In view of the many challenges in the field of education, such as the shortage of teachers and adequate dealing with diversity in times of increasing uncertainty, there is a need for cross-border educational cooperation in order to prepare teachers adequately for their daily tasks in schools. The internationalisation of teacher education is seen by the European Commission as a possible approach to strengthen the European Higher Education Area as a community of shared values and practices through dialogue and cooperation in a highly competitive world (European Commission, 2025) and to enable the future generation of teachers to act professionally in a school environment characterised by heterogeneity and diversity. The potential of international experiences is seen in creating opportunities to learn together and from each other in different educational contexts in order to raise awareness of the diversity of perspectives and world views by sensitising and encouraging educators to recognise and advocate for other possible and legitimate perspectives of a heterogeneous society (Ragoonaden, Sivia & Baxton, 2015).  It is believed that going abroad, both virtually and through exchange programmes, can better prepare teachers for the international labour market (European Commission, 2025), prepare teachers to work in multicultural and heterogeneous classrooms (Forghani-Arani, Cerna & Bannon, 2019), and thus enable teachers to prepare students for a global, ever-changing world and its diversity.

Although the issue is more relevant than ever and the importance of closer cooperation in the European education area is undisputed, there is still a lack of reliable data on the extent to which international mobility is part of teachers' professional development and on the possible drivers in different European countries. The following article attempts to fill this gap by using TALIS data to shed more light on this issue. As educational structures and policies across Europe and models for promoting international teaching experience differ, while at the same time sharing common challenges such as teacher shortages or the need to develop intercultural competence, a look across national borders can be helpful in learning more about the use of learning opportunities in international formats for professional development. In our article, we focus on the following questions 1) In what context did the mobility take place? 2) How long did the teachers spend abroad on average? 3) Why did teachers go abroad? 4) Are there specific patterns in terms of gender, age, subject area?

For our analysis and to answer the research questions, we conducted a secondary analysis using data from the Teacher and Learning International Survey 2018 (TALIS 2018, n=73080), focusing on lower secondary school teachers (see OECD 2019). In total, 23 countries on the European continent were included in our analysis. Three of them are non-European, namely Russia, the United Kingdom and Turkey. We use descriptive statistics and linear regression analysis using the IEA IDB Analyzer and SPSS to ensure correct estimation of the measures, taking into account the complex sampling and study design. First, we calculated descriptive statistics for the following item batteries (1. Have you ever been abroad for professional purposes during your career as a teacher or during your teacher ?; 5 items; 1=yes; 0=no; 2. Were the following activities professional purposes of your visits abroad?; 7 items; 1=yes; 0=no; 3. In total, how long have you been abroad for professional purposes? (less than 3 months, 3-12 months, more than one year). For the regression analysis, a sum score (0-5; MEU=0.75; SE=0.01) was calculated as the dependent variable, reflecting the frequency with which international mobility is used in different contexts (question 1). A combination is useful as the overall frequency of use was rather low (EU average for no mobility: 54%) and there were country-specific differences in the focus of time use and organisational frameworks. Indicators for gender, age groups and main subjects were used.

We find that the proportion of teachers who have completed at least one period of mobility abroad varies considerably within the EU (Range:31.6 %(Bulgaria);64.8 %,(Cyprus);EU:44 %). In non-EU countries, the proportion is below this average. On EU average,19.6% of respondents had completed a period of mobility abroad as part of their teacher training,12.7% of teachers have worked abroad as part of an EU-programme. National programmes play a less important role. If the stay was organised by the school or school district, the average participation rate was 17.8%. Teachers who organised their own international mobility (19.7%) show an average similar to that of trainee teachers. The figures range from 13% in Bulgaria to 30.7% in Estonia. The duration of stays abroad varies between countries. On average in the EU,9.7% of mobile teachers spent more than 12 months abroad, while 14.9% stayed for a period of 3-12 months. However, the majority of respondents (75%) took part in short-term-programmes of less than 3 months. A dominant aspect is going abroad for professional development (studying;46.7%), followed by network with schools in other countries(44,2%) and language learning(40.7%). There were no clear patterns in terms of gender. Differentiation by age shows that in all countries the likelihood of a (work-related)stay abroad increases with age. Looking at mobility rates by subject, we find differences. Modern foreign language teachers, Greek and Latin, are more likely to participate in mobility-programmes than teachers of other subjects. The results show that teachers not only use experience abroad for their own professional development, but also contribute to the internationalisation of schools. However, there are differences between the countries, both in terms of duration of the stays and type of experience abroad. Differences between countries are discussed in terms of structural conditions, programmes and funding opportunities. Subject-specific differences are analysed and implications are drawn.

European Commission (2025). Quality education and training for all.European Educatihttps://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/inclusive-and-connected-higher-education/bologna-process? OECD (2019), TALIS Starting Strong 2018 Technical Report, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0921466e-en. Ragoonaden, K. O., Sivia, A., & Baxan, V. (2015). Teaching for Diversity in Teacher Education: Transformative Frameworks. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.3.6