4 Outbound mobility

Norwegian higher education institutions have always had an international dimension to their activities, and many agreements have been entered into with overseas institutions that have included student mobility. However, this field received increased attention with the introduction of the Quality Reform in 2003 and the goal that all students must have the opportunity to have a learning period abroad as part of their Norwegian degree. In part as a result of international constraints concerning what can be regarded as student mobility, greatest political priority has been given to study or training periods abroad of at least three months’ duration and mobility linked to institutional cooperation.

Although there has been a concerted effort to make it easier for Norwegian students to take part of their education abroad since 2003, only 16 per cent of the graduates in 2019 had undertaken a learning period abroad. For previous years there was only a limited increase. This nevertheless means that the Bologna target of 20 per cent of students having a study period abroad during the course of their studies is within reach. The long-term target that half of all students will have a study period abroad is a far more ambitious goal, and will require a cultural change throughout the entire higher education sector with structural and administrative adaptations. Today, all students who wish to do so should have the opportunity to take part of their education abroad. However, the fact that only one in six students take advantage of this opportunity may indicate that going abroad depends too much on the individual students taking the initiative themselves. In order to increase student mobility, study or training periods abroad must become an integral part of all study programmes, and the institutions must do much more to facilitate this. The value of a learning period abroad must also be made clearer to everyone involved. Some institutions and study programmes have already achieved or are close to achieving the goal of 50 per cent of students having a study period abroad. This proves that it can be done, and these institutions and programmes can serve as good examples.

4.1 Motivation and obstacles for students

The benefits of having a study period abroad during the course of study are many, and the abilities acquired and the academic, personal and language benefits are clear. Nevertheless, only 16 per cent of Norwegian students have had an overseas stay during the course of their studies. It is therefore important to find out more about what prevents Norwegian students from going abroad for a study or training period. In the Eurostudent survey from 2018, which collected data on the social and economic conditions of student life in European countries, 21 per cent of Norwegian students said that they planned to have a study or training period abroad, while 65 per cent of the respondents said they did not have any such plans.1 In the survey, students were also asked to rank various obstacles to studying abroad. Additional financial burden, separation from partner, child(ren) and friends, and loss of paid job were listed as the biggest obstacles. Non-academic reasons are thus the main obstacles to outbound mobility, but a large proportion of students also report that lack of information, the perception that the studies abroad are not really relevant to their home study programme, and the feeling that the learning period abroad is of low benefit to their education in Norway are important reasons for not going abroad. Although the academic obstacles seem to be less important to the students who have responded than the non-academic obstacles, the academic obstacles are something that Norwegian universities and university colleges can do something about.

According to the students’ responses, there is wide variation in how well the institutions manage to incorporate a study period abroad into the study programme at home, both between institutions and between subject areas. There is also wide variation in the students’ perception of the quality of the information they have received about the possibility of taking a study period abroad. At some institutions, up to 20 per cent of students state that they experience inadequate information as a major obstacle. The same results were seen in the 2017 Study Barometer national student survey, where one in five students who had not participated in a study period abroad said that the information was not good enough.2 The proportion of the respondents who find it as a major obstacle that a mobility stay does not fit into the study programme at home is also generally high, but here too there are differences between subject areas. Among other things, one in four teacher students answer that a study or training period abroad does not fit into the study programme at home, while the corresponding figure in information and computer technology, for example, is 11 per cent. This may indicate that there are differences in attitudes towards mobility both between institutions and between subject areas.

In meetings held with students to get input for this white paper, many students state that lack of encouragement from lecturers is a major factor in their decision not to go abroad. For the students who have had a learning period abroad, encouragement from lecturers was mentioned as a decisive factor. In other words, the lecturers play a very central role.

Although there are significant differences between institutions and between subject areas, it is important to incorporate the general findings into the work to get more students to go on an international mobility stay. With respect to the perception that it is expensive to go on an international mobility stay, it is important to inform students about the good financial support schemes that exist through the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) and especially through Erasmus+. It is harder for institutions to do something about the non-academic elements, but here the work on bringing about a cultural change and establishing an expectation concerning mobility from day one among both the institutions and the students will be very important.

Students with special needs also encounter a number of other obstacles in addition to the general obstacles, related to practical adaptation, information, lack of knowledge among key actors, and lack of coordination. It is important to attempt to also tackle the additional challenges this group faces when working to increase mobility among students in general.

4.2 Quantitative overviews

There are at least two different ways of measuring student mobility. In this white paper, we have used two groups of figures from the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD)’s Database for Statistics on Higher Education (DBH). The first group of figures shows the proportion of graduates in a particular cohort (i.e. the students who complete a degree in a particular year) who have had a mobility stay during their studies (regardless of when they went abroad). These figures are used in this white paper in the overviews of which institutions students have gone abroad from, and the proportions within the different subject areas and educational levels.

The second group of figures shows how many students have had a mobility stay each year and which countries they went to. These figures are used in the overview of how many students undertake a learning period abroad and which countries they travel to.

4.2.1 How many students go abroad for study or training period?

Table 4.1 provides an overview of how many students who undertook a study or training period abroad each year in the period 2010–2019. Using both sets of figures mentioned above, we find that approximately 7,400 students had a learning period abroad in 2019, and that 7,900 of the 2019 graduates had had an overseas stay during their study period (cf. section 4.2). The first group of figures is used in table 4.1. There has been a continuous increase in the number of outbound ex-change students, with the exception of in 2015, when there was no change from the previous year. From 2018 to 2019, there was an increase of 5 per cent, while the increase over the period as a whole was 47 per cent. The years 2010, 2011 and 2016 saw the largest individual increases.

Compared with the change in the total number of students in Norway, the proportional increase for the number of students who have had a learning period abroad each year is almost twice as large as the proportional increase in the total number of students in Norway – 47 per cent versus 26 per cent. The increase was also significantly higher in most of the eleven individual years during this period, with the exception of the years 2012–2015.

4.2.2 Which countries do they go to?

The English-speaking countries of Australia, the USA and the United Kingdom dominate in terms of which countries Norwegian students prefer to go to for a study or training period abroad (table 4.2). In the past ten years, these three countries have consistently been the top three outbound exchange destinations. They have all also seen a rise in the number of exchange students from Norway during the period, with Australia having the strongest growth of the three. Australia was also the most popular destination in 2019.

All the countries in table 4.2 have seen a relative increase in the number of Norwegian students from 2010 to 2019, apart from the USA, which had a slight decrease from 2010 to 2019. The USA is nevertheless still the second most popular destination for Norwegian students, and the number of Norwegian exchange students to the USA has remained fairly stable in recent years.

Italy, Japan and Tanzania have had the largest increases in the period, but it should be noted that these countries received very low numbers of Norwegian students in 2010. Among the countries that already had at least 100 Norwegian students in 2010, the Netherlands has had the largest increase (109 per cent). Other countries that have seen a substantial increase include Australia, up by 101 per cent, and Spain, up by 102 per cent. South Africa, Canada and the USA experienced the weakest growth over the period as a whole.

Norway has prioritised cooperation on higher education and research with selected countries within and outside Europe. In 2019, a number of these countries were non-anglophone. Good language proficiency in languages other than English is important for Norwegian society and economy. The figures in table 4.2 illustrate that there is potential for more student exchange with these countries.

4.2.2.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government wants a higher proportion of Norwegian students to go abroad on study or training period in non-anglophone countries than is currently the case.

• The Government wants more Norwegian students to prioritise going abroad on study or training period to the non-anglophone countries among Norway’s priority partner countries in higher education and research.

• The Government wants to make changes to the regulations governing the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) in order to increase student mobility to Norway’s priority partner countries, and will return to the budgetary implications in the work on the annual national budgets.

4.2.3 Which Norwegian institutions do they travel from?

The targets set for the proportion of students who should have a learning period abroad, i.e. 20 per cent by 2020, with an ambition of 50 per cent in the longer term, are national average targets. The overview for 2019 shows that there is wide variation between the individual institutions and subject areas. The national average of 16.3 per cent masks a complexity that needs to be taken into account in the work to increase student mobility.

Table 4.3 shows that seven institutions have a mobility rate of 20 per cent or more, i.e. in line with the Bologna target. At the other end of the scale, eight institutions had a mobility rate of less than 10 per cent. Over the last three years, the institutions have generally had a fairly stable mobility rate. VID Specialized University and Oslo National Academy of the Arts (KHiO) have had the largest increases. Interestingly, two of the four institutions with the highest mobility rates in Norway – Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO) and the University of Bergen (UiB) – have seen their student mobility rate decline or remain stable in the last three years.

In other words, there are significant differences between the institutions; however, there are also large differences internally within the institutions and between the same subject areas at different institutions. At some institutions and in some subject areas, there is huge potential for increasing student mobility.

4.2.4 The educational level and subject areas of Norwegian exchange students

Table 4.4 shows the proportion of students who completed a degree in 2019 who had been on a mobility stay abroad during the course of their studies. It should be noted that for students who completed a master’s degree, the learning period abroad may have been during their bachelor’s degree. For this reason, the proportion of students with a study or training period abroad is higher at the master’s level than at the bachelor’s level.

Table 4.5 shows figures from 2019 for the various different subject areas. There is large variation between subject areas in terms of the proportion of students who had study or training period overseas during their studies, from 8 per cent in teacher education and education science to 25 per cent in social sciences and law subjects.

4.3 Cultural change

As mentioned in chapter 1, the overarching goal of this white paper is to bring about a cultural change throughout the entire higher education sector so that student mobility is regarded as an important and natural part of a qualitatively good education to a greater extent than today. The Government wants student mobility to become an integral part of both the study programmes and the work to enhance the quality of Norwegian higher education. The consultation responses submitted in connection with the work on the white paper indicate that the sector largely concurs with the five factors that the Government, in the call for consultation input, stated it believes will be necessary to implement a cultural change (cf. chapter 1).

4.3.1 Student mobility as part of the cooperation between institutions

In order to ensure that the internationalisation of higher education helps raise the quality, relevance and attractiveness of Norwegian higher education institutions, it will be important that student mobility is integrated into and rooted in cooperation between Norwegian and foreign institutions (cf. white paper Report no. 14 to the Storting (2008–2009)).3 It is important that Norwegian institutions have excellent cooperation with overseas institutions, and that student mobility is included as a natural part of the cooperation. This kind of cooperation should include employees and students, both administrative and academic functions, and the leadership. The agreements should include research elements where this is feasible in practical terms and academically appropriate. A comprehensive portfolio of agreements with carefully selected partner institutions ought to be managed both centrally and at the faculty and departmental levels at the institution, so that internationalisation consistently permeates the study programmes and the study environment at the institution. One initiative that helps facilitate institutional cooperation is the European Universities initiative (cf. the more detailed discussion in section 4.3.5).

Good agreements are a prerequisite for good cooperation between the institutions. The institutions are expected to carefully consider how many agreements they need. One strategy is to concentrate on fewer, larger agreements, while maintaining a broader range of smaller agreements for students with special interests. Another approach is to ensure a large number of agreements, so that students are spread across them without too much concentration on any single agreement. Whichever strategy is chosen, agreements should be entered into that make it easier for students to decide where to go for study or training period abroad. In addition, when the academic community is familiar with the education offered at the foreign institution, the process of preliminary pre-approval can also be simplified and the students may feel more confident, since the options available to them have been quality assured.

Many institutions perceive challenges linked to having to find relevant partners on their own, initiate a dialogue with them, and then establish a cooperation that is suitable in terms of relevance, quality and attractiveness, while also being productive and not hampered by, for example, regulations or approval procedures. One example of the kinds of challenges that can arise is the different division into semesters both within Europe and in countries outside Europe, and especially misalignment between the start and end of semesters. This can impede student mobility.

It can also be particularly challenging for small institutions and academic communities to establish good agreements with overseas institutions. In these kinds of cases, joint agreements with overseas institutions may be an appropriate solution. This will facilitate the process of assuring the academic quality of potential partners for the institutions. Other institutions offering similar education can then simply join the joint agreement and reap the benefits that these kinds of partnerships bring.

As a general starting point, the cooperation agreements ought to be anchored in the employees’ professional and academic networks. This will help ensure that the institutions choose partners that can strengthen the educational and research activities in line with the institution’s own strategic priorities. Experience shows that academic staff who feel commitment to and ownership of the exchange agreements and experience close professional cooperation with the overseas institutions are good at motivating more students to go abroad on study or training period. Using the academic staff’s international networks will also ensure the institutions a better starting point for creating good exchange agreements. This can serve to strengthen the link between research and higher education, as well as enabling students to undertake a study period abroad through a quality-assured agreement based on a solid academic foundation.

In their work to increase internationalisation, the institutions ought also to promote a more international learning environment at home. There are numerous different ways of doing this. In order to make it as easy as possible for students to spend time abroad during the course of their studies, arrangements can be made to enable the employees to develop international professional networks through the agreements. Using foreign guest lecturers may also be a key element in international cooperation, and the partner institutions can choose to coordinate the structure of their programmes. The institutions can also seek to establish exchange agreements in areas where they share common research interests.

In connection with students who take part of their education abroad, the institutions must also be aware of challenges linked to the sharing and transfer of personal data with other higher education institutions.4 In particular, there may be challenges linked to the legal basis for transferring personal data to countries outside the EEA, i.e. so-called “third countries”. When transferring personal data to third countries, the rules of chapter 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) apply. The rules governing the transfer of personal data in these cases depend on which country the personal data are to be sent to.5 For countries deemed not to have an adequate level of data protection6, personal data may only be transferred if the recipient of the data has provided “appropriate safeguards”, and on the condition that the data subject has enforceable rights and effective legal remedies, cf. Article 46 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). For example, these guarantees can be provided by using the Standard Contractual Clauses prepared by the European Commission.

4.3.1.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government expects Norwegian institutions to work strategically to establish mutual, long-term cooperation with overseas institutions, with a strong focus on student mobility.

• The Government expects the internationalisation work, cooperation agreements and student mobility to be a fully integrated part of the general work at the institution.

• The Government expects cooperation agreements to be anchored in the employees’ professional networks, so that the academic employees have a sense of ownership of them.

• The Government wants to encourage the institutions (especially smaller institutions and/or subjects) to enter into joint exchange agreements among themselves.

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to be aware of the challenges related to the basis for transfer of personal data to third countries where there is no decision on sufficient level of protection and it is not possible to enter into a standard contract.

4.3.2 Integration of student mobility into study programmes and “active opt-out”

In order to achieve the Government’s goal that 50 per cent of Norwegian students will have a learning period abroad during the course of their studies, and to achieve the necessary cultural change in the sector, mobility stays must be well integrated into the programmes of study. The Government’s ambition is that a study or training period abroad shall become the norm for Norwegian students on programmes where an overseas stay will provide academic benefits and is practically feasible. The input provided by the institutions in their consultation responses and in meetings in connection with the work on this white paper suggests that most institutions support this ambition.

The expected learning outcome of the study or training period abroad must be clearly defined, and a specific window must be incorporated into the programmes where it is appropriate to have an overseas stay. All study programmes must be organised with a fully defined and academically integrated study period or training abroad, and a scheme shall be introduced in which students must actively opt out of the overseas stay, so-called active opt-out. The institutions are free to choose how and when to introduce active opt-out. An overseas learning period shall be voluntary, and the student shall not have to explain the reason for opting out. At all levels, the institutions must have arrangements that enable students to travel abroad and they should actively encourage them to do so. In order to stimulate students to travel abroad, the institutions shall, among other things, increase the use of pre-approved course packages for learning periods abroad and improve the information about them. Individuals who for various reasons do not have the opportunity to travel abroad should be offered an international semester at home with, for example, teaching in English in parts of the programme, teaching together with international students, series of lectures with international guest lecturers, etc.

Student mobility must have a solid academic foundation, and it must be made clear why the learning period abroad is relevant and how this experience contributes to learning and the quality of the study programme. In order to achieve the ambitions that student mobility shall be a more integrated part of the study programmes and that student mobility should be the norm, as opposed to the exception, it is imperative that the institutions offer cohesive study programmes. Complete and cohesive study programmes are also highlighted in the Quality Report as a decisive factor for quality in education.7 The learning period abroad must be adapted to the nature of the study programme, and different types of overseas stays will target different aspects of the learning outcome for the programme. Good study programme management is essential to be able to achieve this kind of holistic approach to the study programmes, and also to the overall learning outcome of a programme. The ability to successfully integrate various internationalisation elements into a study programme will depend on the management of the study programme.

In its management dialogue with the universities and university colleges, the Government will discuss the individual institution’s experiences regarding integration of a study period abroad into their study programmes and, as necessary, will assess possible measures to enable more study programmes to better facilitate international student mobility. In this context, the Government will assess whether stricter requirements need to be set regarding active opt-out.

The academic communities at the institutions must make it clear to students how a study or training period abroad improves the academic quality of education and makes it more work relevant. An important prerequisite for this is that the institutions clearly define the expected learning outcome of the study or training period abroad. Surveys show that students associate study or training periods abroad less with academic learning outcomes, and more with personal development.8 The development of general skills and personal attributes that are useful and sought after in the work life is also an important part of the overall learning outcome. At the same time, stronger emphasis of the concrete academic learning outcomes may increase the perceived value of study or training period overseas for students and employers alike.

All students who wish to do so should be able to go on a study or practical training period abroad during the course of their studies. This principle also applies to students with disabilities and special needs. The Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) has a separate supplementary grant for students who cannot work alongside education due to a disability. Students abroad are entitled to this supplementary grant on the same terms as students studying in Norway. Norwegian higher education institutions also have people who work specifically with students who need special adaptations, and some municipal authorities provide support for user-directed personal assistance during studies abroad.

Adaptation and inclusion are important elements in the EU’s education policy. All educational institutions that take part in Erasmus+ have committed to make adaptations to accommodate people with disabilities. Students who need special adaptation and who go on an Erasmus+ mobility stay in Europe may be entitled to Erasmus+ special needs support. The funds shall cover documented additional expenses linked to disabilities, chronic illnesses or other conditions that necessitate special adaptations.

Students with special needs can benefit greatly from having an overseas stay during the course of their studies. It is therefore important that the institutions pay special attention to these students and make arrangements to enable this group of students to benefit from international mobility. Coordination of information and knowledge about instruments, support schemes and good systems for adaptation is important, and it is important that the various parties involved, such as the higher education institutions, directorates, local authorities and local support services, work together to make this happen. Information provided to students about opportunities for overseas stays through, for example, websites and international offices, must also include information for students with disabilities or other special needs.

The Government’s ambition is to ensure that in the long term all institutions introduce a system whereby students must actively opt out of a learning period abroad, as opposed to having to opt in. The institutions can themselves decide how and when this is to be introduced. The study period abroad is voluntary, and students do not have to provide a reason for opting out. Higher education institutions under the Ministry of Defence are exempt from the goal of a predefined learning period abroad and introduction of a system of “active opt-out”.

4.3.2.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government’s ambition is to ensure that in the long term all institutions introduce a system whereby students must actively opt out of a learning period abroad, as opposed to having to opt in. The institutions can themselves decide how and when this is to be introduced. The study period abroad is voluntary, and students do not have to provide a reason for opting out. Higher education institutions under the Ministry of Defence are exempt from the goal of a predefined learning period abroad and introduction of a system of “active opt-out”.

• The Government expects all institutions to make arrangements to ensure that learning periods abroad are well integrated into the programmes.

• The Government’s ambition is that a study or training period abroad shall become the norm for all students on programmes where an overseas stay will provide academic benefits and is practically feasible.

• In its management dialogue with the universities and university colleges, the Government will discuss the institutions’ experiences regarding integration of a study period abroad into their study programmes and, as necessary, will assess possible measures to enable more study programmes to better facilitate international student mobility. In this context, the Government will assess whether stricter requirements need to be set regarding active opt-out.

• The Government expects the academic communities to make it clearer to students and employers how a study period overseas can help raise the academic quality of study programmes and make them more work relevant.

4.3.3 Employee mobility and the link between research and higher education

In order to bring about a cultural change throughout the sector, it is also important that more employees go on exchanges to overseas partner institutions. Student mobility is promoted by academic and administrative staff also going abroad. Both academic and administrative staff will play a central role in ensuring a successful cultural change whereby an overseas stay becomes the norm for Norwegian students. The employees are responsible for ensuring that student mobility has a solid academic and administrative foundation, as well as facilitating the actual study period or training abroad. Academic employees also play an essential role in motivating and encouraging students to take a study or training period abroad, and they can show students how an overseas stay provides additional academic and personal benefits.

In the consultation responses to this white paper, the institutions state that experience shows that academic employees who themselves have been or are mobile are better at encouraging and motivating students to take a study period abroad during the course of their studies.

The knowledge, experience, views and encouragement of the academic staff will be pivotal to realising the ambition of increased international student mobility. At the institutions and study pro-grammes where a high proportion of students have a learning period abroad, international cooperation is the case at all levels, from the institutional management right down to the individual study programme, and there is good cooperation between the academic employees and the administration.

Strategic employee mobility is an important tool for strengthening cooperation based on common academic interests and building up knowledge about good, relevant foreign institutions and study programmes that students can go to. Mobility among employees also creates greater opportunities for collaboration on research projects, for guest lectures, and for the development of joint educational opportunities. This can put the academic staff in a better position to recommend high-quality programmes and courses that are academically aligned with and relevant to the study programmes at home.

Employees’ international contacts, collaboration and mobility are necessary to develop the quality and relevance of Norwegian higher education and to ensure that Norwegian higher education maintains a high international standard. This kind of collaboration and mobility should start at the PhD level. Employee mobility can also be an important prerequisite for increased interaction between research and education. Employees can draw on experience and knowledge about how both education and research can benefit from closer cooperation.

4.3.3.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to increase the proportion of academic staff who have a mobility stay abroad, through cooperation agreements that are closely linked to the academic environments, and which integrate student mobility and internationalisation into cohesive study programmes.

• The Government also finds that mobility ought to be increased among PhD students.

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to use existing research partnerships, where possible, to enter into new, quality-assured and facilitated agreements on student exchange. In these agreements, student mobility ought to be linked to the researchers’ international projects and networks.

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to enter into international cooperation agreements, ideally also including research elements, where this is feasible in practical terms and academically appropriate.

4.3.4 Joint degrees

A joint degree is a qualification awarded by at least two cooperating institutions on the basis of a study programme developed and offered jointly by the institutions. Joint degrees are considered the most integrated form of international institutional education cooperation. Since the early 2000s, cooperation on joint degrees has been a priority area in both Norway and Europe. A joint degree entails that two or more institutions together own a study programme and the ensuing degree, and that a single joint diploma is issued by the partner institutions. It must be indicated clearly which parts of the study programme the different institutions are responsible for, and it is a prerequisite that the students move between the participating institutions during the study period. It is also a prerequisite that the elements to be included in a joint degree have been quality assured and accredited as higher education in the respective countries. In Norway, there are no formal legal obstacles preventing institutions from establishing joint degrees, with other Norwegian institutions or in partnership with foreign institutions, and the rules for the establishment and quality assurance of joint degrees are specified in the Regulations concerning quality assurance and quality development in higher education and tertiary vocational education and the Regulations concerning supervision of the educational quality in higher education (the Academic Supervision Regulations).9 Other European countries’ legislation also allows institutions to offer joint degrees.10

Despite the fact that it is legally possible to award joint degrees, nowhere near as many European joint degrees have been established as has been wanted. Formal and administrative obstacles still exist – often linked to quality assurance of the study programmes, payment and distribution of tuition fees, etc. Fewer than 25 per cent of the institutions in the Bologna Process countries participate in a joint degree programme, and fewer than five per cent award joint degrees (albeit with significant differences between countries).11 This proves how challenging it is to establish formal partnerships across national borders in view of domestic regulations, and that it is still very difficult to set up, run and further develop joint degrees.

Despite the clear challenges associated with both the establishment and operation of joint degrees, the Government nevertheless holds that the academic benefits of joint-degree partnerships are so great that it is still desirable that Norwegian higher education institutions prioritise participating in joint-degree partnerships with overseas institutions, including with institutions in Norway’s priority partner countries in and outside Europe. For countries that Norway does not have a security policy cooperation with, it is necessary to take special precautions since students studying in these countries may face problems obtaining security clearance for certain professions. Through joint degrees, institutions with different academic strengths can collaborate to offer students high-quality international study programmes that they would not be able to offer on their own. At the same time, students on a joint degree programme have a predefined and pre-approved stay at one or more foreign institutions during the programme, by taking part of their education at the other institutions participating in the joint-degree cooperation.

Joint degrees are a key element in higher education cooperation in Europe and the Nordic countries. Erasmus+ Joint Master Courses (Erasmus Mundus) is the European Commission’s programme to stimulate joint degrees. The programme aims to promote Europe as a world leader in higher education. The Nordic Master Programme is a similar scheme to promote cooperation between institutions in the Nordic region. One example of a joint degree cooperation with the support of Erasmus Mundus is the two-year master’s degree European Master in Health Economics and Management (Eu-HEM). This joint degree has been developed by the Department of Health and Society at the University of Oslo in partnership with the University of Bologna, Management Center Innsbruck and Erasmus University Rotterdam, and graduates receive a joint diploma from the participating institutions.12

4.3.4.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government holds that the academic benefits of collaboration on joint degrees are so great that, despite the administrative challenges, it is still desirable that Norwegian higher education institutions prioritise participating in joint-degree partnerships with overseas institutions.

• The Government will consider whether to stimulate collaboration on joint degrees with Norway’s priority partner countries. Extra care must be taken when sending students to countries with which Norway does not have a security policy cooperation.

4.3.5 European Universities

Following the EU Summit in December 2017, the European Commission launched a proposal for a new prestige project under the Erasmus+ programme: European Universities. As an EEA member state, Norway can participate on an equal footing with the EU member states. European Universities has been proposed as an integrated part of the new Erasmus programme, and there is widespread support for this new initiative among the EU member states and Erasmus+ programme countries. European Universities is a pilot project that receives approximately EUR 5 million per alliance for three years.

The European Commission’s aim with European Universities is to establish networks, or alliances, of universities that will collaborate on joint education programmes, develop innovative learning and teaching methods, and facilitate student and research mobility. These alliances are called a “European University”. The long-term goal is to establish “European Universities” that operate unhindered by national regulations. These universities will promote European values and strengthen the competitiveness of European education, cooperating on more international, interdisciplinary, flexible and forward-looking educational opportunities. The “European Universities” will also help develop their local regions, cooperate closely with employers and industry, and play a pivotal role in the development of the European Education Area by 2025.

Many “European Universities” have set a target of (at least) 50 per cent student mobility within the alliance, with a focus on a range of different types of mobility including physical mobility, blended mobility and virtual exchange (see the more detailed discussion in chapter 1). However, the European Universities project is about much more than mobility alone, although mobility is a central element. Institutions that are part of a “European University” commit to a long-term strategy that is, naturally, different for the 41 alliances awarded support as a “European University” in 2019 and 2020. Student and staff mobility shall be seamlessly integrated into the new alliances, benefitting the individual students and employees, the institutions and society, as described in chapter 3. The European Commission describes the “European Universities” as “Structured, Systemic and Sustainable”.13 The Government holds that the European Universities initiative aligns well with the objectives of this white paper. The 17 alliances awarded funding in 2019 as “European Universities” covered a range of fields, including:

• integrated mobility for students and staff

• innovation and student-active learning and teaching

• problem-based learning across the “European Universities” member institutions

• universities that are open to all, with flexible programmes and new forms of mobility

• synergies between research and education

• regional involvement

• openness to the rest of the world

• ways to achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals

The Ministry of Education and Research will engage in dialogue with institutions that participate in the project and assess whether there are conflicts between the desire for increased flexibility and the current Norwegian regulations, with the aim of resolving any potential problems.

4.3.5.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government supports the European Commission’s new European Universities initiative and encourages Norwegian institutions to enter into alliances under this scheme.

• The Ministry of Education and Research will have dialogue with Norwegian participating institutions during the pilot period for the European Universities initiative, in the event that obstacles arise due to Norwegian regulations.

4.4 Integration into degrees

An important prerequisite for students to be able to take a study period abroad is that they are able to have the courses they take abroad approved (recognised) as part of their degree at home, so that they do not fall behind in their study programme. Before the students go overseas, the home institution pre-approves the courses the students are going to take at the foreign institution. This preliminary pre-approval is intended to ensure that the courses the student takes abroad complement the study programme in terms of both content and learning outcomes. Among other things, preliminary pre-approval is a prerequisite for students to be able to receive funding (loans and grants) from the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) for the overseas stay. If the mobility stay is part of an organised exchange programme that entitles the student to support, the student does not need to apply for approval. In order for the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) to approve an overseas stay for support, there is an additional requirement that the stay must not result in a delay in the student’s progress.

Many students point out that one of the obstacles to going abroad is that it is uncertain whether they will be able to have the courses they take during a study period abroad incorporated into their degree at home.14 If the courses cannot be incorporated, this may cause the students to fall behind in their studies and be regarded as having inadequate study progress. If the students are unsure whether they can have courses taken during an overseas stay approved as part of their degree or if they cannot find relevant courses at an overseas institution, they often decide not to go abroad.

According to the Regulation concerning supervision of the educational quality in higher education (the Academic Supervision Regulations), all programmes that lead to a degree must have arrangements for international student mobility. To achieve this, the institutions must organise their programmes such that there is a window for a period of student mobility. Clear “mobility windows” must be established, i.e. specific openings must be scheduled into the programme where the students can travel overseas on a study or training period. The institutions must offer well-organised, integrated mobility stays at both bachelor’s and master’s level. The programme descriptions should include recommended semesters for mobility, so that an overseas stay is not at the expense of the students’ progress. Creating a clear window for overseas stays in the structure of the study programmes is done differently at the different institutions and in the various programmes of study. Some institutions report that in their bachelor’s programmes they schedule a whole semester without any compulsory courses. Organising elective courses and a mobility window in the same semester makes it easier to fit a learning period abroad into the programme, which in turn can make it easier for the academic staff to accept that students choose to go abroad. It may be more difficult to gain acceptance for some of the compulsory courses being taken during an overseas stay, as these may be harder to incorporate than elective courses. This view is also supported in NOKUT’s report Student exchange – at the expense of academic quality? (see the more detailed discussion of this in chapter 3), and also in NOKUT’s EUROMA project, which demonstrates that the Master of Science in Economics programme at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) has achieved good mobility figures by scheduling elective courses and a mobility window in the same semester.15 Other institutions report that they have a number of pre-approved courses at selected foreign institutions that they know well, enabling students to take both elective and compulsory courses abroad. The University of Bergen (UiB) points out that if there are institutional agreements that are firmly anchored and supported by the academic communities, courses can be pre-approved on the basis of the institution, as opposed to the individual courses the student is going to take abroad.16 When a student takes courses abroad under a pre-approved agreement and earns unspecified or “free” credits, there is no longer any need for specific pre-approval of the courses.

Many students and institutions express that they find the approval procedures laborious and complicated. The courses must be approved preliminarily before the students go abroad, but in addition, the courses the students have actually taken must be approved once the students have returned home. The reason for this is that in some cases students end up taking different courses to the ones they had pre-approved. Reasons for this may include that the portfolio of courses at the foreign university has changed and the pre-approved course is no longer available, or that the student has found other courses that are more relevant. Whatever the reason, this makes the approval procedures cumbersome and time consuming, and a new approval process ought therefore to be established that is simpler and more predictable for the students and the institutions alike. In connection with their work on recognising courses taken abroad, the institutions must adhere to the Lisbon Recognition Convention, which states that education taken abroad must be recognised, unless it can be proven that there are substantial differences.

Institutions ought therefore to have pre-approved course packages at selected foreign institutions that they can offer the students. The academic communities could propose specific courses at specific foreign institutions – courses whose content they know, whose quality they are confident of, and that they know align well with the study programme at their own institution. Pre-approved course packages will make it easier for both the academic and the administrative staff to incorporate the course into the study programme at home, as well as providing certainty for the students that they will be able to have the course taken overseas recognised and approved as part of their degree following their return home. If the students can choose from a selection of quality-assured, pre-approved course packages, this may make it easier for the students to decide to go abroad. Some students have a clear idea about which country, city and institution they want to study at and what courses they want to take abroad. The pre-approved course packages must not prevent these students from fulfilling their wishes, and the institution must therefore have agreements that also safeguard the needs of these students. However, if Norway is to succeed in increasing the proportion of students who have a learning period abroad from 16 per cent to 50 per cent, better arrangements must be made to facilitate overseas stays for students who have not already decided to take part of their studies abroad. Students who are undecided about going abroad must also be considered. The greater degree of certainty that pre-approved course packages will provide will help motivate more students to take part of their studies abroad.

In the 2017 national “Study Barometer” student survey, about half of the students reported that they did not think there was sufficient academic connection between the mobility stay and the study programme at home.17 The Eurostudent survey also found that it can be difficult to see how the study period overseas fits into the learning outcome defined for the programme.18 It is important that the students are aware in advance of what kind of competencies they will acquire through their learning period abroad, and it is important that this is communicated to them. Students also need to be able to explain to prospective employers and others what skills and competencies they acquired abroad. In order to be able to demonstrate the academic connection between the study or training period abroad and the programme at home, the institutions must work to better integrate mobility stays into the home programme and not least highlight the connection to the students. For a mobility stay to be successful and academically relevant, it is essential that the students know what is expected of them during their overseas stay and how the course they take abroad contributes to the overall learning outcome for the study programme.

The National Qualifications Framework describes competencies that all students should have on completing an education, regardless of subject area. Learning outcome descriptors have been defined for all three levels of higher education. All students who successfully complete a study programme shall have achieved the learning outcomes defined for that level. Examples of these kinds of overarching learning outcome descriptors are collaboration skills, basic knowledge of the methods and theories of the discipline, problem solving skills, communication skills, etc. The National Qualifications Framework does not currently have any learning outcome descriptors for international competence. Introducing a learning outcome descriptor for international competence in the National Qualifications Framework will highlight the importance of international experience and intercultural understanding. It will be up to the institutions to make arrangements that ensure that students achieve this competence. This can be done through study or training period abroad, through internationalisation at home, or by using, for example, virtual mobility. Introduction of this kind of learning outcome descriptor in the National Qualifications Framework will ensure that all study programmes must define how this competence will be achieved in the particular programme and will therefore be able to help facilitate student mobility.

4.4.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to organise all their study programmes with clear mobility windows, so that it is clear to the students when in the programme they will be expected to go abroad.

• The Government wants the institutions to make greater use of pre-approved course packages for student mobility in the programmes of study. These packages will ensure that students know in advance that they will have a quality-assured study period overseas that is a fully integrated part of their degree at home.

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to facilitate academically relevant mobility stays with clear academic connection between the study period abroad and the study programme at home. The students must be informed about the expected learning outcomes for the study period overseas and how the courses they take abroad contribute to the overall learning outcomes for the study programme.

• In connection with their work on approving courses taken abroad, the Government expects the higher education institutions to follow the Lisbon Recognition Convention, which states that education taken abroad must be recognised, unless it can be proven that there are substantial differences.

• The Government will include a learning outcome descriptor for international competence in the Norwegian National Qualifications Framework to underscore the importance of everyone who completes a degree having international experience and understanding.

4.5 Mobility of less than three months

Since the first Erasmus programme was established in 1987, “semester mobility” of at least three months’ duration, has been the norm for student mobility. The Bologna Process perpetuated this, linking its goal of 20 per cent mobility to stays of at least three months’ duration.19 In Norway too, only mobility of at least three months is included in the statistics and triggers performance-based funding in the funding system for universities and university colleges.20

According to the 2017 national student survey “Study Barometer”, 9 per cent of students had been on a mobility stay abroad that lasted less than three months – for example, courses, fieldwork or supervised professional training.21 Some instruments for international cooperation are largely geared up to various forms of shorter overseas stays. Examples include partnership programmes such as UTFORSK and INTPART. An analysis of the responses in the 2017 “Study Barometer” survey showed that students who had overseas stays of less than three months experience equally high academic benefits as students with longer study periods abroad.22

Many relevant actors emphasise that learning periods overseas of less than three months also have value, but that this type of mobility is not recognised or valued when only mobility of over three months is counted in the statistics and triggers performance-based funding in the funding system. Most believe that shorter periods of study abroad ought also to be counted and trigger performance-based funding in the funding system. For educations regulated by a national curriculum where there are many compulsory courses and compulsory teaching to a large extent, many institutions argue that it can be perceived as very demanding to arrange for a study period abroad of a whole semester. It can also be challenging to facilitate exchange stays in many countries outside Europe, North America and Australia, in part because they divide the academic year up differently or structure their programmes differently. In a preliminary report on student mobility between Norway and the Panorama countries, it is pointed out that there has been more short-term mobility between Norway and the Panorama countries since 2012, and that it may appear that it is easier to arrange stays of less than three months to these countries than longer stays.23 An analysis from the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) and the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (Diku) in 2018 pointed out that closer links between education and research and between students and teachers were one of the reasons why students with short mobility stays reported high benefits from the overseas stay.24 Offering students the option of flexible or adapted shorter mobility stays may make it easier for more people to go abroad.

Today, different sources of funding have different minimum requirements for the length of mobility stays. The funding system for universities and university colleges only provides performance-based payment for mobility of over three months, Erasmus+ funds training mobility down to two months, and the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) provides support for partial studies abroad down to a minimum duration of four weeks. It can be perceived as unclear why the different funding sources have different requirements, and it ought therefore to be considered whether the requirements can be coordinated and standardised.

4.5.1 Benefits of short stays abroad

Different types of mobility periods abroad yield different learning outcomes, and a significant factor here is the length of the stay (see the more detailed discussion in chapter 3). Some subject areas have a semester-long period of learning abroad at bachelor’s level, whereas at master’s level, overseas stays tend to be shorter and linked to, say, academic supervision, laboratory work, field work, etc. A period of short-term mobility, such as a period of supervised professional training abroad, can also be very valuable in the educations regulated by a national curriculum that have compulsory teaching to a large extent (see the more detailed discussion later in this chapter). Short-term mobility can be of great value in and of itself and can also lead to students going on a longer mobility stay later on.25

Both longer and shorter forms of international mobility will help enhance the quality of Norwegian higher education. For some students, perhaps especially those on a programme of professional study, the alternative to going overseas on a short-term mobility stay is not a longer study period abroad, but rather not to go abroad at all. The benefit for the individual student of short-term mobility is huge, compared with not having any kind of overseas stay at all.

Short-term mobility during a master’s programme can link Norwegian students and Norwegian higher education and research more closely to knowledge production and strong academic environments outside Norway, and help strengthen the connection between education and research.

4.5.2 Scope of short-term mobility today

According to the Database for Statistics on Higher Education (DBH), of the almost 48,000 students who graduated in 2019, some 1,241 had participated in a learning period abroad of less than three months during the course of their studies. This corresponds to a share of 2.6 per cent. While 7,892 students, or just over 16 per cent of the graduates, had participated in a learning period abroad of three months or longer. In other words, there is relatively little short-term mobility compared with mobility of three months or longer, or at least short-term mobility organised through institutional or individual exchange agreements.26

Based on its dialogue with institutions, the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (Diku) believes that short-term mobility may be more prevalent than is suggested by the official statistics. This may be because overseas stays of less than three months that are reported to the Database for Statistics on Higher Education (DBH) do not trigger funding in the funding system for universities and university colleges; nor are they counted in the mobility statistics. The reporting on these kinds of stays is therefore less complete than the reporting on mobility stays of three months or longer.

4.5.3 Criteria for inclusion in the statistics and performance-based funding indicator

The Government holds that short mobility stays abroad can make an important contribution to the work on increasing internationalisation in the sector, and that they can inspire people to take a longer mobility stay later on. Several of the stakeholders in the sector who have submitted a consultation response call for mobility of less than three months to be made more visible in the statistics and stimulated through the funding system for universities and university colleges.

Many of the institutions find it an important recognition of their internationalisation work that short-term mobility is included in the statistics, for example in the annual Status of Higher Education report and by the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (Diku) and the Database for Statistics on Higher Education (DBH). For the institutions, arranging shorter mobility stays, and not least work placements, can be just as demanding as arranging whole semester mobility.

The Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) already provides support for a study period abroad when the stay has a duration of at least four weeks and is an approved part of a programme of higher education that the applicant has already begun in Norway or abroad.27 This is an argument for applying the same limit in the funding system for universities and university colleges, so that the students and the institutions both have the same minimum requirement to relate to, as opposed to differing minimum requirements, as is the case today. Considering that there should be reciprocity in exchanges, and that the system should be as uncomplicated and as simple to navigate as possible, financial rewards for short-term mobility ought to be given for both inbound and outbound students, i.e. as is the case today for mobility of at least three months.

Stays shorter than those currently supported by the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen), i.e. shorter than four weeks, can also be valuable for the students and the cooperation between institutions. Examples of this kind of mobility include overseas trips in connection with field courses, excursions where academic employees and students travel abroad together, etc. However, including stays of less than four weeks’ duration in the statistics and/or in the funding system for universities and university colleges could provide too strong an incentive in favour of short-term mobility, thereby undermining the objective that the institutions shall primarily work to promote more long-term mobility. It is therefore important to avoid short-term mobility being prioritised at the expense of semester mobility.

4.5.3.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to continue to focus on working to increase whole semester mobility, i.e. an overseas stay of at least three months’ duration, but will include mobility of between one and three months’ duration in the performance-based indicator for student mobility in the funding system for universities and university colleges as soon as possible.

4.6 Professional study programmes

4.6.1 Mobility in curricula regulated educations

There is low mobility in several of the educations regulated by a national curriculum. The national requirements for facilitating student mobility apply to both higher education in general and the individual programmes of education through the different national curricula. Nevertheless, we find the lowest mobility rates within the professional study programmes.

Many of the educational programmes where a national curriculum has been established have indicated in their consultation responses that it is demanding to facilitate student mobility, and especially mobility of at least three months’ duration. National curricula have been set for teacher education, engineering education, and health and social care education. In the consultation responses to the white paper, it is mentioned that the educations regulated by a national curriculum are subject to strict national regulations in terms of both the content of the education and the graduates’ learning outcomes. It is argued that, among other things, the amount of compulsory teaching, compulsory courses and compulsory supervised professional training make it challenging to facilitate student mobility. The structure of the study programmes is perceived as rigid, and it is claimed that it is difficult to make space for mobility windows. Several stakeholders point out further that it is hard to find courses at overseas institutions that are sufficiently similar to their own courses that they can replace the compulsory courses in the programme at home. The fact that there are few elective courses in the programme is also perceived as an obstacle to student mobility. Some educations, such as the undergraduate programme in social education (welfare nursing) and to a lesser degree also the programme for kindergarten teacher education, face the challenge that other countries do not have an equivalent education at the higher education level, rendering it difficult to find courses at foreign institutions that can be incorporated in the Norwegian degree.

The requirement from the Quality Reform that all higher education institutions must offer students who wish to do so the opportunity to study abroad as part of their Norwegian degree programme applied to all study programmes and all subject areas. When revising the national curricula for the professional study programmes, requirements were included that arrangements must be made for student mobility and/or mobility windows must be introduced in the study programmes.28 It appears that the institutions have not succeeded in facilitating student mobility in the professional study programmes to a sufficient degree.

For example, one in four students on the teacher education programme state that they find that a study or training period abroad is not relevant to their study programme.29 Although this is not necessarily true, it is problematic that students on the teacher education programme have this impression. This suggests that during the course of the programme they must have encountered attitudes among the academic staff that international mobility is not relevant to teacher education. In order to succeed in bringing about a cultural change within the professional study programmes such that mobility becomes the norm, a positive attitude towards international mobility must be fostered within these programmes, and the students must encounter this attitude at all levels in the institution.

Although very many of the consultation responses mention challenges with international mobility in the educations regulated by a national curriculum, it must be queried whether the academic environments have themselves developed overly strict practices when assessing whether, and if so how, compulsory courses in the professional study programmes can be replaced by courses and/or periods of practical training taken abroad. This has also been expressed in the consultation responses from several institutions.

It is the institutions themselves and the individual academic communities that are responsible for ensuring that the students achieve the defined learning outcomes for the programme and meet the compulsory requirements. The institutions are free to incorporate courses taken abroad into the Norwegian degree. It is an important principle also for the regulated educations that courses taken abroad should be on the same level academically as the education at home, but it cannot be expected that courses taken abroad will be identical to the courses the student would otherwise have taken at home. The additional skills that the students acquire abroad must be weighed up against the fact that they will not have exactly the same learning outcomes as they would if they had taken their entire education at home.

4.6.1.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to structure all their study programmes with clearly defined mobility windows, including the programmes that lead to professional qualifications.

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to use their academic freedom and the latitude afforded to them, and show great flexibility when recognising courses taken abroad, including in the educations regulated by a national curriculum.

• The Government wants to pave the way for the implementation of pilot projects to increase mobility in the educations regulated by a national curriculum.

4.6.2 Compulsory supervised professional training

Within the educations regulated by a national curriculum, enabling students to do all or part of their compulsory supervised professional training abroad represents an opportunity to encourage more students to go on a mobility stay abroad. The compulsory supervised professional training and the requirements regarding this are described in the national curriculum for the individual education. The training must be supervised and assessed, and it is an integral part of the programme of education. This also applies to compulsory supervised professional training taken abroad. In view of the various requirements regarding both the content and the structure of the supervised professional training, it can be challenging to arrange for this to be done overseas. In their consultation responses, the institutions state that it is very resource-intensive to be responsible for the academic content of practical training done outside Norway, and especially in the Global South. It requires well-planned arrangements for supervised professional training and clear agreements with the partners and academic supervisors. Furthermore, it requires arrangements to ensure the students’ safety and awareness concerning the individual student’s intercultural capabilities.

Many of the consultation responses to the white paper refer to the fact that it is demanding to arrange a period of supervised professional training abroad of at least three months’ duration. The periods of supervised professional training are often shorter than this, and it is pointed out that the requirement that the mobility must last at least three months for it to be counted in the mobility statistics and trigger performance-based funding in the funding system for universities and university colleges does not serve its intended purpose in connection with practical training. The periods of supervised professional training, as defined in the national curricula, are an integral part of the education and are regulated in the national curricula. The institutions point out that stays of four to eight weeks are of great academic benefit to the students, and in programmes with a lot of compulsory teaching, it may be easier to fit shorter periods abroad into the study programme and incorporate them into the degree at home. In addition, going abroad on a shorter stay is an easier step for many students to take.

Although it is challenging, several institutions have successfully sent students on training abroad, including in the Global South. These institutions have prepared good systems and agreements to enable students to do all or part of their compulsory teaching practice abroad, and Norwegian institutions send students to a number of different countries. The feedback from the students is mostly very positive, and the students report that they learn a lot from this experience. For example, Norwegian Teacher Student Union (PS), the student association for students in teacher education, reports that teacher students give positive feedback, stating that by doing their teaching practice abroad, they get to see how their profession is practised in other countries, and that they have the opportunity to try working in different conditions than in Norway.30 The principle that all teaching practice must be supervised and assessed is absolute, also if the teaching practice is done in another country, and the quality of the practice periods is essential for the quality of education.

4.6.2.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government holds that there is potential to make better use of the periods of practical training within the educations regulated by a national curriculum than is currently the case, and would encourage the institutions to take further steps to enable the students to do their compulsory supervised professional training abroad.

• The Government expects that inclusion of mobility stays of between one and three months in the performance-based indicator for student mobility in the funding system will lead to more students doing their compulsory supervised professional training in the programmes of professional study abroad (see section 4.5.3.1).

4.7 Other training mobility

Training mobility is the least prevalent form of student mobility, especially in disciplines that do not traditionally include a period of supervised professional training. In the education cooperation in Europe, there is a clear tendency towards efforts to make higher education more relevant to working life,31 cf. also the forthcoming white paper on labour market relevance in higher education. The white paper Report no. 16 to the Storting (2016–2017) Quality culture in higher education highlights, among other things, the importance of supervised professional training in education. Training or work-related mobility refers to a variety of systems and schemes whereby students do a work placement in a workplace in another country.

The competence students receive through international student mobility in general and through work related mobility in particular is especially important when students are being educated to meet an increasingly globalised labour market. The goal of work placements is to bridge the gap between education and real-life work. They can help the students prepare for entry into the labour market, where intercultural and international perspectives are increasingly in demand.

At the same time, it is important to recognise that training mobility is demanding. One challenge is that Norwegian institutions do not always know how best to go about finding partners (i.e. work placement enterprises) abroad. Furthermore, it can be difficult to assess the period of practical training abroad, especially in countries where education, society and the labour market are organised very differently to in Norway. In addition, there are various practical challenges, such as getting visas, residence permits and insurance, which are often more complicated in connection with practical training than more traditional student exchanges. Since the students often do not benefit from the same infrastructure as ordinary exchange students, such as student accommodation, student transport, etc., it can also end up being expensive to do training in another country.

Several of the consultation responses to the white paper point out that the requirement for a minimum length of three months for an overseas learning period to be counted in the mobility statistics and trigger performance-based funding in the funding system for universities and university colleges is an obstacle, and that this threshold ought to be lowered. It is pointed out that overseas stays of between four and eight weeks are of great academic benefit to the students, and that students who have been on a short-term mobility period are generally more likely to go abroad again.

Although this kind of training mobility is relatively little used, and despite the fact that it is resource-intensive, there has been an increase in such mobility in recent years. Volda University College (HVO) can be highlighted as an example, where a relatively high number of students choose to do their period of supervised professional training abroad. In autumn 2019, 34 per cent of the bachelor’s students in social care programmes did a period of supervised professional training abroad. The university college has cooperation agreements with several countries, including India, Tanzania, Kenya, Greece and Ireland. While they are abroad, the students receive academic follow-up from the university college during their stay in the same way as the students doing training in Norway; for example, by the contact teacher visiting the students during the period of practical training. Having a training period in social work in another country provides the students with valuable insight into how the profession is practised in other countries and cultures.

One of the most common methods Norwegian higher education institutions employ to establish agreements on training abroad is to use their contacts and networks at partner institutions. Cooperation agreements between institutions often open doors to both education and local employers and businesses. In their input to the white paper, several universities and university colleges report that they use their partner networks and cooperation agreements to find overseas opportunities for their students. Others state that they use international alumni networks, and that they work systematically to motivate students to travel through buddy schemes, business contacts or experience sharing from students who have already participated in training abroad.

Within Europe, Germany and France are priority partner countries within both academia and industry. Moreover, Norwegian students are more likely to have a successful training period in these countries, since the cultural differences are relatively small. The circumstances for cooperation on such mobility vary greatly in Norway’s priority partner countries outside Europe. Factors that might make establishing and ensuring assessment of training periods more demanding in many of the Panorama countries, for example, include language and cultural differences, no tradition of this training as envisaged by Norway, and different views on the role of students.

4.7.1 Scope of training mobility

As mentioned above, professional training mobility is a relatively little used instrument in higher education. Table 4.8 presents figures from three different courses of education: a first-cycle or undergraduate degree (bachelor’s degree), a second-cycle higher degree (master’s degree) and an integrated master’s degree (including professional study programmes at higher degree level), providing a general overview of the trends in terms of the scope of training mobility in the period 2016–2019, and the scope of exchanges of longer than three months.

The table shows that training mobility is increasing, but was still not widely used in the period 2016–2019. Training mobility is more prevalent at the first-cycle degree level than at the second-cycle degree level and in integrated study programmes. Training mobility is also a very much less used instrument than conventional study exchange abroad, as is demonstrated clearly in table 4.8.

There has been an increase in the number of Norwegian students who do a training period abroad in recent years. However, the other Nordic countries have significantly higher such mobility than Norway (cf. table 4.9). Denmark and Finland are well ahead of Norway, whereas the figures for Sweden are only marginally higher. There is thus great potential for growth in the use of international training mobility from Norway.

4.7.2 What instruments are available?

Norwegian higher education institutions can use opportunities that follow from the EU cooperation to offer international training mobility.

In the current Erasmus+ programme period, degree students (at bachelor’s, master’s and PhD level) can go abroad on training periods lasting between two and twelve months. Erasmus+ encompasses both inter-European and global training mobility.32 The premise is that such mobility must be based on institutional cooperation agreements and result in assessed learning outcomes for the students. A learning agreement must be entered into between the home institution, the recipient organisation and the student.33 This agreement must describe, among other things, the student’s tasks, the expected learning outcomes, follow-up and plans for evaluation. For students who do a period of practical training in Europe, there is also the option of doing this period of practical training after they have completed their degree.

Some Norwegian institutions employ framework agreements other than Erasmus+. Several of the institutions with high figures for training mobility use national instruments, primarily the InternAbroad programme, which is currently in the pilot phase (see the more detailed presentation in box 4.7).

It is up to the home institution to decide whether or not the training period provides credits and how the student can have the stay approved and incorporated into their study programme. A formal learning agreement in Erasmus+ triggers funding through the programme, and work-related mobility have better financial conditions than overseas study stays.34 All higher education institutions that have been awarded the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE)35 can apply for funding.

A recent analysis, Erasmus+ in Norwegian Higher Education 2019, reveals an increase in student mobility, but also points out that there are untapped opportunities, especially in respect of international training mobility.36 Of the 2,684 outbound students under the Erasmus+ programme in 2017, only 320 went abroad to have a training period. There is wide variance in the use of this scheme among Norwegian institutions. In 2017, for example, six institutions accounted for 70 per cent of all such mobility37, while six others38 did not employ this scheme at all. The figures show that the most popular destination countries for training mobility in Europe among Norwegian students are Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain. Since training mobility as part of the “global mobility” initiative39 was only introduced in 2018, most of the available figures only apply to countries in Europe.

Zoom in on image

Source: Erasmus+, Final Reports – Mobility for students and staff to partner countries

All students who go abroad within the framework of the Erasmus+ programme must answer a questionnaire on their return, evaluating the quality of their stay. They are asked to express their views on the relevance of the mobility stay, how satisfied they were with their stay, their learning outcomes, and various other aspects. All institutions have access to own results. This feedback from the students can provide an important indication of the quality and relevance of the overseas stays.

4.7.2.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government wants the institutions to pave the way for better international training mobility through active use of schemes such as Erasmus+ (assuming Norway participates in the programme in the period 2021–2027) and InternAbroad.

• The Government expects that inclusion of mobility stays of between one and three months in the performance-based indicator for student mobility in the funding system for universities and university colleges will lead to more students doing training periods abroad.

4.8 Information

Providing better information to students and prospective students is a key element in the work to increase student mobility in higher education in Norway. In the consultation input to the work on the white paper, the students in particular have expressed that the information needs to be improved. The information is perceived as unclear, difficult to find, fragmented and at times also inadequate. This is also in line with other knowledge about factors that inhibit students’ participation in exchange programmes.40

Today, responsibility for providing information is shared. Most of the information work is the responsibility of and done by the individual institutions, whereas the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (Diku) provides public, quality assured information about different countries of study through the website Utdanning i verden [Education in the world], which has links to the individual Norwegian institutions’ mobility pages. Diku also operates Study in Norway, which is an information website for inbound students. Through its work, Diku aims to inspire, motivate and advise students, including considering whether, for example, special campaigns are needed to recruit students to priority partner countries. Another source of information is the website Utdanning.no, run by Norwegian Institute for Adult Learning (Kompetanse Norge), which is the national online portal with an overview of all the education on offer in Norway and includes information about education and careers.

It is essential that prospective students are given good information about the opportunities for studying abroad as early as possible. This will help prepare them for and make them aware of the possibilities for a study or training period abroad before they even embark on higher education.

Many students consult the Utdanning.no website on their way into higher education. More information about opportunities to study abroad on Utdanning.no will enable prospective students to gain more knowledge about and greater awareness of international mobility even before they start at a university or university college.

4.8.1 Conclusions and measures

• The website Utdanning.no ought to highlight to a larger extent the opportunities available to Norwegian students to study abroad both as degree students and as exchange students. The work to ensure good communication with all Norwegian students must be carried out in collaboration with other relevant actors, such as the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (Diku) and the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen).

4.9 Digital solutions for administration of student mobility

A major change in culture where international student mobility is an integral part of all study programmes, requires good systems, and especially digital systems. This applies in particular in connection with systems for handling applications for and approval of mobility stays, but also with regard to information in general. All new systems must be student centric, and the Government wants eventually to establish a common digital portal that handles all aspects of international student mobility – before, during and after the study period or training abroad. This is supported and highlighted as important by all the institutions that have provided consultation input to the white paper. In their consultation responses, many parties argue that the processes linked to student mobility need to be simplified and made less bureaucratic, enabling more efficient administrative work related to student mobility. One recurring point is digitalisation of various aspects of the process, especially the application and approval routines. The University of Bergen (UiB) expresses the future ambitions aptly:

Textbox 4.9 University of Stavanger – Interactive map with information on mobility opportunities

The University of Stavanger (UiS) has put a lot of effort into improving and quality assuring the information about mobility on its responsive websites. This is part of the work on following up UiS’s development agreement with the Ministry of Education and Research.

One of the innovations is a map solution with information about international mobility, which was launched in November 2019. In the new interactive map solution, students can search for their study programme and then see where in the world they can go on an exchange.

The students can also use the map to get more information about each of the recommended overseas institutions and to find more detailed information about the opportunities and schemes for international mobility in the relevant study programme.

All the information in the interactive map on recommended overseas institutions and mobility schemes in the relevant study programme is taken from the National Student Database (FS).

Zoom in on image

This solution has two clear advantages:

1. The information about mobility opportunities is easier to access by students being able to search for their study programme and have the mobility opportunities presented visually.

2. Having all the information in a single database facilitates and improves quality assurance. The University of Stavanger uses the National Student Database (FS) as a tool for storing and publishing all other information about academic matters, and it is directly linked to the annual review of courses and course descriptions. Incorporating all information about mobility into FS also serves to increase the study programmes’ support for and ownership of the information and the exchange schemes.

Easily accessible, quality assured, online information about exchange options is expected to yield results in the long run in the form of increased student mobility.

Zoom in on image

Source: https://student.uis.no/utveksling/hvor-og-naar-kan-jeg-reise/

“We want a process where every step a student must take ahead of an overseas stay is gathered in a single digital solution. Everything from the choice of exchange agreement, automatic pre-approval of the stay, and not least the application to the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund. Once a student chooses a place of study, an application ought to be automatically sent to the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund.”41

The Government wants to improve the users’ interaction with the public administration, and one aim expressed in the white paper Report no. 27 to the Storting (2015–2016) Digital agenda for Norway – ICT for a simpler everyday life and increased productivity is that users shall perceive public services as seamless and integrated. This also applies to the education and research sector. In spring 2019, the Ministry of Education and Research therefore appointed an expert working group to look into the service chains in the education and research sector, with representatives from the Ministry’s nine subordinate agencies.42

The expert group was initiated by the Directorate for ICT and Joint Services in Higher Education and Research (Unit) and has representatives from the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (Diku), the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT), universities and university colleges, the Directorate of Education and partners in the Erasmus Without Papers project. The group has now developed a problem description and a number of recommended measures. The project is in its infancy, but aims to digitalise the administrative aspects of student mobility, such as

• the application process

• information for students

• the portfolio of foreign partner institutions

• the learning agreement

• learning outcome descriptors

• documents in connection with preliminary pre-approval of courses

Digitalisation shall also enable individual decisions to be sent directly to the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) and quicker submission of examination results, etc.

The purpose of digitalisation is not only to simplify and streamline processes, but also to free up time for academic follow-up of the students.

4.9.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government will work to simplify the application and approval processes related to student mobility for students and institutions.

4.10 Responsibility for Norwegian students abroad in the event of unforeseen incidents

If increased student mobility is achieved in line with the ambitions, there will be more Norwegian students at higher education institutions abroad, including at institutions in countries with a different risk profile to Norway. Increased student mobility thus entails an increased risk of Norwegian students being affected by unforeseen incidents, such as natural disasters, accidents, pandemics, terrorism, crime, national unrest, violent demonstrations, hostilities, war, etc. The Norwegian Foreign Service is responsible for assisting Norwegian citizens abroad in the event of unforeseen incidents. The Ministry of Education and Research’s responsibility is to assist the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with information about Norwegian students abroad and to coordinate the information communicated to state and private higher education institutions that have exchange students abroad. The individual student must decide for themselves whether it is pertinent and sensible to choose to study abroad, taking the risk of unforeseen incidents into consideration. In addition, Norwegian higher education institutions have a duty to assess the risk of unforeseen incidents in connection with their international exchange programmes.

The institutions have a clear responsibility to inform and advise students about both the opportunities and the limitations in advance of their trip abroad. In addition, the institutions must make it clear what the students are themselves responsible for. As a general starting point, the institutions do not have a financial responsibility for students who are on an exchange in another country; however, in the event of e.g. a disrupted learning period abroad, the institutions are responsible for ensuring the student’s study progress.

Students who receive support from the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) for a study period abroad are automatically a member of the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme while they are overseas. However, the extent to which an individual student is entitled to occupational injury compensation or compensation pursuant to general rules of the law of damages will vary from case to case. Norwegian students abroad should therefore arrange their own private insurance for their learning period abroad and familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions of the policy.

4.10.1 Conclusions and measures

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to assess and take into account the security risks of sending Norwegian students abroad on a case-by-case basis.

• The institutions have a clear responsibility to inform and advise the students on both the opportunities and the limitations in advance of their trip abroad, and to make it clear what the students themselves are responsible for.

4.11 An international study programme

Studies abroad must be seen in conjunction with other activities to promote internationalisation and quality development at the institutions. This is especially pertinent in view of the Government’s aim to instigate a cultural change where mobility and international perspectives are an integral part of all programmes. Even if student mobility increases significantly going forwards, a large proportion of Norwegian students will still not have this kind of international experience during the course of their studies. It is therefore important that all study programmes develop a more international profile.

There is no overall knowledge about how and to what extent the study programmes at Norwegian higher education institutions have an international dimension. In 2018, the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) and the Research Council of Norway (NFR) presented a joint evaluation of research and education in selected academic areas at various institutions.43 The internationalisation of the study programmes was one of the aspects that was assessed. The assessment showed that there are large differences between the various educational opportunities, at the same time as a number of common challenges were identified. Internationalisation of study programmes depends on the academic community having an international orientation and international contact. However, this is not always enough. The joint evaluation shows that even academic and research groups with a highly international orientation do not always manage to create a correspondingly international profile in the study programmes they offer.

On an overarching level, the evaluation shows that different academic communities and institutions have different perceptions of what internationalisation means, and that some people assume internationalisation simply means international mobility. More specifically, the reports highlight that many of the programmes ought to develop a more international profile by adopting a more international syllabus and making greater use of examples and contexts from countries other than Norway. At the same time, the reports point out that some groups already do this systematically and to a high degree.

The evaluation also recommends greater use of international teachers, stressing that this represents an important and underused potential for internationalisation. These may be the institutions’ own teachers, part-time employees, or international partners who can add an international perspective.

A recent study from Finland shows that there is relatively little knowledge and understanding of the concept of “internationalisation at home” among the academic staff in the Finnish higher education sector.44 In their evaluation, NOKUT and the Research Council of Norway find that the situation in Norway is more complex and varied. As with mobility and exchange, this type of internationalisation initiative must also be adapted to the individual programmes. It is nevertheless important that all study programmes assess how an international dimension can strengthen the education they provide and what needs to be done to achieve this.

Norwegian higher education institutions on the mainland ought to take greater advantage of the unique study and research environment in polar and natural sciences at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), also in connection with student mobility.

4.11.1 Digital international cooperation and exchanges without physical mobility

Technological advances in digitalisation and more online communication are opening up new and improving pre-existing opportunities for international collaboration without the need to meet in person.

The advantage of using technology to add an international dimension to Norwegian education is that all the students can participate, irrespective of factors that might prevent them from travelling physically – such as family commitments, health, and financial and/or work situation. Technology thus provides good alternative opportunities for internationalisation at home.

One drawback is that some of the positive effects that physical mobility can have are lost; for example, benefits related to general skills, personal development, and general moral, social and cultural education. Digital technology and virtual cooperation ought therefore not to be used instead of traditional physical mobility, but rather be a supplement to it and to help motivate physical mobility. Although virtual cooperation and mobility ought to be in addition to physical mobility, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered strong growth in the use of digital solutions in higher education, thereby also lowering the threshold for the use of virtual solutions in connection with internationalisation and mobility.

Some academic communities argue that the amount of compulsory teaching and compulsory courses, as defined in national curricula, for example, make it difficult to accommodate study or training period abroad. Virtual international cooperation, combined with short-term mobility, may function as a supplement and an alternative to a mobility period of over three months where this is challenging to arrange.

Another aspect of virtual and/or digital cooperation that some institutions highlight in their consultation responses to the white paper is that it represents a solution to how to meet the potentially contradictory goals of increased physical mobility and the green transition. From a sustainability perspective, digital international cooperation provides an environment-friendly alternative to long-haul flights.

Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet) collaborates closely with Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and The Hague University of Applied Sciences on a virtual exchange solution called COIL. COIL stands for Collaborative Online International Learning and is a form of virtual international cooperation and exchange (see the more detailed presentation in box 4.11). The focus here is on the learning element for students and on reaching students who would not otherwise be mobile for various reasons. Although the Government holds that virtual cooperation should not replace actual or physical mobility, virtual international cooperation has an independent intrinsic value of its own.

Internationally, there is no general consensus on whether to call this kind of virtual international cooperation “virtual mobility”, “virtual exchange” or, for example, “global network learning”. The European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU) points out that in the call for the 2019 Erasmus+ work programme, the European Commission defined virtual mobility as follows: “a set of activities supported by Information and Communication Technologies, including e-learning, that realise or facilitate international, collaborative experiences in a context of teaching, training or learning.”45 At the time of writing, it is not clear what definition the European Commission will use in the next programme phase of Erasmus+.

However, there is widespread consensus that it is not the technology itself that is the most important element, but what the technology can enable in terms of learning across national borders and development of intercultural skills and understanding.

The European Commission’s new European Universities initiative (see section 4.3.5) also emphasises virtual international cooperation as an important instrument.

4.11.2 Conclusions and measures

• The Government expects the higher education institutions to incorporate an international dimension adapted to the individual programme in all the study programmes, and that they also facilitate internationalisation for students who do not travel abroad for a study or training period. The Government expects the higher education institutions to consider how they can accommodate virtual forms of international cooperation in their study programmes.