Abstract

One of the major EU policy objectives is to enhance the international mobility of students. The Leuven Communique published in 2009 set an objective of increasing the ratio of European Higher Education Area (EHEA) higher education graduates participating in a study or a training period abroad to at least 20% by 2020. However, currently the majority of European Union Member States perform significantly below the target in this respect. Also, since a low number of students are interested in mobility programmes, the funds of the Erasmus-type student mobility programs remain unused. This study focuses on highlighting the factors that represent barriers to student participation in mobility programs. After conducting a literature review on international student mobility and presenting major statistics describing outbound mobility, this study investigates factors related to institutional components of the higher education system that affect the international mobility of Erasmus young people. Among the explanatory factors related to Erasmus-type student mobility, cultural factors including Hofstede’s indulgence and uncertainty avoidance seem to have the greatest influence on student mobility intentions in Europe. The findings revealed that better planned Erasmus processes (pre-, during and postmobility activities such as departure, course choice, staying in a host country, etc.) and better communicated career opportunities and labour market values of the mobility could considerably contribute to an increase in the number of outbound students. One of the main lessons learned from the conducted analyses is that Europe’s rich cultural diversity needs to be considered in the course of promoting the Erasmus Programme in Europe. In addition to adopting common communication, promotion and direction strategies, programmes need to be elaborated that take national specificities into account.

Highlights

  • The Bologna Declaration (1999) targeting the creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) set out six main goals, one of the key pillars of which was to facilitate the mobility of students, teachers and researchers and to recognise qualifications and periods of study

  • Since a low number of students are interested in mobility programmes, the funds of the Erasmus-type student mobility programs remain unused

  • This study focuses on highlighting the factors that represent barriers to student participation in mobility programs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The Bologna Declaration (1999) targeting the creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) set out six main goals, one of the key pillars of which was to facilitate the mobility of students, teachers and researchers and to recognise qualifications and periods of study. Bologna Ministerial Conference in Leuven, states that in 2020 at least 20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad. This objective was further developed in the ‘Education and Training 2020’ work programme (a part of the Europe 2020 strategy), which stipulated that students participating in mobility abroad should have a minimum of 15 ECTS credits or the mobility should last a minimum of three months (Agostini & Capano 2013, p.153). Studies abroad with the aim of obtaining a degree contribute to meeting the objectives set by the Leuven Communiqué as just much as Erasmus-type studies or practical workplace

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.