect on broadening their
spiritual horizons, on their flexibility of thought, on the acquisition of an additional foreign
language and lastly on tolerance and respect towards others. All of those contribute to the
development of students' responsibility and increase their social participation.
In addition, internationalization, according to Knight (2007), strengthens institutional research
and knowledge production, as it provides a wealth of resources, skills and knowledge through
inter-university partnerships. In general, partnerships bring better results and greater
progress compared to individual work, given the transfer of knowledge and logistics
infrastructure. Knowledge transfer, good practices and experience gradually improves, among
other things, the quality of teaching and learning, affecting in that way positively both
universities and students (Wende, 2006, as cited in Khan, Omrane & Bank, 2016). Therefore,
for universities, significant results can occur, such as the strengthening of their international
presence and profiles, the wide recognition of their name and the increase of their
competitiveness (Saisana, d’ Hombres & Saltelli, 2011).
Nevertheless, there are challenges. One danger posed by the internationalization of the
curriculum, according to Eldik (2011, as cited in Jibeen & Khan, 2015), is the loss of cultural and
national identity, as the curriculum tends to homogenize and comply with international
standards.
According to the results of the research conducted by Egron-Polak, Hudson and Sandstrom
(2015), at various universities around the world, a key challenge is the fact that the
international opportunities provided by mobility are accessible, mainly, only to students with
good economic background, as only they can support their living in a foreign country. In
addition, it is quite difficult, according to the participants, to fully control the quality of the
programs provided.
Excessive competition between universities is another important challenge, as it often does not
aim to improve, but rather to achieve a better position in international rankings or to raise the
standards and indicators regarding the internationalization of institutions that usually exist in
institutionalized quality assurance and/or certification procedures. On this basis, many
universities seek partnerships in order to promote themselves and increase their prestige. In
fact, many times, too much emphasis is placed on the internationalization of the university and
other priorities concerning students and academic staff are ignored (Egron-Polak, et al, 2015).
Apart from this, many universities in developed countries see internationalization as a good
opportunity to increase their financial gain by attracting international students and increasing
tuition fees (Scott, 2011).
Another negative point is the so-called "brain drain", which refers to the process by which the
labor force of one country, which has received training in its country of origin, migrates to
Page 4 of 15
63
Kavasakalis, A., & Gkiza, T. (2022). European Higher Education Area, Internationalization and Students’ Mobility in 21st Century. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 9(2). 60-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.92.11582
another country to work. More specifically, students who acknowledge or seek opportunities
provided by other foreign countries, tend to consider living in those countries as a better
alternative option in terms of better working conditions and higher financial rewards (Egron- Polak, Hudson & Sandstrom, 2015).
Actions that promote internationalization in EHEA
Given that two or three actions are not enough to achieve internationalization as it is a
combination of many factors (de Wit, 2011), how can internationalization finally be promoted
in EHEA? What actions should be taken?
Sursock's research (2015) on what actions European universities make good use of in order to
promote their research has yielded significant results, useful for the future of
internationalization programs. Initially, the participants considered the exchange of students
and staff as the most important actions to internationalize their university at a percentage of
96% and 92%, respectively. Next are, with a percentage of 86%, the international partnerships
and the workplaces of the students as well as their participation in international networks of
higher education with a percentage of 85%. Strategic partnerships with a select number of
foreign universities and the curricula that are taught in English are also important
internationalization factors with a percentage of 81%. Other activities are summer schools
(72%), internationalization at home (64%), international recruitment campaigns (58%), group
projects with colleagues in developed countries (54%), curricula taught in languages other than
English (32%), an e-learning program or MOOCs (21%) and other activities outside the
university (13%).
European Commission promotes international partnerships for the internationalization of
Higher Education in Europe. These partnerships are concluded through agreements between
university departments, universities and schools, governments and universities, industries and
universities and domestic universities with foreign universities (de Wit
Hunter, 2015).
According to Stackley and de Wit (2011), forms of partnership are staff and student exchanges,
research partnerships, jointly developed programs or short-term courses with common
content, international projects and joint program development in one third country.
The curriculum internationalization, according to Whitsed and Green (2015), is also part of the
European Commission strategy. However, it is also a challenge for the universities, since the
academic staff does not know exactly how to shape it so that it serves its international
orientation. Leask's definition (2015) states that the international and intercultural
partnership is reflected in the curriculum and consequently in the learning outcomes, teaching
methods and support work of a program. This can be achieved through a series of activities,
such as mobility, the use of international annotated bibliography, the creation of English
language programs, the invitation of speakers from partner universities, the examination of
international issues, online partnership and e-learning programs, as well as internship.
However, actions based on the use of technology provide equal opportunities for
internationalization, due to their ease of accessibility (Beelen & Jones, 2015).
Mobility plays a catalytic role in the internationalization of universities, whether it is the
implementation of the ECTS or staff and students mobility, or the mobility of degrees, or, finally,
their cross-border mission, whose aim is to establish branches in other countries
Page 5 of 15
64
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 2, February-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
(Vassilopoulos & Mavrogianni, 2017). At EHEA, the latest mobility program is Erasmus+, which
combines all educational programs of all levels and is open to many new inter-university
agreements. As far as students are concerned, their international presence is a point of interest
for the host universities, but it also increases the interest of governments, cities and many
organizations associated with the "Higher Education business". The mobility of academic staff
has been developed in a less strategic way (de Wit & Hunter, 2015).
As it turned out, a key goal of the 21st century HEIs is their internationalization. Achieving this
goal in EHEA entails the utilization and implementation of actions from all three dimensions of
internationalization. The most popular strategies followed by the universities are the mobility
of students and academic staff, partnerships, e-learning programs, MOOCs, summer schools,
etc. In the net section, we will focus on the debate on student mobility, especially in the 21st
century within the context of EHEA.
Student mobility
Brief historical background
Since the end of World War II, various activities have been promoted by European countries to
address the matter of isolation of national Higher Education systems (Teichler, 2010).
According to Teichler (2012), in the first stage, efforts were made in order to increase mutual
understanding between European countries through activities such as student mobility, as it
was considered helpful in developing knowledge about issues regarding other countries,
reducing prejudices and increasing tolerance among the citizens of the states. In Western
Europe, the Council of Europe has been trying to facilitate mobility since the early 1950s
through conventions signed by countries so as to recognize studies at foreign universities.
Similar decisions have been made by Eastern European countries since the 1970s for all
European countries through cooperation between the Council of Europe and UNESCO. In the
1970s, the education minsters’ informal meetings of the European member states led the HE to
gradually become a part of the European discussions in the context of political programmes.
According to the European Commission (1994), one of the first things it did at that time was to
promote student mobility. For this reason, in 1976 and for a decade, the Joint Study Programs
were created, which provided financial support for departmental networks that would
exchange students in an efficient and successful environment. However, limitations in the
support period from the University institution and the extra costs required to be spent by
students during their studies abroad, created obstacles to the success of this program.
Following this, a period marked by an increase in cooperation between universities, mobility
and the search for common European dimensions of HE begins. In this context, in 1987 the
Erasmus program was introduced to promote short-term mobility within European borders
(Teichler, 2012). Its principal axis was student mobility, in which more than half of the
program’s planned funding is spent; a fact which proves its importance. However, apart from
this, additional actions are supported as well, such as the exchange of academic staff,
curriculum innovation and other activities. Erasmus soon became the flagship of European
Union-led training programs. Despite criticism of bureaucracy and underfunding for students
and universities, Erasmus has contributed to the increase in student mobility in Europe and has
become a top choice for students and higher education institutions (Teichler, 2001).
The European education policy programs that existed in the 1980s and 1990s were merged
under the umbrella of two programs: Socrates for the different branches of general education
Page 6 of 15
65
Kavasakalis, A., & Gkiza, T. (2022). European Higher Education Area, Internationalization and Students’ Mobility in 21st Century. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 9(2). 60-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.92.11582
and Leonardo da Vinci for professional training. Socrates absorbed Erasmus and Lingua, which
became two of the five sub-programs 1 . For Erasmus, in particular, under the umbrella of
Socrates, it was expected that the partnerships would be extended and that there would be a
qualitative development of the curricula in the European universities. The aim was also to
engage students who would not move in order to benefit from the European dimension of the
HE. Through this program, there has been an increase not only in available resources, renewal
and development of curricula and further promotion and implementation of ECTS (Lanzendorf
& Teichler, 2002).
After the inclusion of Erasmus as a sub-program of Socrates (in 1995-96) its characteristics
were modified. Student mobility remained the main focus of the program, but changes were
also made, such as financial support to support teaching staff, recognition issues, emphasis on
the curriculum and focus on spreading the European dimension in the HE. In addition, each
institution had to submit a statement including all exchanges and partnerships with other
universities and form the European Policy Statement, which is setting out the activities
expected to be supported by Erasmus as part of a larger European policy framework and
activities of the foundation (Teichler, 2001).
Student mobility in the 21st century
The Erasmus program in the 21st century
According to the European Commission (2015a) the Erasmus program is an important part of
the policy programs of the HE system of many EU countries. Since its first year in 1987 till today,
more than three million students and academic staff have moved through this program, thus
creating a network of cross-border partnership and intercultural learning.
At the beginning of the 21st century, in 2000, given its great success, the extension and
therefore the additional funding of the Socrates program was decided and from 2000 to 2006,
the second phase of this was implemented. The aim of the program is to contribute to the
promotion of a Europe of knowledge by developing the European dimension in education and
training by encouraging lifelong learning, based on formal and non-formal forms of education
and training. The program supports the development of knowledge, skills and abilities that
favor the active practice of citizenship and the ability to work (Article 1.3) (Pasias, 2006). In
this phase, mobile students were increasing by 6% each year and by the end of the period,
reached 135,000 per year, representing 30% of the total intra-European student mobility
(Rodriguez, Mariel & Bustillo, 2011).
Then, during the 5-year period, from 2007 to 2013, the Lifelong Learning Program is
established by the European Parliament, which is an umbrella program and includes the
following programs: Comenius for school education, Erasmus for HE, Leonardo da Vinci for
primary and continuing professional training and, finally, the Grundtvig for adult education
("Lifelong Learning Programme", etc.). According to Govaris and Roussakis (2008), the goal of
the Lifelong Learning program is the improvement of lifelong learning on a qualitative level and
its application in ΕΗΕΑ, the assurance of EHEA’s quality and lastly partnership and exchange of
good practices between universities. As far as the Erasmus program is concerned, the goal was
1 The rest were adult education, Comenius, which was related to school and open and remote education.
Page 7 of 15
66
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 2, February-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
to increase student mobility by up to 10% and ideally, it would be desirable for three million
students to be relocated by 2012 (Rodriguez, et al, 2011).
Most recently and since 2014, the Erasmus+ program is in place2, which supports education,
sports and youth. The goal was to attract four million students (European Commission, 2014).
Erasmus+ offers student loans, joint postgraduate programs and a budget for strategic
partnerships and innovative developmental policy (de Wit & Hunter, 2015). Its aim is to
contribute to Europe’s 2020 strategy for growth, employment, social equality and inclusion.
More specific objectives are the promotion and development of HE and the contribution to the
fulfillment of the following goals: unemployment reduction (especially among young people),
adult education promotion, with an emphasis on acquiring new skills and abilities required by
the labor market, young people encouragement to participate in European democracy,
innovation support, cooperation and reform, and lastly cooperation and mobility promotion
between European countries (European Commission, 2014).
Student Mobility and Bologna Process
In 1999, the ministers of 29 European countries signed the Bologna Declaration in Italy,
according to which, the structure of programs and degrees would be established and therefore
the European Higher Education Area would be implemented by 2010 (Teichler, 2009; Wachter,
2008). In this context, the agenda of the Bologna Process was formed, which included a series
of policy and cooperation axes between the participating countries. It was agreed that a three- cycle HE system -undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral studies- would be established, and
therefore not only a mutual recognition of qualifications and courses completed in foreign
universities would be ensured but a quality assurance system would be implemented as well,
whose aim would be to enhance the provided learning and teaching quality (The Bologna
Process, 1999).
Student mobility was also an important axis of action line within the Bologna Process. The
purpose was to increase the attractiveness of European University programs for students from
other parts of the world and, at the same time, to facilitate mobility within Europe. More specific
objectives were (a) incoming mobility for programs of all levels from other parts of the world
and (b) temporary (between three months and a year) incoming and outgoing mobility
between European countries (Teichler, 2009; Wachter, 2008).
As it turned out, the Bologna Process increased EHEA's popularity as a study destination
compared to other host countries and regions during the period of 1999-2007, while this
popularity has stabilized and probably increased during the 2010-2020 decade (Teichler,
2019). In addition, apart from the undergraduate level, students were given the option of
mobility through the postgraduate level as well. In fact, as a result of its shorter duration, the
postgraduate level was easier to internationalize, especially in European countries that do not
have a widely spoken language, for which the willingness to welcome new students meant the
start of some courses in a foreign language (European Commission, 2020).
In the 1999-2009 decade, the mobility for a short period of time within EHEA was supported
by a series of measures. In particular, in 2009 an arrangement was made according to which
2 although it is nearing completion
Page 8 of 15
67
Kavasakalis, A., & Gkiza, T. (2022). European Higher Education Area, Internationalization and Students’ Mobility in 21st Century. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 9(2). 60-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.92.11582
the goal was that 20% of the EHEA graduates would live the experience of international
mobility by 2020. Initially, the goal refers to physical mobility in all three study cycles and also
covers periods of being abroad for at least three months or a collection of at least 15 ECTS as
well as the completion of a degree abroad. The 20% goal seemed too ambitious to by achieved
solely with the short study period mobility and that is why the degree mobility was integrated
within it. In that way, the systems were more likely to achieve this goal (Teichler, 2019).
STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES FROM MOBILITY PROGRAMS
Of particular interest is the recording of the experiences of the students themselves who
participated in mobility programs. We analyze indicatively (and briefly) some of them.
In a study by McLeod and Wainright (2008), students stated that Erasmus helped build their
self-esteem and confidence and make them feel certain about their capabilities, as they were
called to take responsibilities and live in a foreign land on their own, while at the same time it
stimulated their self-perception in general and changed their perception of the world.
Salajan and Chiper (2012) conducted a survey to document the experiences of Romanian
students participating in the Erasmus program. The overall impression left by the program was
positive. In particular, the students thought that their academic experience in other Member
States of the European Union was a good investment for their professional and social
development, but they do not think that these experiences can contribute to the development
of the general conditions of the Romanian economy and society. This means that the gains were
purely personal. In addition, some students reported encountering issues with the
implementation of ECTS. A significant advantage of their experience is, as they mentioned, the
fact that at the host University it was easier to apply the knowledge they had received, as the
curriculum provided the same opportunity, in contrast to the Romanian universities, which are
more theoretical. Regarding the financial costs they had to spend for their living expenses,
Romanian students said that although the mobility experience is quite costly for a Romanian, it
is worth it because of the benefits they had gained and the exciting experience they had.
The students from Turkey who participated in the survey of Aslan and Jacobs (2014), also
pointed out the personal and professional benefits they gained from the Erasmus program in
which they took part in. They underlined the fact that their responsibility has increased as well
as the feeling of freedom after Erasmus which is especially useful for their self-sufficiency. A
good practice mentioned by the students is the active use of technology for communication,
course attendance and management of their studies. In particular, they learned to check their
emails daily, surf the internet, or use search engines to locate an address, a phone number, the
media program, or the map of the area they wanted to visit. However, the main problem faced
by the students in this research was the bureaucracy before moving to the host country after
returning to their country.
In Costello’s study (2015), the two students who participated had the same opinion as the
students in the aforementioned research and enhanced the benefits of student mobility found
in the annotated bibliography. These are the further development of critical thinking, the
acquisition of greater self-confidence, the increased academic commitment, the development
of interculturalism and tolerance, the enhancement of their professional careers, the improved
communication skills and, finally, the greater ability to understand international issues. For
Page 9 of 15
68
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 2, February-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
both participants, the biggest challenge was socializing and developing relationships with the
natives. Both managed, however, to build relationships, which contributed to their socialization
and therefore their cultural awareness. In addition, one of the participants reported that after
completing the mobility program her study habits changed and that she learned to work harder,
while in the host country she participated in voluntary programs providing assistance to people
in need. The second participant stated that the Erasmus experience in Scandinavia contributed
to a fuller understanding of the world and in particular to the exposure to the Scandinavian
culture, as well as the cultures of his fellow students from other European countries, which
contributed to the development of intercultural awareness. It was characteristically mentioned,
"meeting people from other parts of the world is a way to travel but without having to go
anywhere because you can just chat with them to get a taste of their way of life in their home
country" (Costello, 2015). He also learned a lot about the way the host country operates and
the behavior and habits of its people.
The survey of Llurda, Gallego-Balsà, Barahona and Martin-Rubió (2016) on European students
who participated in the Erasmus program, led to the conclusion that they themselves felt more
confident about using a foreign language and especially English due to the long-term use of it
and contact with the locals. They stated that they gained more confidence in using a foreign
language and at the same time they had an increased desire to continue learning the language
they used during their studies abroad, even if it is the language of the host country. This,
according to Byram (2008, as cited in Llurda, Gallego-Balsà, Barahona & Martin-Rubió, 2016)
contributes significantly to the development of European identity. In fact, according to this
study, after their mobility, the students stated that the knowledge of the English language,
which is the lingua franca of Europe and the world, is not enough. English helps students to feel
more comfortable in the beginning and to live the experience without any particular problems,
but due to Europe’s multiculturalism, it is necessary to learn other languages as well, a fact to
which student mobility contributes. At the same time, students stated that they now feel more
confident about their skills and that they are more likely to seek a future move abroad, as they
already know exactly how to move and adapt to a new reality.
Despite the multiple benefits of mobility, there were also students who reported their negative
experiences. For example, one disadvantage identified by some students who participated in
the Erasmus program is financial insecurity. The scholarship money was not enough to cover
their expenses and their families were not able to support them financially in living abroad. As
they stated, those difficulties would probably be an obstacle for a similar future project (Rowan- Kenyon & Niehaus, 2011). Also, several students in McLeod and Wainright’s study (2008)
reported that this experience was very stressful. Although they expected it to be a very positive
and enjoyable experience, in the end they felt desperate, as at first there was a confusion with
the bureaucracy and their adjustment. Finally, they stated that they were not able to develop
relationships of trust with the University professors as expected, or to create friendships with
other students and, in addition, they had difficulty with the educational system of the host
country.
Of course, despite the difficulties pointed out in some surveys, many students who participated
in the surveys state regarding their experience that they have the desire and intention to either
participate in such a program again or to move abroad for studies or work permanently.
Page 10 of 15
69
Kavasakalis, A., & Gkiza, T. (2022). European Higher Education Area, Internationalization and Students’ Mobility in 21st Century. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 9(2). 60-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.92.11582
STUDENTS’ MOBILITY IN THE COVID-19 ERA
The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the way people live worldwide and has affected their
behavior. In many countries, especially in the first phase of the pandemic, universities
suspended their on-site operations for long period of time and continued their educational
work remotely (Fatoni, Arifiatib, Nurkhayatic, Nurdiawatid, Fidziah, Pamungkasf, Adhag,
Irawanh, Purwantoi, Julyantoj
Azizi, 2020). The internationalization of HE, and the issue of
student mobility, in particular, has been significantly affected by the spread of the pandemic
(Weissova, Marinoni & Leite, 2020).
With the closure of borders by many countries, cross-border movement became almost
impossible. Many students and teachers saw their visas and residence permits expire and
experienced distance and isolation from their social networks due to the pandemic. This was a
major challenge for both the host universities and the universities that sent their students
abroad, which had to go through a series of support actions for the moving students or
professors. In particular, they had to provide psychological counseling and additional financial
support either to extend the students' stay in the host countries or to return them urgently to
their country of origin. These unfavorable conditions forced the universities to adopt new
teaching methods. Remote learning through online courses, online curricula, courses
combining mixed learning methods, curricula implemented with mixed learning methods and
provision of online courses resulting from partnership with other institutions of HE were
promoted (European University Association, 2020).
The European Association for International Education (EAIE) conducted a survey in various
European countries, in which the opinions of students and teachers were recorded via
questionnaires, regarding the outgoing mobility and whether it has been negatively impacted
by Covid-19. The results showed that 73% of the students surveyed answered that Covid has
significantly affected the outgoing student mobility, while 54% of the academic staff surveyed
also gave a positive answer to this question. However, according to the views of students and
teachers, mobility was significantly affected more in countries hit “harder” by the pandemic,
such as China and Italy . As far as the positive response for incoming mobility is concerned, they
seem to be quite different compared to the ones for outgoing mobility. More specifically, 48%
of the students stated that incoming mobility was negatively affected by Covid-19, while only
27% of the teachers thought so. Finally, participants were asked what changes were made to
the process mobility. Most students and teachers felt that mobility activities were simply
postponed for a period of time and some that they were canceled. Fewer respondents answered
that some activities were simply relocated and that some were replaced by other forms of
mobility, such as virtual mobility (Rumbley, 2020). The decrease in mobile students is also
reflected in the research of Causey, Harnack-Eber, Huie, Lang, Liu, Ryu and Shapiro (2020),
which compared the mobility of students in the winter semester of 2020 to the one in the winter
semesters of 2019 and 2018. The results showed that the reduction was sharp and rapid.
The International Association of Universities conducted a global survey on the impacts of
Covid-19 in Higher Education demonstrating that institutions experienced it differently: while
89% of the institutions responding to the survey stated that they suffered from the impact of
student mobility, only 33% indicated that all student exchanges have been cancelled. For
students who were mid-exchange when the pandemic hit, difficult decisions had to be made
about whether to continue their study abroad, or return home. Educational systems and
Page 11 of 15
70
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 2, February-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
embassies let the students decide, flagging that border closures and increasingly restrictive
travel measures could make international travel impossible (Girard, Vanston & Faïd, 2021).
A quantitative study examined the expectations of students from mainland China and Hong
Kong regarding studying abroad post-Covid and revealed that among the 2,739 respondents,
84% showed no interest in studying abroad after the pandemic. Barriers for students to pursue
their degrees overseas include travel bans, visa restrictions, and campus lockdowns in
destination countries, as well as students’ and their families’ worries about health and safety.
The countries most concerned are the US, UK, Australia, Japan, Canada and Germany, which
currently attract the most international students, who come predominantly from China, India
and Brazil. Chinese students are among those more likely to defer any application for a year,
reflecting the increased risks from coronavirus and from anti-China sentiment(Girard, Vanston
& Faïd, 2021).
In conclusion, an important aspect of the internationalization of universities is mobility, which
developed particularly in the first two decades of the 21st century. Universities place great
emphasis on this strategy of internationalization. Students and academic staff travel within the
European area through inter-institutional agreements. Focusing on student mobility, the
benefits are manifold for both the students themselves and the universities as well as the host
countries. In particular, students seem to have mostly positive experiences from participating
in exchange programs, despite the fact that they encountered some bureaucracy and
adjustment difficulties. In 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic began to spread, mobility
programs were greatly affected. Therefore, universities had to find alternative
internationalization methods that would replace -temporarily though- mobility, such as online
courses and virtual mobility. Koris, Mato-Diaz and Hernández-Nanclares (2021) conducted
fourteen semi-structured interviews with incoming and outgoing international students about
their virtual mobility experience. The results showed that virtual mobility was a real challenge
for Erasmus students due to reduced social interaction. It was noted that there was a lack of
cultural knowledge about the destination country as well as a lack of ideas or images that
typically arise from face-to-face teaching and social interactions. However, the findings show
that students were satisfied with their academic achievements and the flexibility of virtual
mobility programs.
STUDENTS’ MOBILITY AND INTERNATIONALIZATION: CONCLUSIONS
A central indicator of the internationalization of universities is the number of incoming and
outgoing students. The importance of student mobility is first demonstrated by the discussion
around this topic in the 1980s and 1990s, as evidenced by the first mobility programs. This
policy axis was also developed within the Bologna Process in 1999 and steps were taken to
promote it. At the same time, the importance of mobility is demonstrated by the increased
funding of the European Union in these programs (Teichler, 2001).
Student mobility has been increased in recent years. There is no doubt that the international
dimension of HE is becoming more and more important and at the same time quite complex
(Knight, 2012). 21st century universities are steadily pursuing the adoption of an
internationalized policy, aiming to expand the incoming and outgoing student mobility and
thus, increase their visibility, reputation, competitiveness and at the same time improve the
Page 12 of 15
71
Kavasakalis, A., & Gkiza, T. (2022). European Higher Education Area, Internationalization and Students’ Mobility in 21st Century. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 9(2). 60-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.92.11582
quality of their curriculum, the provided teaching and learning as well as their research
programs.
The international dimension of the curricula has progressed from a simple foreign language
approach, which concerned the provision of English language courses, to the integration of
international, global, intercultural and comparative prospects in teaching and the learning
process as well as the content of the study program. Emphasis was placed on student learning
outcomes that include relevant international and intercultural knowledge, skills and values
(Knight, 2012). It could be concluded that universities are constantly trying to formulate
internationalized curricula. Universities offer in study programs many courses in English,
which attracts students from foreign countries, as this facilitation is an incentive for them.
Students have the opportunity to attend classes in a foreign country with a program tailored to
their capabilities, while they discover the educational system of the host country, the way the
University operates, the teaching method as well as the level of the students. At the same time,
students, apart from the academic advantages they acquire or the living advantages, they have
the opportunity to socialize with students from many different countries as well as with the
locals and thus gain an improved intercultural perception and tolerance. In fact, many times,
these students "advertise" the educational institution in their country and thus attract more
students.
In addition, if universities departments are successful host mobility institutions, they increase
their competitiveness and can improve their international image. At the same time, through
student mobility, international partnerships are promoted, since, apart from the transfer of
knowledge, know-how and innovation, a Credit Transfer and Accumulation System takes place,
as well as the procedures for conducting joint research programs between universities are
facilitated. Thus, the universities cooperate on more favorable terms and a better
understanding is achieved between them.
In conclusion, in the last two decades it seems that the student and academic staff mobility in
EHEA has increased, a fact that brings the universities closer to achieving the goals they have
set regarding internationalization, which seems to bring multiple benefits to both themselves
and to their students. However, in the context of this effort, Universities could organize and
implement additional (to mobility), internationalization actions, since internationalization is a
multidimensional process that not only creates challenges for the institution, but multiple
benefits as well.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Τhis paper has been financed by the funding programme “MEDICUS”, of the University of Patras.
Page 13 of 15
72
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 2, February-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
References
Aslan, B., & Jacobs, D. B. (2014). Erasmus Student Mobility: Some Good Practices According to Views of Ankara
University Exchange Students. Journal of Education and Future, (5), 57-72. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279204563_Erasmus_Student_Mobility_Some_Good_Practices_Accor
ding_to_Views_of_Ankara_University_Exchange_Students
Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining Internationalization at Home. The European Higher Education Area, 59–
72. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_5
Causey, J., Harnack-Eber, A., Huie, F., Lang, R., Liu, Q., Ryu, M., & Shapiro, D. (2020). COVID-19 Transfer, Mobility,
and Progress, Report, 1. Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
Clifford, V., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Challenging conceptions of Western Higher Education and developing
graduates as global citizens. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1), 28–45. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12029
Costello, J. (2015). Students’ Stories of Studying Abroad: Reflections Upon Return. Journal of International
Students, 5 (1), 50-59. doi: 10.32674/jis.v5i1.442
Denson, N., Loveday, T., & Dalton, H. (2010). Student evaluation of courses: what predicts satisfaction? Higher
Education Research & Development, 29 (4), 339–356. doi:10.1080/07294360903394466
De Wit, H. (2011). Internationalization Misconceptions. International Higher Education,
64. doi:10.6017/ihe.2011.64.8556
De Wit, H. (2015). Academics must have key role in internationalisation. Retrieved from
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20150429112419734
De Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2015). Understanding Internationalisation of higher education in the European context,
In De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard L., & Egron Polak, E. (Eds.), Internationalisation of Higher Education (pp. 41-58).
Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies.
Egron-Polak, E., Hudson, R., & Sandstrom, A.M. (2015). Quantifying internatiolisation-Empirical evidence of
internatolisation oh higher education in Europe. In H. de Wit, F. Hunter, L. Howard, & E. Egron-Polak (Eds.),
Internationalisation of Higher education (pp. 59-76). Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for
Internal Policies.
European Commission. (1994). Cooperation in Education in the European Union 1976-1994. Luxembourg: Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission. (2014). Social Innovation. A decade of changes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.
European Commission. (2015a). Erasmus – Facts, Figures and Trends. The European Support for Student and Staff
Exchanges and University Cooperation in 2013-14. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2015). Methodological manual on learning mobility in tertiary education. Retrieved
from:https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/3bc0cfff-6ba0-462b- a7995b75490868b7/Methodological%20manual%20on%20LM_rev_28072015.pdf
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2020). The European Higher Education Area in 2020. Bologna Process.
Implementation Report. Luxembourg : Publications Office of the European Union.
European University Association. (2020). European higher education in the Covid-19 crisis. Belgium: International
Association of Universities.
Fatoni, Arifiatib, N., Nurkhayatic, E., Nurdiawatid, E., Fidziah, Pamungkasf, G., Adhag, S., Irawanh, Purwantoi, A.,
Julyantoj, O., & Azizi, E. (2020). University Students Online Learning System During Covid-19 Pandemic:
Advantages, Constraints and Solutions. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11 (7), 570-576. Retrieved from
https://www.sysrevpharm.org/fulltext/196-1602175161.pdf
Georghiou, L., & Larédo, P. (2015). Dimensions of internationalisation – universities at home and abroad.
Retrieved from https://hal-upec-upem.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01275905/document
Page 14 of 15
73
Kavasakalis, A., & Gkiza, T. (2022). European Higher Education Area, Internationalization and Students’ Mobility in 21st Century. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 9(2). 60-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.92.11582
Girard, I., & Vanston, F., & Faïd, E. (2021). Grounded: the impact of Covid-19 on academic exchanges. Retrieved
from https://www.right-to-education.org/es/node/1368
Govaris, Ch., & Roussakis, I. (2008). European Union: Policies in Education. Athens: Pedagogical Institute [In
Greek].
Harrison, N. (2015). Practice, problems and power in “internationalisation at home”: critical reflections on recent
research evidence. Teaching in Higher Education, 20 (4), 412–430. doi:10.1080/13562517.2015.1022147
Jibeen, T., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education: Potential Benefits and Costs.
International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 4 (4), 196-199. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1091722
Khan, M.A., Omrane, A., & Bank, D. (2016). The Role of Internationalization in the Higher Education Industry: An
Exploratory Study. International Journal of Economics & Strategic Management of Business Process, 7, 86-99.
Retrieved from http://ipco-co.com/ESMB/ESMB/2.pdf
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 8(1), 5–31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832
Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization Brings Important Benefits as Well as Risks. International Higher Education,
(46). doi:10.6017/ihe.2007.46.7939
Knight, J. (2012). Student Mobility and Internationalization: Trends and Tribulations. Research in Comparative
and International Education, 7(1), 20–33. doi:10.2304/rcie.2012.7.1.20
Koris, R., Mato-Díaz, F. J., & Hernández-Nanclares, N. (2021). From real to virtual mobility: Erasmus students’
transition to online learning amid the COVID-19 crisis. European Educational Research Journal, 20(4), 463–478.
doi:10.1177/1474904121102124
Lanzendorf, U., & Teichler, U. (2002). ERASMUS Under the Umbrella of SOCRATES: An Evaluation Study. In U.
Teichler (Ed.), ERASMUS in the SOCRATES programme. Findings of an Evaluation Study (pp. 13-28) . Bonn:
Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaft. Retrieved from: https://www.lemmens.de/dateien/medien/buecher- ebooks/aca/2002_erasmus_in_the_socrates_programme.pdf.
Leask, B. (2015). Internationalising the curriculum. London: Routledge
Llurda, E., Gallego-Balsà, L., Barahona, C., & Martin-Rubió, X. (2016). Erasmus student mobility and the
construction of European citizenship. The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 323–
346. doi:10.1080/09571736.2016.1210911
Mak, A.S., & Kennedy, M. (2012) Internationalising the Student Experience: Preparing Instructors to Embed
Intercultural Skills in the Curriculum. Innovative Higher Education, 37, 323–334. doi 10.1007/s10755-012-9213-
4
McLeod, M., & Wainwright, P. (2008). Researching the Study Abroad Experience. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 13(1), 66–71. doi:10.1177/1028315308317219
Pasias, G. (2006). European Union and Education. Institutional Reason and Educational Policy (1950-1999).
Volume A'. Athens: Gutenberg [In Greek].
Rodríguez González, C., Bustillo Mesanza, R., & Mariel, P. (2011). The determinants of international student
mobility flows: an empirical study on the Erasmus programme. Higher Education, 62(4), 413–
430. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9396-5
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Niehaus, E. K. (2011). One Year Later: The Influence of Short-Term Study Abroad
Experiences on Students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(2), 213–228. doi:10.2202/1949-
6605.6213
Rumbley, L. (2020). Coping with COVID-19: International higher education in Europe. European Association for
International Education. Retrieved from: https://www.eaie.org/our-resources/library/publication/Research- and-trends/Coping-with-COVID-19--International-higher-education-in-Europe.html
Saisana, M., B. d’Hombres, & A. Saltelli (2011). Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy
implications. Research Policy, 40, 165–177.
Page 15 of 15
74
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 2, February-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Salajan, F. D., & Chiper, S. (2012). Value and benefits of European student mobility for Romanian students:
experiences and perspectives of participants in the ERASMUS programme. European Journal of Higher Education,
2(4), 403–422. doi:10.1080/21568235.2012.737999
Scott, P. (2011). Universities are all 'internationalising' now. Retrieved from:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jun/07/universities-global-ambitions-internationalising
Stackley, D., & de Wit, H. (2011). Global trends in higher education and the significance of international networks.
In de Wit, H. (Ed.) Trends, issues and Challenges in internationalisation of higher education (pp. 45-58).
Amsterdam: Centre for Applied Research on Economics and Management (CAREM).
Sursock, A. (2015). Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities. Belgium: European University
Association. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279950904_Trends_2015_Learning_and_Teaching_in_European_Uni
versities
Teichler, U. (2001). Changes of ERASMUS under the Umbrella of SOCRATES. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 5(3), 201–227. doi:10.1177/102831530153003
Teichler, U. (2009b). Student Mobility and Staff Mobility in the European Higher Education Area Beyond 2010. In
B.M. Kehm, J. Huisman & B. Stensaker (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area: perspectives on a moving
target (pp. 183-201). Rotterdam: Sense.
Teichler, U. (2010). The many forms of internationalisation. In Smolarczyk, R. (Ed.), Going International: HRK
Conference on Internationalisation Strategies (pp. 21-41). Bonn: Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, Beiträge zur
Hochschulpolitik.
Teichler, U. (2012). International Student Mobility and the Bologna Process. Research in Comparative and
International Education, 7(1), 34–49. doi:10.2304/rcie.2012.7.1.34
Teichler, U. (2019). Bologna and student mobility: a fuzzy relationship. Innovation: The European Journal of Social
Science Research, 1–21. doi:10.1080/13511610.2019.1597685
The Bologna Process (1999). Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Bologna, 19.6.1999
Wächter, B. (2008). Mobility and Internationalisation in the European Higher Education Area. In M. Kelo (Ed.),
Beyond 2010: priorities and challenges for higher education in the next decade (pp. 13-42). Bonn: Lemmens.
Whitsed, C., & Green, W. (2015). Internationalization of the Curriculum and the “New Normal’: An Australian
Perspective. International Higher Education, (83), 13–15. doi:10.6017/ihe.2015.83.9081
Weissova, L., Marioni, G., & Leite, J.R. (2020). Students: the missing perspective on the COVID experience. Retrieved
from: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200918141718595
Vainio-Mattila, A. (2009). Internationalizing curriculum: A new kind of education? New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, (118), 95–103. doi:10.1002/tl.356
Vasilopoulos, A., & Mavrogianni, R. (2017). Forms of International Higher Education: The European Research
Area (ERA). In F. Asderaki (Επιμ.), 1st International Conference Studying, Teaching, Learning the European Union,
1-3 September 2017 (p. 187-201). Piraeus: Sideris Publications [In Greek].