A thought-provoking paper poses important questions on the 20% learning mobility target in Europe, and potential changes to that benchmark.
Since 2009, the countries of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) pursue the target of having 20% of all higher education graduates having participated in learning mobility as part of their studies. Supported by the Erasmus+ programme, public authorities and higher education institutions (HEI) have been making great efforts to make progress towards this target. However, Europe-wide the goal was not reached by 2020, with the average rate remaining at around 15%. In Switzerland, the current rate is similar with 15.7%. In 2020, European education ministers reaffirmed that they want to achieve the 20% goal, which is still unmet to this day.
In light of next year’s Bologna Process Ministerial Conference to be held in Tirana, Albania, the European Universities Association (EUA) published a briefing entitled ‘Going beyond the 20% student mobility benchmark’. The briefing further adds to the reflection that the European Commission (EC) is currently undertaking for a draft Council Recommendation on a new learning mobility framework, expected to be published later this year.
The briefing proposes a radical re-definition of student learning mobility and its target with the purpose of contributing to the debate. The paper states that the 20% target is unreachable, unless physical mobility is expanded and the target is redefined. This assessment is also based on the significant disruptions that happened in Europe since 2020, notably the covid-19 pandemic, Brexit and the war in Ukraine. Covid-19 made virtual teaching, learning and mobility much more widely used – often paired with the conviction that it cannot (at least fully) replace in person teaching and mobility. Brexit ended free movement of people for the UK and also replaced full association to Erasmus+ with the more limited newly created Turing Scheme. According to the briefing, these two Brexit effects are likely to adversely affect mobility numbers in Europe as it makes studying in the UK more costly and complicated. Lastly, the war in Ukraine led to displacements of students that distort the mobility figures further.
When it comes to expanding physical mobility, the briefing proposes to improve the recognition of qualifications attained on learning mobility, to foster cross-border quality assurance, and finally to build in mobility windows in the curricula. These measures are supported by the Commission. Further, cross-border traineeships undertaken by graduates outside Erasmus+ should also be counted towards the mobility target. Lastly, mobilities in non-formal and informal learning should be counted too. With all the suggestions, the question of how to measure and collect reliable data remains open. The upcoming European Higher Education Sector Observatory by the Commission could play a role in refining metrics to improve data collection.
When it comes to “re-engineering the benchmark” the author suggests to broaden the definion of ‘mobile students’. For example, the paper mentions the possibility to count students enrolled in “branch campuses and foreign franchises”; they should be partially counted (e.g. 0.5) depending on how strong the international character of the teaching body, language and content is. A second suggestion is to divide the benchmark into three separate targets for Bachelor, Master and Doctorate programmes. The rationale behind this distinction would be to highlight the higher rate of mobility that are observed in MA and PhD cycles, where the 20% target could be reached. A third element is the controversial question of whether or how to count virtual or blended mobility. In a context of greening mobility and tighter budgets, virtual mobility could be a “fall-back option” when physical mobility is not possible. The paper calls for a debate towards creating a consensus on how to count and consider this option. Is it a type of mobility? The Erasmus+ programme currently funds virtual exchanges with Western Balkan countries for example. Or is it at least a valuable “international student experience”? There are considerations from the EC to count virtual or at least blended mobilities towards the 50% mobility target that was set within the European Universities Initiative (EUI). Finally, the paper proposes the option of counting the Bachelor mobility separately to focus the attention and efforts in that area particularly.
These debates are very relevant for the future of learning mobility, balancing the different goals of promoting mobility, while fostering greening and inclusion. The ongoing Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation is providing an important space for debate on these issues and the upcoming new Learning Mobility Framework will provide important guidance going forward.