Institutional Student Mobility Ecosystem (ISME)

Explore student mobility ecosystem interactions

As part of the development of the Institutional Student Mobility Ecosystem (ISME), the SuMoS team has created an interactive visualization that maps out the key stakeholders and processes involved. You can explore the full interactive map below.

🔍 To dive deeper into a specific ISME element, simply click on it and select “Focus” in the upper-right corner. This will give you a clear, detailed view of that element and all its interactions within the ecosystem.

Recommendations for ISME improvements

Strategic approach to student credit mobility

Challenges Recommendations
The formulation of a strategic internationalization plan is not a priority for all HEIs. Without a strategic internationalization plan, internationalization cannot take place in a structured and optimized manner. Policymakers and accreditation bodies make the formulation of a concrete and actionable strategic internationalization plan a strong criterion in the auditing process.
As evident from case studies, HEIs are lacking a concrete strategic plan for internationalization Top management at HEIs set internationalization goals for all sectors of the institution and not simply for IROs. Internationalization has to be transversal.
IROs are understaffed, overworked and underpaid. Resources are stretched to the limit. Staff are leaving due to burnout. When developing the strategic internationalization plan, top management at HEIs include strategic resource planning to ensure successful implementation: human resources and financial resources. Without sufficient resources, successful roll-out of the strategic internationalization plan is impossible.
One of the primary barriers to student mobility is lack of adequate financing. Policymakers and top management at HEIs work together to develop new sources of financing to allow more students to participate in credit mobility initiatives.
Vague student mobility goals are recognized at HEIs - “increasing student mobility” is not a SMART goal Top management at HEIs set goals based on SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) principles with concrete action plans for their realization.
Responsibility for achieving internationalisation goals is not clearly defined. In some cases, IROs are responsible for internationalisation results, although they are not always invited to contribute to their creation. Perhaps more importantly, successful attainment of international goals requires the active participation of many different departments and services of the HEI (academics, finance, registrar, etc.) over whom IROs have no authority or control. Top management at HEIs involve IROs in internationalisation strategy development. Responsibilities for reaching internationalisation goals should be clearly defined and shared among relevant stakeholders (vice-dean, IRO, academic advisor/s, teachers and other staff members). The whole institution has to be involved if internationalization is set as a high priority.

Inter-Institutional Agreements

Challenges Recommendations
The initiation of new IIA often comes from previous collaborations, like project or research, between two institutions which often results in misalignment between study programs of home and host institutions. HEIs establish rules and procedures for signing the IIAs (as academic fit in certain percentage - if possible, staff exchange set as priority or else).
Maintenance of IIAs is time-consuming, and digitalized processes are not stable.
  • HEIs prioritize the recruitment and training of IRO staff to manage the digitalization of inter-institutional agreements. In cases where the process operates on two levels (university and faculty), the roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined to ensure transparency and efficiency in handling agreements.
  • Policymakers and program leaders at the European commission simplify the maintenance of IIA by:
    • End required renewals with each Erasmus+ cycle.
    • Stabilize the IIA components of the EWP platform.
    • Clarify access rights to the EWP platform and specify stakeholders’ roles.

Promotion of credit mobility opportunities

Challenges Recommendations
Many resources are deployed to promote and inform on international mobility opportunities, yet the information is not meeting its target audience.
  • IROs organize more live activities to convey positive experiences of student exchange to students, but also to dispel certain myths that hinder their decision to apply for student mobility. The SuMoS student survey showed that despite the multitude of digital channels, students prefer information about student mobility that they receive from colleagues and faculty staff.
  • HEIs convey the survey or through another way determine what the students at their institution prefer and need (like SuMoS student survey) to use when deciding upon a mobility project.
A great deal of information published in different channels, making it challenging for students to find the right information when needed. If we add to this the fact that today's generations prefer instant communication, and international relations office employees have limited working hours, there is a need for new forms of information accessibility. HEIs leverage emerging AI technologies to create an informational database for each institution that students can query via a chatbot. Information via social networks and other communication channels is gradually becoming a thing of the past in the face of the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI). In order to prevent students from receiving misinformation about the application process and student mobility experiences, it is desirable for higher education institutions to develop their own chatbots that will provide students with specific information regarding the mobility process at their partner institutions.
IROs organize dissemination and information events for students, but attendance is often low. Academic staff accompany IROs in promoting international mobility opportunities. They need to act as prescriptors, including the presentation of mobility opportunities during classes, to reach a broader audience. Greater participation of students with mobility experience, together with partner institutions, will make these events more pertinent from the students’ point of view and lead to higher participation rates.
Although case studies show that HEIs invest great efforts in informing students about student mobility opportunities and provide them with academic support, there is sometimes a lack of understanding of other socio-economic factors that influence students' decisions to participate in mobility. HEIs consider involving parents in the promotional activities. During the local workshops, both participants and students mentioned parents as an important stakeholder in the decision to participate in credit mobility. An example from one institution shows that parents are involved in informative sessions with IROs as a part of preparation for student semesters abroad. Involving parents in promotional activities for student mobility can be mutually beneficial for students and parents - informed parents will feel secure if they receive first-hand information about student mobility, and as such can provide a greater level of support to their children in the mobility planning process.

Application to host university

Challenges Recommendations
One of the challenges in the application process is that students often choose their mobility destination based on the country and city attractiveness, and not the alignment in study programmes, making the creation of a pertinent study plan and Learning Agreement (LA) difficult. IROs at home institutions encourage students to consider multiple factors when deciding upon their mobility destination/s - the country, the city and also study programme and course alignment, not only taking into account the country and the city.
Overload of IROs and academic advisors due to numerous student questions and multiple individual situations (each student has their own study plan, there are several institutions to which students are planning the mobility…) IROs at host institutions to prepare a concise, easy-to-follow guide that students are required to follow, thus easing the burden at the home institution. From the academic advisor’s perspective, students can benefit from having a register of courses offered at partner institutions that can be fully recognized within their study programme at the home institution.
The process forces students to apply multiple times on different platforms, often with the same or very similar paperwork. National agencies and the European Commission to develop clear guidelines on the required documentation for Erasmus+ applications and to ensure greater harmonization of these requirements across universities and between platforms. EWP and Beneficiary Module, for example, could be harmonized and mobilized to prefill data in application forms.

Developing the Learning Agreement

Challenges Recommendations
Students indicate poor academic fit as one the main barriers for student mobility. Study advisors and IROs carry out a detailed comparison of the compatibility of study programs before signing an IIA for study exchange. Although previous cooperation between teachers is a good starting point for concluding a cooperation agreement for student exchange (IIA), this is often not a sufficient reason. Namely, cooperation between teachers is based on common research interests, and for a successful student exchange the most important thing is the comparability of course/study programs at both institutions.
Lack of methodology for course comparison. Even if HEIs aim to compare courses prior to signing an IIA, that process itself is challenging, as there is no unique methodology for comparing study programmes and courses. In some cases, adequate content overlap of the courses is verified >70%. However, is it not clear whether the 70% of similarity in courses refer to the content, learning outcomes, teaching modes or some other course elements. Academic advisors and study program managers develop stronger methodologies for comparing courses. The SuMoS project will contribute to this challenging task with work carried out in WP4. Course learning design, supported by the Balanced Design Planning (BDP - https://learning-design.eu/hr/index) tool, as well as the establishment of course quality marks, will help educators and academic advisors to make more meaningful comparisons of courses between partner institutions.
Uneven course catalogues of partner institutions The European Commission provide guidelines to HEIs on the structure and presentation of course catalogues to enable easier course comparison. To this end, each HEI needs to take a hard look at its own practices and work towards better course design and a more legible course catalogue.
Academic advisors face an overwhelming number of individual student inquiries due to the necessity of creating a study plan for each individual student.
  • Top management at HEIs dedicate resources to the development of a chatbot that can answer students’ general questions about the study plan creation and compatibility of courses at partner institutions.
  • The academic advisor prepares a unified document listing courses at partner HEIs that can be fully recognized within the study programmes at the home institution.
Last-minute changes in study programmes Partner institutions should inform each other about the list of available courses per academic year well in advance, as well as about major changes in their study programmes (March of the year preceding mobility).

Preparation for departure

Challenges Recommendations
Students have to apply to host HEI, find and apply for accommodation etc. Host HEIs work on integration of processes with the goal of one simple application.
IROs face complicated and ever-changing grant calculations in Erasmus+ programme. Additionally, IROs face difficulty of collecting and archiving physical signatures on paper documents (requirement of many NAs) Policymakers and program leaders at the European Commission:
  • Simplify and stabilize the grant calculations
  • Generate the Grant Agreement automatically from Beneficiary Module (template)
  • Implement a digital signature functionality into Beneficiary Module (objective of digitalization and modernization of Erasmus+ processes)

Recognition

Challenges Recommendations
Different grading scales in different countries make it very difficult to transfer grades obtained. HEIs ensure a clear and precise explanation of a country's grading scale, as part of the transcript of records.
Students are unable to enrol in courses that their home institution has made mandatory. Some home institutions do not recognize credits earned in courses that are not explicitly listed in their own curriculum. HEIs create a Mobility Window for 30 ECTS, to create space for recognition within their own academic programs of the credits earned during the mobility period.

Tools

Challenges Recommendations
Too many information systems are involved in the process, mostly reflecting to students, IRO and academic advisors Policymakers at the European Commission ensure better interoperability of information systems used in the mobility process (Beneficiary Module and EWP) as well as assisting HEIs in connecting their own information systems to these platforms. Top management at HEIs need to devote human and financial resources to make their systems interoperability-ready.
Difficulties in managing information in several different systems - i.e. when the academic advisor changes at the institution, sometimes that information needs to be changed in different partner system, which is not always up-to-date Policymakers at the European Commission mandate Erasmus+ program directors to create a field in EWP to designate academic advisors. Field kept up to date by IROs with an automatic alert each August to update the data.
Students needs to re-enter the same data to different systems (i.e. application at home HEI, application at home UNI, application at host HEI) Policymakers at the European Commission need to mandate Erasmus+ program directors to create interoperability between Beneficiary Module and EWP, or even merging these platforms into one tool. Starting from a nomination process functionality in Beneficiary Module, much of the data could be pre-defined into the host HEI information system to reduce the possibility of error.
Students often need to copy/paste data (i.e. codes, names and ECTS credits in OLA) and enter data they are not necessarily familiar with (contact and responsible person at HEI) Policymakers at the European Commission to mandate Erasmus+ program directors to integrate the OLA with the IIAs to maintain consistency in the data (contact person, study field, language level required…) and limit redundant student / IRO data entry.
Previous Next