2.1. The definition and typology of international student mobility
By international student mobility, the author means the phenomenon of students spending study periods abroad. The study period can be from three months1 to some years. In this paper the focus will be on credit mobility and diploma mobility. Before distinguishing these two types, student mobility will be discussed in general.
Some authors narrow down the definition of student mobility; Murphy-Lejeune (2002:1) states that student mobility is itself “a short–term stay abroad, usually one academic year of nine to twelve months duration”. King and colleagues in their report (King et al. 2010) also agree that student mobility implies a shorter period, but there is little agreement on what
‘short’ means. Other authors’ define short-term mobility as mobility with a duration of maximum one semester (Golay 2006; Fitzsimmonsa et al. 2013).
When talking about international student mobility we must distinguish structured mobility (mobility programmes, study-abroad programmes) and unstructured mobility (individual mobility). Teichler and Steube (1991) defined the four main characteristics of study abroad programmes as follows: (1) established arrangement between sending and receiving institution; (2) provide opportunity for regular exchange; (3) supporting organisational and educational structure; and (4) provision that student performance during study period abroad is recognised at the sending institution to some extent. Furthermore they compared the features of both types of mobility, whose summary is shown in Table 1. According to the same authors (Teichler and Steube 1991:326) the aims of such programmes are to provide institutional study support and to assure a certain quality.
1 The minimum 3 months is determined in accordance with the Mobility strategy 2020 for the EHEA (EHEA Ministerial Conference, 2012) which declares that the mobility target period spent abroad should last minimum 3 months or should include the acquiring of 15 ECTS credits.
141 Table 1 Differences between mobility programmes and individual mobility
Structured programmes Unstructured
mobility
Destination options Limited Boarder range of options Support to student by
receiving institution
Guaranteed Not guaranteed
Curricular coherence with study programme at home institution
Guaranteed Not guaranteed
Conditions More strict Less strict
Source: Own compilation based on Teichler & Steube (1991).
Study abroad programmes have a strong tradition especially in the USA. Therefore, most authors writing about the typology of such programmes are American such as Engle and Engle (2003), who classified study-abroad programmes into five levels. In their work they defined study tour as level 1, which is followed by short-term study (level 2), cross-cultural contact program (level 3), cross-cultural encounter program (level 4) and cross-cultural immersion program (level 5), all of which serve the international dimension of higher education.
Beside the earlier explained, Woodfield (2010) distinguished physical and virtual international student mobility, which makes the picture more complex. For now, we focus on the physical mobility, which involves actual crossing of country borders. In the next section the credit mobility and diploma mobility will be defined.
2.2. Credit mobility vs. diploma mobility
Techiler and colleagues (Teichler et al. 2011:27) give the most comprehensive definition for credit mobility, which is “mobility of a shorter duration (up to 1 academic year) which takes place in the framework of ongoing studies at a home intuition. After the credit/temporary mobility phase, students return to their home institution to complete their studies.” The term itself includes the word “credit”, because another characteristic of this kind of mobility is that students earn credit during their stay abroad. The term has a strong European relevance, since it is closely linked to the Bologna Process and the use of ECTS credits in Europe.
To facilitate credit mobility, in some countries it is obligatory to take a study abroad period of one semester. In other universities so-called mobility windows are embedded into the curricula of the academic programmes, in order to facilitate outward student mobility (Teichler et al. 2011), which will manifest in inward mobility in the receiving institution.
Credit mobility may be structured and unstructured. The most significant credit mobility programmes in the Central and Eastern European Region are the Erasmus, recently
142
restructured and renamed to Erasmus+, the CEEPUS (Central European Exchange Program for University Studies), and the EEA and Norway Grants. All of them have similar characteristics in terms of purpose, conditions and grant, but the volume shows great inequality; Erasmus+ takes 80% of all credit mobility in Europe (Teichler et al. 2011).
If we would like place Central Eastern European credit mobility programmes on Engle and Engle’s (2003, see above) scale of study abroad programmes, CEE programmes would be the combination of level 4 and level 5 programmes (Table 2.)
Table 2 Study abroad levels
academic year Semester to academic year Semester to academic year
Source: *Engle and Engle (2003:10), ** Own compilation, Huják.
143 On the other hand, diploma (or degree) mobility is “aimed at the acquisition of a whole degree or qualification in the country of destination” (Teichler et al. 2011:27). Thus diploma mobility’s duration is usually 1-5 years, which is typically longer then the duration of credit mobility. Reasons for applying for a diploma programme abroad may be the limited offer of degree programmes at home or their moderate quality. Students with such motivations often return home after graduation to use the obtained knowledge for the benefit of their home countries. Another reason for choosing an abroad diploma programme may be the future career plans abroad, which is closely linked to migration prospects. Students in this category usually do not plan to return home after graduation. This latter type has implications for brain drain.
In case of diploma mobility, structured programmes are less typical, although there are some, such as the Fulbright Programme, the Visegrad Scholarship Programme and numerous scholarship funds based on bilateral agreement between governments.
Individual diploma mobility is much more frequent. In those higher educational institutions where the internationalisation aspect is of high importance designated offices work on the recruitment of individual diploma mobile students, who (in most cases) pay tuition fee. To have a closer look in the tuition fees and the associated income for the universities, the following section will introduce a unique typology of student mobility.
2.3. Income generating/ non income generating
To take a managerial point of view, it is worth to distinguish student mobility types based on their income generating nature. The author’s initial idea was to distinguish tuition fee-paying and non tuition fee-fee-paying programmes. From this perspective fee–fee-paying option is when the student has an expense associated with the education costs (tuition fee). But it became clear that it is wiser to differentiate rather from the receiving institution’s point of view. This bore the idea of using the income generating and non income generating terminology instead, which is unique in the literature of student mobility. This typology can give the HEI’s management a clear idea of the financial results of the internationalisation activity. Income generating mobility programmes are those, which bring income in the form of tuition fee for the institution. From this point of view it is not important whether the student or a fund pays the fee.
To reach a better understanding it is worth to further divide this type of mobility to structured and unstructured income generating mobility. On one hand, in case of structured income generating mobility, besides the tuition fee, the awarded students receive accommodation, insurance and a monthly grant as well, these costs are all covered by the given fund, thus the student does not have expenses associated with the education costs.
Let us see some examples form the CEE region. The recently launched Stipendium Hungaricum programme offers scholarship for talented students from certain third-countries in Hungarian higher education institutions on such basis (Balassi Institute, n.d.). In the CEE
144
Region the Visgerad Scholarhsip Program (VSP) offers similar opportunity for students.
The well-known Fulbright programme also covers in many cases all the costs of the awarded student (tuition fee, housing, living-costs, insurance) for an entire academic programme. On the other hand, unstructured income generating mobility means students are studying abroad (for a diploma or for only a shorter period) individually and are covering their tuition fee and other expenses by themselves.
When talking about the Erasmus+ programme, the CEE region’s most influential programme, it is important to see that the program itself does not generate any income for either the sending or the receiving institution. Thus Erasmus+ student mobility is not at all an income generating programme from the institution’s point of view. However, the numerous benefits of the programme has long been realised and acknowledged. In the following section the benefits of the Erasmus+ and similar credit mobility programmes will be discussed.
2.4. Benefits of inward student mobility
It has been confirmed by numerous researches that student exchange programmes benefit the student’s personal growth and competence building (Freed 1995; DuFon - Churchill 2006; Relyea et al. 2008; Franklin 2010; Wiers-Jenssen 2008; Cubillos - Ilvento 2013;
Douglas - Jones-Rikkers 2001; Van Hoof - Verbeeten 2005; Messer - Wolter 2007). It is supported that the longer the study abroad period is, the more significant and the more enduring their impact will be (Dwyer 2004; Cubillos - Ilvento 2013). However, when viewing the advantages gained during a mobility period we must not forget that a boomerang effect might distort the results and some of the students’ gains, since the benefits of studying abroad may fade or be lost with time without further intervention (Rexeisen 2013).
Further studies report on the benefits of the Erasmus+ programme. Out of which the most comprehensive is the work of Bracht et al (2006). They report that Erasmus students’
competences were reinforced by their study abroad period in terms of foreign language competences, international urbanity, in-depth knowledge of the receiving country, personal and social behaviour and also in planning, coordinating and organising.
Apart from the affect on the personal growth, inward student mobility has a significant effect and may also have significant benefits on the receiving institution. The volume of international student mobility has always been an important indicator of the level of internationalisation of a given region, country or institution. And this represents the benefits of inward student mobility from the institutions’ point of view. In the following the meaning and importance of internationalisation in the CEE Region will be discussed.
The internationalisation of higher education has been a central topic in higher education research since decades. The term “internationalisation” was introduced in the higher education research in the 1980s (Knight 2008) and since then numerous definitions (van
145 der Wende 1997) have been used to capture its meaning. According to an often cited definition, “internationalisation of higher education is the process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into teaching, research and service functions of the institution” (Knight 1994:7). This definition embraces all aspects and due to its broad nature, leaves many open questions. Still, it captures an important element, which is process orientation. This means that internationalisation can not exist without an internationalisation strategy.
Internationalisation strategies may be explicit or implicit. In the EU there is a huge diversity in the internationalisation strategies and policies (Teichler 2004), as well in the CEE region.
In Hungary few HEIs have internationalisation strategies, which is also represented by the number of leaders designated for internationalisation tasks. Out of 28 Hungarian higher education institutions, 11 has a vice-rector responsible for international affaires (Kováts 2012). This number and the importance of internationalisation should be increased, for the following logic.
According to Lajos (2005) Hungarian higher education institutions have two options for a competent institutional strategy. These options are, either (option A) to aim their profile for the Hungarian market with wide range of academic programmes and focus on attracting students in large numbers (keywords: Hungary, mass, variety of programmes). The other alternative (option B) is to specialize in a certain field and conquer the European market (keywords: Europe+Hungary, elite, specialized). This idea was developed in 2005. Since then, the idea needs adjustment, due to two major changes and trends. First, the student pool is decreasing because of the demographic changes and recently the Hungarian government intervenes more intensively in the training structure than before. Thus, option A may seem less rewarding for several institutions; for them option B, with a strong international market orientation remains the only option.
Lajos (2005) focused in his study on Hungary, a country from the CEE region. He was clear with the situation in higher education in the region, thus by internationalisation he rather meant Europeanisation. We must not forget that different parts of the world are at different stages of the internationalisation process. CEE region is at the initial levels, while for example the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia are at high levels with their developed international education cities (regional hubs) (Knight 2011).
Consequently, the benefits of inward student mobility lie in its nature as a key for realising the internationalising strategies of higher educational institutions; these strategies in the long run may serve the sustainability and stable operation of HEIs in the CEE region. The benefits of student mobility are stronger in case of diploma mobility than in case of credit mobility. Hence it is important to create an action plan within the internationalisation
146
strategy of the institution for increasing the number of inward diploma mobile students.
Next, a model is shown which may serve as a base for such action plans.