Similar Students and Different Countries? An Analysis of the Barriers and Drivers for Erasmus Participation in Seven Countries

Abstract

Changes made as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing, formatting and page numbers may not be reflected in this version. For the definitive version of this publication, please refer to the published source. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite this paper.

Erasmus University Students Motivation and Segments: The Case of Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain

“…than the segment "with perceived motivations", which includes a greater proportion of Erasmus students from Italy and Eastern Europe. This result may seem at odds with the findings of Beerkens et al (2016), who conclude that there are few differences between countries. However, Rodríguez, Bustillo & Mariel (2011) argue that the motivations that drive Erasmus students to study abroad depend on the region where their home country is located, with differences arising based on their respective levels of development.…”

“…Nevertheless, students may react to different push-pull factors in different ways. A number of researchers, such as Beerkens, Souto-Otero, Wit & Huisman (2016), have focused on the basic push-pull model with the aim of developing more sophisticated conceptual models with which to assess the choices made by international students.…”

Development and validation of a Multidimensional Motivations to Study Abroad Scale (MMSAS) among European Credit Mobility Students

“…Such a measure could be used in higher education institutions to plan orientation activities, screen student applications, and develop intervention strategies to both promote social and cultural adjustment and healthy behaviour. Attempts have been made to develop such a measure but there are notable methodological and psychometric limitations in the existing literature, including a lack of disclosure on the process of scale development (e.g., Pope, Sánchez, Lehnert, & Schmid, 2014;Wiers-Jenssen, 2003), aggregating conceptually similar items into dimensions (Van Mol & Timmerman, 2014), and a lack of assessment of construct and criterion validity, and factor structure invariance, even when using a multi-country/multi-language samples (Beerkens, Souto-Otero, de Wit, & Huisman, 2015;Sánchez, Fornerino, & Zhang, 2006). Furthermore, many instruments have also been developed using limited samples, including single-country single-language (e.g., Anderson & Lawton, 2015;Chirkov et al, 2007;Wiers-Jenssen, 2003), short-term study abroad summer programmes (Nyaupane, Paris, & Teye, 2011), or discipline-specific students (Pope et al, 2014).…”

‘It doesn’t really matter which university you attend or which subject you study while abroad.’ the massification of student mobility programmes and its implications for equality in higher education

“…Unlike other studies, this article focuses on credit rather than degree mobility; goes beyond measures of participation versus non-participation; and shifts the focus from individual to institutional strategies. Degree (or 'spontaneous') mobility is typically examined from the perspective of either the "push-pull" or the "college choice" framework (Beerkens, Souto-Otero, de Wit & Huisman 2016). In both frameworks, and in particular the latter, it is understood that privileged strategies are central: By investing in international mobility, the more privileged may acquire prestigious credentials and signal that they are more 'internationalised' than their static peers.…”