Should Virtual Exchanges Be Counted in EU Student Mobility Numbers?
Wittenborg Staff Members Share Perspectives
In recent years, the availability of online courses and virtual exchange activities has increased significantly, driven by technological advancements and dramatic events like the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit and the conflict in Ukraine, which have hindered students' participation in in-person activities. This is prompting professionals, researchers and organisations to reassess the role of virtual exchanges in higher education.
An article published by PIE News in September discusses a briefing recently released by the European University Association (EUA), which urges ministers to reconsider how student mobility is counted in the European Higher Education Area. Based on the fact that the region has repeatedly failed to reach its target of 20% of students participating in study abroad opportunities, the briefing encourages virtual exchanges to be counted in EU mobility numbers.
Currently, the total mobility rate stands at around 10% for bachelor’s degree graduates, while it is higher at master’s and doctoral levels, at 16.1% and 17.3% respectively, according to the Bologna Implementation Report of 2020. This means that, according to the 20% benchmark established in 2009, bachelor’s students might be missing out on educational experiences.
The document suggests that it would make sense to replace the present target with a more differentiated approach, by distinguishing between degree cycles, but also credit and degree mobility. Moreover, the briefing argues that “given the urgency of the digital and green transitions, physical mobility needs to be blended with virtual mobility in ways which assure high quality and amenability to measurement.”
According to Wittenborg’s EU Project Manager, Aydan Holtrigter, student mobility is a vital component of international higher education that has far-reaching benefits for students, institutions and countries. Holtrigter underscores that it fosters cultural exchange, academic collaboration, economic growth and the development of global citizens, making it a cornerstone of the modern higher education landscape.
In her view, virtual mobility programmes offer numerous benefits in terms of accessibility, cost-efficiency and sustainability. Nevertheless, they also come with challenges related to the quality of education, lack of physical interaction, technical limitations and the so-called digital fatigue.
“Hybrid models that combine both virtual and physical mobility may provide the best of both worlds, offering diverse learning opportunities while addressing some of the drawbacks. However, in the long term I believe education institutions should not limit students to virtual mobility only, since the experience of living and studying abroad is irreplaceable. That is exactly what Wittenborg is prioritising at the moment when it comes to building its academic network for student exchange; we are opting for blended mobility possibilities.”
Head of the School of Business Rauf Abdul comments that virtual programmes offer advantages such as “increased access to education for students who may not have been able to participate in traditional programmes, flexibility in terms of scheduling and location and opportunities for international collaborations and networking.”
Despite that, Abdul highlights that some of the disadvantages of these educational modes include lack of face-to-face interaction and cultural immersion, potential for technical difficulties and connectivity issues and limited opportunities for experiential learning, such as field trips and internships.
“Some students argue that virtual exchanges cannot match the benefits of actual mobility. In my opinion, if virtual exchanges are carefully structured and complemented with some student mobility possibilities, they should be counted in EU mobility numbers as they provide opportunities for intercultural dialogue and soft skills development, and can complement physical mobility programmes in some ways,” he says.
For assistant professor Fahad Shakeel, although virtual mobility programmes are a good step, they do not seem to be as effective as in-person experiences. “I understand that in times of crisis, virtual mobility might have turned out to be a viable solution, but it should complement rather than replace physical mobility opportunities. On the one hand, it still lets students take a peek at a different learning experience, but on the other hand, it misses out on a lot of physical attributes that are important inspirational sources for personal growth.”
Shakeel believes that there should be separate benchmarks for virtual and physical mobility programmes, considering that both of them are vital at different levels and for different purposes. “Perhaps they can be set to focus on different learning outcomes, and this way they can contribute equally and uniquely to the student’s academic experience,” he concludes.
WUP 17/12/2023
by Ulisses Sawczuk