Search results

Credit mobility has been acknowledged not only to broaden personal and intellectual horizons but also to have positive effects on the skills development and employability of undergraduate students. Academics, policymakers and organizations representing the labour market have presented a broad number of skills-related explorations proposing different frameworks to help develop students' skills. However, the identification of explicit skills is still a difficult endeavour. This study aims to revise main conceptual skills frameworks applicable in the European higher education area (EHEA), determine the skills relevant in European credit mobility and categorize skills among the examined schemes in order to create a normative model of the skills students should obtain in exchange programmes.

The approach used to identify related literature was a search in three main databases such as Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for scientific and relevant articles after 1990 using the following combination of keywords: “skill frameworks” AND “higher education” OR “skill frameworks” AND “mobility exchange programs”. It produced 391 articles but only 32 deal with skill frameworks in European higher education. After the review of these existing literature (summaries, tables and conclusions), we found out that most articles focused on specific skills (transferable, employable, etc.) in the EHEA, but merely 16 academic publications offered a complete depiction of skills frameworks applicable in credit mobility programs. Most current accounts about skills outlines, specifically the ones related to employability, come from grey literature, namely comprehensive records and reports.

Data seem to confirm that there is scarce agreement on a common taxonomy of skills. However, considering the results, which summarize relevant educational, institutional and occupational perspectives, it can be noticed that there is consensus on the classification of only four skills: ICT, literacy and numeracy, which are considered basic, key or core skills in most researched papers together with problem solving, which is generally regarded as a cognitive skill. The general tendency is that policymakers and academia focus on some particular domains: basic/key, core/global foundation/fundamental skills, transferable, transversal and other skills. Studies analysing the workforce skill requirements have projected mainly cognitive and learning skills, whereas mobility programmes concede relevance to employability, management, career and life skills.

Measuring skills involves limitations as records vary depending on continuous emerging data from institutions, occupations and education. The key frameworks surveyed have provided a representative classification and depiction of the current skills from specific perspectives which are also believed to have their shortcomings. In combination, however, it is believed that the results presented can help provide a theoretical basis for assessing skills in credit mobility and Erasmus programmes within the EHEA. The resulting framework presents a founded basis for skills appraisal which expects to be meaningful for various stakeholders and helps determine how mobility policies can help improve the attainment of skills in the EHEA.

Research has suggested that education systems will have to adapt to the changing needs of the labour markets' reshaping roles to balance technology and human intellect. The workforce seems to realize that cognitive skills such as problem solving, organization and decision-making are needed in today's society; advanced basic learning skills such as numeracy and literacy are essential. Findings appoint to new areas for exploration in skills development in order to prepare European higher education students for current trends in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the fusion between digital, physical and biological spheres.

Data seem to confirm that a sole degree does not guarantee success, but the maturity of certain skills and the commitment to lifelong learning. This can be strengthened by taking part in EHEA credit student mobility that has proved to improve not only basic and linguistic skills but also self-development and respect for several aspects such as diversity and (inter)cultural awareness. Taking into account the perceptive and interpersonal abilities mentioned in reports on future skills, it seems that education will need further support for updated teaching practices and assessment of the skills that are expected to have greater demand, namely STEM. Institutions will need to update and promote the teaching of new skills based on a new collective and moral consciousness as recently indicated in OECD's (2018) Global Competence in order to make future citizens understand and act on issues of universal significance in today's interconnected world.

For several decades, government, education and industry have proposed different outlines for what graduates should know and be able to do. Limited academic studies have been found, however, with updated concrete data on which skills should preferably be developed or whether and how students can further improve these skills as part of EHEA credit student mobility. This study has synthesized works and identified domains which featured the importance of generic core, cognitive and employability skills. The revision of skill frameworks has underscored existing literature and reports on future skills which anticipate that, in order to confront the expanding and prevalent role of technology, graduates will need to focus on developing unique human skills such as effective communication and creative innovation, critical thinking and collective ethical values.

International terrorism affects various areas of society. This paper aims to determine whether fear of terrorism is a barrier to international student mobility based on the opinions of representatives from four universities of the European International Business Week network.

Data were obtained through interviews with representatives of four universities. Two universities are located in relatively “safe” countries (Czech Republic and Finland), whereas the other two are located in countries recently hit by terrorist attacks (Brussels and Paris). The interviews were conducted between December 2016 and April 2017.

Terrorist attacks affected international student mobility in the two universities recently hit by terrorist attacks.

The research findings are relatively significant because they show how terrorist attacks can influence international student mobility. However, data are still limited. Data from other universities are necessary to verify causality.

The internationalisation of higher education is a strategic goal for many higher education institutions (HEIs). However, international terrorism may affect this goal. Understanding the impact of terrorism can be valuable in preparing policies for promoting the internationalisation of HEI.

International terrorism is increasingly an issue for many people and organisations, including HEI. Understanding how terrorism affects economies and societies can be crucial for policymakers and for citizens living in or visiting areas endangered by terrorism.

The paper describes the immediate impact of two terrorist attacks on international student mobility. The paper presents the fear of terrorist attacks and the shock caused by terrorism as major barriers to international student mobility.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the differences in international student mobility (SM) in two contrasting countries: UK and China, at national, institutional and individual levels. Both are countries in transition in a greater global context. The objective is to identify what these countries can learn from each other about the issues and policies surrounding the management of educational mobility.

An inductive approach was employed to understand real-life experience via multiple case studies. Participant observation and semi-structured interview methods with a variety of stakeholders were used to collect data which were then subjected to a thematic analysis to identify in which areas countries had developed good practice.

Over-arching themes were developed through comparing national findings. These reveal that national policy and family support are most influential in China, while British universities largely drive SM at an institutional level.

The significance of this knowledge lies in the potential for social impact and reform of successful mobility schemes. International mobility equates to social mobility through global employability of those who engage. Global citizenship is regarded as one of the paths to world peace and understanding. Mobilising a younger generation can contribute to better regional integration and international stability as part of an idealistic approach to geopolitics.

Concluding that neither country has a comprehensive and complete approach, this study proposes the areas in which all both could develop and details good practice. The value therefore emerges from the comparison and contrast and the practical focus of the research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the student mobility programs of the three initiatives – in Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization-Regional Institution of Higher Education and Development, University Mobility in Asia and Pacific (UMAP), and Campus Asia – and provide a comparative analysis of the respective programs in terms of the role of government, institutional involvement, quality assurance, and challenges. In addition, the paper will assess their impacts on higher education regionalization by regulatory models toward the end of the paper.

The study adopts qualitative document analysis as a major research method to explore the developmental models of three student mobility programs. Document analysis is an approach used to gather and review the content of existing written documentation related to the study in order to extract pieces of information in a rigorous and systematic manner.

ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS), Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Student in Asia (CAMPUS Asia), and UMAP student mobility schemes have a shared purpose in higher education regionalization, but with different regulatory frameworks and Functional, Organizational, and Political approach models. AIMS and CAMPUS Asia as a strong network and government-led initiatives adopt a combination of functional, organizational, and political approaches; UMAP provides university-driven regional mobility programs with a hybridized force. However, all three of them face the same challenges at regional and national levels, such as different national regulation, coordination among participants, and implementation of credit transfer schemes.

The scale of three student mobility programs is still low, which results in limited impact on higher education regionalization in Asia. However, a stronger decision-making model and increased financial support to universities and students are desirable for the creation of a sustainable and effective network.

This is an original research and makes a great contribution to Asian nations.

In response to COVID-19 global outbreaks, Canada, and Australia, two favored destinations by international students, as the contexts of this essay, have enacted different international education policies, which will be investigated through the narratives. The authors discuss transnationality and mobility as key terms in the internationalization of higher education (HE) studies through their experiences as three Vietnamese doctoral students in Canada and Australia. Transnationality is attended through a narrative of a Vietnamese returnee struggling with bringing unfamiliar knowledge of gender and sex education from the West into a Vietnamese HE context. Mobility is unpacked through stories of a Vietnamese doctoral student in Canada stuck in Vietnam due to the COVID-19 despite inviting policies from the Canadian government to international students. This experience is connected to another Vietnamese student’s experience in Australia about a controversial act to discourage international students from staying in Australia if they cannot support themselves during the pandemic. The authors’ stories are created and retold personally for introspective and contemplative reflections on what the authors have experienced and offer considerations for how transnationality and mobility in international and comparative education could be understood through education, equity, and inclusion.

This paper explores the issue of developing and enhancing intra-ASEAN international student mobility given the context of ASEAN integration, regionalization of ASEAN higher education and the various intra‐ASEAN student mobility schemes currently implemented.

It explores higher education policies, available higher education and international student mobility data, as well as the various intra‐ASEAN (and relevant) student mobility schemes to present the current status of intra‐ASEAN student mobility, challenges and opportunities to further enhance student mobility within the ASEAN region.

Aside from showing that intra‐ASEAN student mobility is significantly low compared to outbound student mobility from ASEAN countries, the paper also highlights the relationship between a country’s income status with choice of intra‐ASEAN or extraASEAN student mobility. Finally, it recommends developing a comprehensive intra‐ASEAN mobility scheme taking the merits of the various intra‐ASEAN mobility schemes currently implemented and guided by developments in the European ERASMUS mobility programs.

This is probably the first (in fact, it is an exploratory) paper that address the issue of intra‐ASEAN international student mobility, which aims to explore relevant issues to address the development of a comprehensive ASEAN mobility scheme.

This chapter presents findings from a qualitative study conducted among students from Germany, Hungary, Portugal, France, and Poland on their expectations and experiences of learning in two types of international mobility (physical and virtual) during the pandemic of 2020. The authors identified imprints of internationalization onto the students’ learning. They are of a binary nature and manifest themselves in the following dualities: Duality 1: Expectations (new life experiences) versus reality requirements (empowerment); Duality 2: Formal learning (at university) versus non-formal learning (outside formal environments as a part of daily life); Duality 3: Designing (the digital environment) versus reconstruction (the “old order” of university learning); Duality 4: Latitudes (choice of method, place, and time of learning) versus restrictions (staying at home and family responsibilities). Moreover, internationalization through student mobility programs simultaneously show features of some revolutionary changes and evolutionary transformations that have come about during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper reviews the national and institutional internationalization activities in Japan's higher education sector and considers the extent to which these efforts have attempted to incorporate and/or contribute to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This paper was developed based on a review of available demographic data on internationalization in Japan (in both English and Japanese), a survey of recent scholarly literature on this topic and conversations with numerous faculty and staff members working on internationalization issues in a wide range of higher education institutions throughout the country.

There are substantial internationalization efforts being made at both national and institutional levels, yet scholars and practitioners of higher education question the extent to which genuine internationalization is occurring. Moreover, the metrics used to track internationalization are somewhat limited and the available data, in many cases, can be complicated to interpret. A bit of tension also exists in Japanese universities between those who support the movement to internationalize and those who see it as a passing fad, an intrusion on their academic freedom and/or as a guise for Westernization – a tension that some cite, along with language barriers and system misalignment, as a challenge to internationalization.

Numerous scholars discuss the internationalization of higher education in Japan. The originality of this paper is in the comparison of Japan's higher education internationalization efforts to the movement to achieve the SDGs – both in Japan and as a global effort.

This paper aim to argue for Cambodia to take internationalization of higher education seriously and strategically to position it for higher education development, and this starts with enhancing its buy-in among the key stakeholders, fine-tuning its conceptualization and contextualization and a government-funded comprehensive policy and investment program.

This paper explores policies and practices of internationalization in Cambodia, using Knight's (2004, 2007) conceptualization of internationalization and Wan's (2018) list of six dimensions, by which the authors track and measure internationalization.

Systematic policy implementation to position internationalization to achieve national and institutional goals is little. Given utilitarianism of internationalization, policy statement has geared more toward employing internationalization to achieve institutional building, in order of significance: mobility, research collaboration, policy formulation and quality control, and much less on networking and aligning with international instruments. Subtle differences among the four universities under investigation exist. While all focus on student and faculty mobility and exchange, some aim at research collaboration and networks; some at indigenous “international” and language programs, and some at joint degree programs. But, internationalization is not a key priority nor is it strategically positioned to achieve institutional aspirations.

Without comprehensive, strategic policy guidance and implementation from the government, internationalization has taken its own course, and such is not healthy for higher education development.

There are few studies on internationalization in Cambodia. Clayton and Yuok (1997), Clayton (2002) and Pit and Ford (2004) examine politics or its politicization and higher education development after the end of the Eastern Bloc's support (Tek and Leng, 2017). Recent studies (Leng, 2015; Leng, 2016; Yun, 2014) underline institutional case studies to illustrate status, issues and challenges in internationalization. This article attempts to provide an overarching map of internationalization to inform policies and practices toward higher education and national development.

In the last decade, the speed and intensity with which regional level connections are expanding in all areas of the world has been remarkable. Higher education in Africa is no exception. This chapter focuses on African policies and programme initiatives to further higher education regionalization. Regionalization is defined as the process of ‘building closer collaboration and alignment among higher education actors and systems in a designated area or framework, commonly called a region’. An analytical framework, consisting of functional, organizational and political approaches, is applied to the evolution of higher education regionalization at the continental level in Africa through a close examination of the progress related to the implementation of the “African Union Strategy for the Harmonization of Higher Education Programmes.” Special emphasis is given to the harmonization of degree structures and the recognition of qualifications through sub-regional qualification frameworks. Key issues and challenges such as rationales, governance, benefits and risks, unintended consequences, language, engagement for all and innovation are raised at the end of the chapter to stimulate further reflection and exploration of the complex process of higher education regionalization.