The freedom of learning and the possibility for students to access a much wider educational offer are key elements for reshaping the European higher education landscape. Students are more mobile than ever, and new formats for teaching and learning readdress the need to rethink how academic curriculum is designed and developed. New tendencies and innovative approaches to education, such as micro-credentials, embedded mobility, digital credentialing, and flexible learning pathways open the way for true ‘universities without walls’ (EUA, 2021) across Europe. The global academic community is constantly changing; cooperation among universities grew in the past 20 years, facing a significant increase in student mobility, in Europe mainly due to Erasmus+ funding and mobility schemes and other Bologna Process tools (de Wit & Hunter, 2015, p. 1). Moreover, European universities intensified cooperation not only with partners from other European countries, but at an international level also, with partner from other continents (Claeys-Kulik, 2020, p. 10).

In such a global educational context, universities and policy makers can ask whether the increase in mobility can represent a tool for designing new curricular models, creating new educational programmes in which mobility and cultural exchanges become functional components and in which all graduates become international students. Such an approach could be done through academic degrees and programmes where mobility is embedded in the curriculum, in the shape of small mobility windows (up to one semester), taking advantage of new mobility schemes such as the Blended Intensive Programmes (European Commission, 2022, p. 49) or modular approaches, such as the ones proposed by some European Universities Alliances (Iucu et al., 2022, p. 26), based on a `micro-credentials philosophy`.

While setting up such a process can require significant changes in legislation, funding, pedagogical design, and administrative practices, the real impact of these changes need to be addressed to the potential beneficiaries, the students. In fact, the importance and relevance of physical mobility has been several times mentioned by students, stating the “physical mobility should be accessible to all students, and should not exclude certain groups” (ESU, 2020, p. 2), emphasising that reaching the 50% mobile students need to remain a constant desiderate of higher education policies across Europe.

In this regard, our research aims at understanding what is the students’ perception on embedded mobility in higher education programmes. The research proposes an exploratory analysis on how students view mobility as part of their educational pathway and possible downsides of transforming mobility as an opportunity to mobility as a necessary experience. Motivations for studying abroad by European exchange students have been addressed in a range of studies (Bryntesson et al., 2018; European Commission, 2017; Hovdhaugen & Wiers-Jenssen, 2021; Krzaklewska, 2008; Lesjak et al., 2015; Maiworm & Teichler, 2002; Murphy-Lejeune, 2002), the present research aiming to see, on top of motivational aspects, if differences appear when changing the scope of mobility and its relation with the degree. Different types of students will be included in the research, both junior students prior any mobility experience during their academic studies, as well as students who already participated in different mobility opportunities during their studies. Also, the research will focus on understanding what students value most in a mobility experience, to understand what aspects need to be intensified further in developing new mobility models and opportunities for higher education students. 

The dependent variable of the analyses will be a 20-30 item survey battery, starting from a similar version had been used in a previous study (Wiers-Jenssen, 2003), with items ranging from `very important` (4) to `not important` (1). The model will not be a Likert scale, but a scale measuring the importance of a particular item, in relation with personal perceptions of the respondents. The data collected will be used in descriptive analyses and analyses of average scores. Other variables will be collected thorough the survey, such as the students’ gender, level of study, field of study, parents’ level of education (highest graduated level), foreign language proficiency, and mobility capital (differentiating from students with previous foreign travel / living experience and those with none). For data analysis, three statistical methods will be used: factor analysis or correlations between items to explore latent variables influencing motivation for studying abroad, t-tests to investigate statistical significance between group means on summative indexes based on the factor analysis, and linear regression analysis on the factors extracted from the factor analysis, to investigate the influence of several background variables at the same time. For in-depth qualitative information on the students’ perception on embedded mobility, several focus-groups will be conducted with several students that responded to the survey. For organising the focus-groups, students will be asked to mention if they are open to take part in further discussions on the topic and accept to be contacted by the research team after filling the survey. The focus-groups will consist of 10-12 participants which will be guided in discussions based on a set of 5-7 open questions. The meetings will be recorded, and the data will be coded, and the information will be corroborated with the results of the survey.

Considering the novelty of mobility embeddedness in academic curricula and the mobility gap caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is difficult to foresee what will the students’ perceptions will be, as well as what are the motivations for students’ participation to learning mobilities and new educational experiences. Whereas the academic mobility numbers constantly increased before the pandemic, we are now witnessing a new start, in which students’ expectations and needs are changing, and new models for designing mobility opportunities appear. The present research will provide a valuable input in the discussions on reshaping academic curricula through embedded mobility, bringing the perspectives of potential beneficiaries, the students, and a clearer image on what is expected and needed from their side. Such information is valuable for any decision-maker and any decision in this direction must be built to respond to the needs of students and society at its whole.

Bryntesson, A., Börjesson, M., & Haru, A. (2018). From Sweden with ERASMUS+: The experiences, practices and preferences of outgoing exchange students (UHR Report Series 13). Swedish Council of Higher Education. http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1297943&dswid=6655 Claeys-Kulik, A-L., Jorgensen, T., & Stöber, H. (2020). International strategic institutional partnerships and the European Universities Initiative. Results of the EUA survey. European University Association. https://eua.eu/resources/publications/925:international-strategic-institutional-partnerships-and-the-european-universities-initiative.html de Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2015). The Future of Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe. International Higher Education, 83, 2-3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.83.9073 ESU. (2020). New European Universities and the old challenges. European Students’ Union. https://esu-online.org/?policy=new-european-universities-and-the-old-challenges European Commission. (2022). Erasmus+ Programme Guide. Version 2 (2023). Publications Office of the European Union. https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-01/ErasmusplusProgramme-Guide2023-v2_en.pdf European Commission. (2017). The Erasmus impact study: effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students and the internationalisation of higher education institutions. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/75468 EUA. (2021). Universities without walls: A vision for 2030. European University Association. https://eua.eu/resources/publications/957:universities-without-walls-%E2%80%93-eua%E2%80%99s-vision-for-europe%E2%80%99s-universities-in-2030.htm Hovdhaugen, E., & Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2021). Motivation for full degree mobility: analysing sociodemographic factors, mobility capital and field of study. Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1912712 Iucu, R., Ciolan, L., Nedelcu, A., Zus, R., Dumitrache, A., Carțiș, A., Vennarini, L., Fernández de Pinedo, N., & Pericică, A. (2022). Digitally enhanced mobility. CIVIS Handbook on Virtual Mobility. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6090251 Krzaklewska, E. (2008). Why study abroad? – An analysis of Erasmus students’ motivations. In M. Bryam & F. Dervin (Eds.), Students, staff and academic mobility in higher education (pp. 82-98). Cambridge Scholars Press. Lesjak, M., Juvan, E., Inteson, E. M., Yap, M. T. H., & Axelsson, E. P. (2015). Erasmus student motivation; Why and where to go. Higher Education, 70(5), 845-865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9871-0 Maiworm, F., & Teichler, U. (2002). The students’ experience. In U. Teichler (Ed.), Erasmus in the Socrates programme (pp. 83–116). Lemmens. Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student mobility and narrative in Europe. Routledge. Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2003). Norwegian Students Abroad: Experiences of students from a linguistically and geographically peripheral European country. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 391-411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000122251