132


Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies


Let./Vol. 69 (135)
Št./No. 2/2018
Str./pp. 132–143

ISSN 0038 0474
Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska,
Silvana Neshkovska, Daniela Andonovska
Trajkovska, Natasha Blazeska Tabakovska
and Biljana KuzmanovskaTasetovikj

University Students’ Views on the
Impact of Student Mobility on their
Achievements and Future Prospects
Abstract: Determining the impact of student mobility on students’ achievements is not a simple matter.
Quite the contrary, it is a very complex issue and is related to a number of factors. This paper seeks to determine the effects of student mobility on Macedonian students, i.e. on their academic achievements and
the development of their competencies as well as on boosting their future career prospects. The Republic of
Macedonia has access to many programs related to student mobility. The common agreement among the members of the academic community is that mobility, unfortunately, is not used enough by Macedonian students.
Research findings point out that there are many contributing facts that influence this situation: students’
lack of interest; their fear of going abroad; insufficient knowledge of foreign languages; lack of information
concerning the advantages of spending one semester abroad; etc. The results presented in this paper rest on
a comparative study that focused on two small groups of students from ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’ University in
Bitola: the former composed of students who have spent one semester at a foreign university and the control
group that included students who have not been involved in such activities. The findings are quite significant
and reveal that, unlike students who have never realised mobility, mobile students demonstrate that their
entire approach to the learning process, career advancement and life in general changes considerably due to
the value able experience they have gained in the process of experiencing student mobility.
Key words: student mobility, impact, achievements, ERASMUS+ and CEEPUS programs
UDC: 378
Professional article
Mimoza Bogdanoska Jovanovska, PhD, associate professor, ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’ University in Bitola,
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies – Bitola, Partizanska bb, 7000 Bitola, Macedonia;
e-mail: mimoza.jovanovska@fikt.edu.mk
Silvana Neshkovska, PhD, assistant professor, ‘St. Kliment Ohridski University’ in Bitola, Faculty of Education
– Bitola, Vasko Karangelevski bb, 7000 Bitola, Macedonia; e-mail: silvanakolevska@yahoo.com
Daniela Andonovska Trajkovska, PhD, associate professor, ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’ University in
Bitola, Faculty of Education – Bitola, Vasko Karangelevski bb,7000 Bitola, Macedonia; e-mail:
dandonovskatrajkovska@yahoo.com
Natasha Blazeska Tabakovska, PhD, assistant professor, ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’ University in Bitola, Faculty
of Information and Communication Technologies – Bitola, Partizanska bb, 7000 Bitola, Macedonia; e-mail:
natasa.tabakovska@fikt.edu.mk
Biljana Kuzmanovska Tasetovikj, MA, Senior EducationUSA adviser, EducationUSA Macedonia, U.S. Department
of State Network, Marshal Tito bb, 7000 Bitola, Macedonia; e-mail: kuzmanovskabb@yahoo.com



Bogdanoska Jovanovska et al.

133

Introduction
The ability of the students to move from one institution to another known
as ‘mobility of students’ has been an integral part of the education process for
centuries. However, during the last two decades, student mobility during tertiary
education has been gaining momentum. This is primarily due to the processes of
globalisation and internationalisation in general, which in the field of higher education have been clearly reflected in the Bologna process. Also, this tendency of
increased student mobility can be attributed to the pronounced process of creating
a knowledge-based economy worldwide.
Studying abroad inevitably entails numerous benefits for all stakeholders
involved in the process. The benefits can be analysed on two levels:1) world level
(horizontally): students, countries of origin, host country and the third countries
(Knerr et. al, 2010); and 2) state level (vertically): the country of origin, universities
and students. In any case, students are the central beneficiaries of this process.
Determining the impact that student mobility has on students is not a simple
matter. Even though at first glance it might be assumed that studying abroad helps
students in expanding their knowledge and skills and boosts their labour market
prospects, still, the matter is much more complex and there is more to it than that
(Kuzmanovska Tasetovikj, 2017).
Following and measuring student mobility and its benefits are constantly in
the focus of many researchers and world institutions(Statistical Annex Erasmus+,
Annual Report, 2016; Educational Indicators in Focus, 2013; Eurobarometer Flash
No 304, 2010).Very frequently, many of them draw similar conclusions, such as:
despite the well-documented student mobility, still, precise data on the rate of
participation of students in cross-border programs are missing; there is still space
for improving the numbers of student mobility at the world level, and, especially,
in the developing countries; etc.
The Republic of Macedonia is a developing country and is strongly encouraged to take part in these global processes. In the last ten years alone, the country
has been continuously provided with access to many student mobility programs.
Unfortunately, up to the present moment, it seems that Macedonian university

134

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Bogdanoska Jovanovska, et al.

students are not sufficiently interested in exploiting the possibilities presented to
them by the ERASMUS+ and CEEPUS programs in the form of student mobility.
There are many contributing factors that influence this situation, but, to the best
of our knowledge, they have been seriously underexplored.
Consequently, the focus of this research is placed on the factors that influence
Macedonian students not to make use of student mobility programs sufficiently.
The results presented in this paper are derived from a survey conducted among
students whose home institution is the Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies at ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’ University - Bitola, in the Republic of
Macedonia. In fact, the paper offers a quantitative analysis of the findings obtained
via two tailor-made questionnaires conducted among two categories of students: 1)
students who have realised student mobility, and 2) students who have not realised
student mobility.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the
relevant theoretical background related to the issues addressed in the study at
hand. Section 3 expounds the methodology used in the research process. Section 4
presents the results obtained from this study, and finally, Section 5 offers relevant
conclusions as well as recommendations for further research.
Theoretical background
State-of-the-art of student mobility
Cross-border university-based education has been receiving growing attention since the end of the last century. As a result, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2013, p. 1) points out that ‘the number
of students enrolled in tertiary education outside their country of citizenship has
increased more than threefold, from 1.3 million in 1990 to nearly 4.3 million in
2011, representing an average annual growth rate of almost 6%. This is a greater
increase than the overall rise in tertiary enrolments globally’. According to OECD
and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)/The World
Bank (2007, p. 21) ‘in the near future, it is very likely that this trend will further
intensify’. Similarly, a study cited in OECD and IBRD/The World Bank (2007, p.
21) – the Global Student Mobility 2025 –predicts that ‘the demand for international
education will increase from 1.8 million international students in 2000 to 7.2 million international students in 2025’.
This current trend of increase in student mobility has triggered some extremely
salient concerns: ‘international student mobility is changing the global higher education landscape; nations understand and evaluate student mobility differently;
there is a lack of comparable data, and consequently, definitive statistical analyses
of reported figures are challenging to produce’ (Verbik and Lasanowski, 2007, p.8);
‘no precise data exist regarding the rate of participation of students in cross-border
programs’ (OECD and IBRD/The World Bank, 2007, p.1); etc.

Pogledi študentov na učinek mobilnosti študentov na njihove dosežke in prihodnje možnosti .../
University
Students’ Views on the Impact of Student Mobility on their Achievements ...


135

In the Republic of Macedonia, university students are presented with numerous
opportunities for realising student mobility abroad. Namely, Macedonian students
mainly realise student mobility in the country members of the European Union.
The most popular and well-known European mobility study programs in Macedonia
are Erasmus+ (short for EuRopean Community Action Scheme for the Mobility
of University Students) and CEEPUS (short for Central European Exchange Program
for University Studies). In addition, there are many other American, Australian,
Japanese and Chinese student mobility programs that Macedonian students also
have at their disposal.
The general impression regarding the student mobility of Macedonian students
is that only a small number of Macedonian students experience student mobility in
the course of their university studies (Kuzmanovska Tasetovikj, 2017). This claim
finds confirmation in the official data presented in reports published at the websites
of Erasmus+ Program (Erasmus+ Annual Report, 2016, p. 32–33) and CEEPUS
(http://www.ceepus.info/default.aspx?CMSPage=86#nbb, accessed on10.02.2018)
(Table 1). As presented in Table 1, the portion of realised outgoing student mobility
on the part of Macedonian students does seem pretty insignificant if compared with
the overall scope of realised student mobility in the academic year 2016/2017 in all
countries included in the program. Still, one cannot uphold this claim with a high
degree of certainty as the numbers presented in Table 1 do not depict the actual
number of students who have experienced student mobility. They only refer to the
number of months students have spent abroad.
Program

No. of months spent
abroad by Macedonian
students

Total No. of months spent abroad by
students in all countries included in the
program

No. of countries in
the program

Erasmus+

209 months

303,880 months

33

CEEPUS

190 months

5,772 months

16

Table 1.Number of months of realised outgoing student mobility by Macedonian students in the academic year 2016/2017

The numbers presented in Table 1 refer to the number of months students
have stayed at foreign universities, i.e. the total duration of student mobility of all
students who have achieved student mobility within the two mobility programs
mentioned above – Erasmus+ and CEEPUS, in the academic year 2016/2017. What
makes the interpretation of the results presented in Table 1 more complex is the
fact that the two abovementioned student mobility programs do not even grant
the same number of months per mobility (e.g. Erasmus+ usually grants 5 months
per mobility grant, whereas CEEPUS grants either 1or 4 months per mobility).
Furthermore, students have an option to prolong their mobility by obtaining a
grant for an additional semester or month. This is the reason why the portion of
students who have used student mobility cannot be presented in exact numbers.
Hence, it becomes clear that analysing, discussing and presenting data regarding
student mobility programs requires, first and foremost, a clear and unambiguous
definition of the term ‘student mobility’ itself. It is a well-known fact in theory the

136

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Bogdanoska Jovanovska, et al.

usefulness of data is always connected with a clear definition of the object/issue
subjected to analysis. According to OECD (2007, p.25), students can be ‘mobile’ in a
number of ways: ‘they can obtain their degree entirely in another country; participate in an exchange study program abroad; undertake field work or an internship
abroad; register for a semester/year in a foreign country via a mobility program,
etc.’. In that respect, Table 2 provides a detailed framework of the different forms
and conditions of mobility, which can be very useful in understanding the complex
nature of cross-border education.
Category

Forms and conditions of mobility

Examples

Month
Semester
Academic year abroad

–– Exchange programs
–– Part of academic partnership for home degree
or joint degree

Students

Full degrees

–– Full study abroad for a foreign degree or
qualification

Internships
Table 2. Framework of cross-border higher education activities
Source: Adapted from Knight (2005b)

The funding of student mobility is also another important factor that needs to
be taken into consideration when discussing student mobility programs. Normally,
this segment can be realised in the form of exchange agreements, government
scholarships, public or private grants, and self-funding.
Bearing all these aspects related to student mobility in mind, for the purposes
of this paper, we rely on several definitions proposed by the European Commission (2015, p.1), Erasmus+ and University of Glasgow (2016, p.1). Thus, student
mobility here is seen as an opportunity for students to study abroad whilst undertaking their undergraduate or postgraduate studies at their home institution.
This enables them to spend an integrated period of study, which can range from 3
months (one semester) up to 12 months (an entire academic year) at another higher
education institution abroad; and they do this in exchange for ECTS (European
Credit Transfer System) credits.
Benefits and obstacles related to student mobility
Apart from realising mobility for obtaining credits, which is the primary
benefit that students obtain from realising student mobility abroad, according to
the European Commission (2015, p.1)student mobility brings students numerous
secondary benefits in terms of enhancing their educational, linguistic and cultural
competence, as well as some tertiary benefits such as turning students into wellqualified, open-minded, internationally experienced young people and competent

Pogledi študentov na učinek mobilnosti študentov na njihove dosežke in prihodnje možnosti .../
University
Students’ Views on the Impact of Student Mobility on their Achievements ...


137

future professionals (ibid). In this direction, ‘Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching
in European Universities’ (Sursock, 2015, p.13) notes that internationalisation has
a significant influence on the development and improvement of the learning process,
i.e. ‘the quality of learning . . . has improved thanks to student mobility’. Moreover,
students’ development during student mobility also entails the development of
some special set of skills, which, according to OECD (2007, p.33), are recognised by
employers when recruiting higher education graduates, and which are also listed
in the Eurobarometer survey (2010, p.6). These are: an ability to work in a team,
computer literacy, sector-specific skills, communication skills, an ability to adapt
to new situations quickly and acquisition of analytical and problem-solving skills.
According to Eurostudent VI (2018, p. 220), ‘students’ mobility experience is commonly assumed to boost graduates employability’.
Student mobility very frequently comes across various obstacles that, undoubtedly, contribute greatly to the current unfavourable situation regarding the extent
to which student mobility is realised in general. In that respect, the University
of Glasgow (2016, p.1) focused on students as beneficiaries and came up with a
list of factors that limit student mobility: additional costs of living overseas and
lack of financial support from the university or some other external sources; lack
of foreign language skills; disruption associated with relocation; credit transfer
and recognition within the ‘home’ university degree program; reluctance to leave
their ‘comfort zone’ – this particularly goes for students who live with their parents during their studies; academic staff being reluctant to let their best students
participate in student mobility because of the potentially negative impact on
marks; etc.
The abovementioned benefits and obstacles served as a foundation for our
research. We were particularly interested in the obstacles as we wanted to find
out which of those factors influence the current situation with student mobility in
Macedonia. Moreover, we wanted to check whether students in general recognise
the actual benefits they can get from student mobility, irrespective of whether they
have already experienced mobility or not.
Methodology
The research process at hand draws on a quantitative analysis of a survey
conducted among undergraduate and postgraduate students. In fact, the results
are obtained via a separate and a comparative (cross) analysis of two tailor-made
questionnaires. The questionnaires are composed of questions related to students’
awareness of the benefits they can have from student mobility as well as the
reasons why they use or do not use the possibility for realising student mobility
abroad.
The results presented in this paper are based on the responses provided by
former and current students from the second oldest state university in Macedonia,
‘St. Kliment Ohridski’ University in Bitola (henceforward the University), more
precisely students enrolled at the Faculty of Administration and Management

138

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Bogdanoska Jovanovska, et al.

of Information Systems in Bitola (FAMIS) and the Faculty of Information and
Communication Technologies in Bitola (FICT) in the period from 2008 to 20171
(henceforward the Faculty).
Fifty students out of 3,000 students in total in a 10-year period enrolled at
the Faculty were included in the survey. The survey consisted of two different
questionnaires intended for two different groups of students. The first questionnaire (henceforward Q1) relates to students who have spent one semester at one
of the foreign universities in the Europe Union via Erasmus+ or CEEPUS student
mobility programs. These students are also referred to as outgoing students. The
second questionnaire (henceforward Q2) was intended for students who have not
been involved in such activities. All students at the Faculty who have experienced
student mobility were invited to participate in the research. On the other hand, the
choice of the students who have not been involved in student mobility, the so-called
‘twin students’, was made very carefully – they needed to fulfil few conditions to
be included in the survey: to be of the same gender and to belong to the same generation as the students who have used student mobility; as well as to have similar
academic achievements at their home university as the outgoing students. Some of
the interviewed students included are still studying, whereas the rest have already
completed their studies and have graduated from university.
The survey was created and conducted online. Also, it was carried out in two
consecutive phases. In the first phase, Q1 was sent to all 33 students from the
Faculty that have been or still are outgoing students whose mobility meant/means
spending a minimum one semester abroad, at a host institution in some of the EU
countries, with which the Faculty has bilateral contracts within the framework
of the two previously mentioned mobility programs (Erasmus+ and CEEPUS).
In the second phase, each of those students was contacted again, and was asked
to suggest and contact ‘a twin’ student from his/her generation who has had/has
similar academic results at their home Faculty. The most important condition for
the choice of the ‘twin student’ was that they have never been part of any student mobility program. In the first phase, 75% of all outgoing students from the
Faculty (i.e. 25 students) filled in Q1. Consequently, in the second phase of the
survey, the same number of ‘twin students’ (i.e. 25 students) were interviewed
via Q2.
The length of each questionnaire was different as a result of the fact that
some of the questions from Q1 were not applicable to the students who have not
used mobility, and, consequently were not included in Q2.The questions in both
Q1and Q2 elicited several different types of answers: fill in the space provided;
choose one of the options given; choose several of the given options; and for some
questions a five-point Likert Scale was provided where 1 was the worst and 5 the
best option offered.

1
The results presented here were obtained from FAMIS in the period from 2008 to 2014, and, then,
from FICT in the period from 2014 to 2017. This is so because, upon a 2014 Government decision,
FAMIS was transformed into FICT.

Pogledi študentov na učinek mobilnosti študentov na njihove dosežke in prihodnje možnosti .../
University
Students’ Views on the Impact of Student Mobility on their Achievements ...


139

Results of the research
The results presented here are obtained from the research whose scope and
methodology was explained in the previous section. They are presented in a combined manner, namely apart from presenting the results obtained from each of the
two questionnaires (Q1 and Q2) separately, also at points, whenever possible, we
tried to compare and contrast the results gained from Q1 and Q2.
We shall begin the presentation of the results with a striking finding that
overlaps completely in both Q1 and Q2. All interviewed students who filled in Q1
(henceforward Q1 students) stated that they are fully content because of the fact
that they have made the decision to realise student mobility. Also, all students
who filled in Q2 (henceforward Q2 students) stated that they would like to realise
student mobility and that they would highly recommend student mobility to other
students who have not done so just yet. Moreover, a high percentage of Q1 students
further stated that they would like to practice student mobility again (88.5%) and
that their expectations were completely met during their previous student mobility
(80.8%). In fact, 73.1% of Q1 students assessed their mobility with the highest
grade – 5.
The answers of Q1 students reveal that they do not favour one of the two
possible mobility programs (Erasmus+ and CEEPUS) over the other; whereas Q2
students are much more familiar with the Erasmus+ program (94.7%) than with
CEEPUS (42.1%).2
Q2 students locate the main reason for not having realised mobility in the
lack of information (66.7%) as well as in the lack of trust as far as the selection
process is concerned (33.4%), namely, they attribute their disinterest to the widely
spread belief that the grants are normally reserved for somebody else beforehand.
As to how students normally obtain the information about student mobility
programs, Q2 students listed the following sources of information: the Faculty’s website and the contact person (26.3%); the University’s website (23.1%);
friends, i.e. fellow students from the Faculty (57.9%). Furthermore, what is worth
noting in Q2 students’ answers is that many of them (63.9%) said that they
found the information about the student mobility programs quite unclear and
unhelpful.
When it comes to the benefits that students gain from realising student mobility, the questionnaires touched upon several relevant issues. The most interesting
results are the following:
––

Of the Q1 students, 92.3% thought that mobility opened new perspectives
in life; 73.5% of Q2 students said that one of the reasons why they would
use a mobility opportunity in the future is because it might ‘open new
perspectives’ for them.

2
In this context it should be mentioned that the Erasmus+ mobility program is managed by the
University, whereas the CEEPUS mobility program is managed by the Faculty. At the Faculty, there is
one person responsible for sharing the information about both programs.

140

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Bogdanoska Jovanovska, et al.

––

––

––

––

––

Of the Q1 students,78.3% stated that they have improved their studying
outcomes after returning back to their home Faculty, and in the case of
Q2 students, 73.4% expect to learn something new if they spend a specific
period of time abroad.
As to the language improvement, the results are divided: the majority
of students (71.3%) did not find studying at a foreign university helpful
as far as their English language skills are concerned. However, those
students who studied in Germany, claimed that they improved their
German language skills considerably (92.4%).
Of the Q1 students, 73.1% confirmed that they developed awareness of
other cultures and 92.3% stated that after the mobility they felt more
open to new partnerships and friendships. Even Q2 students showed
awareness of these benefits; they stated that one of the reasons why
they would consider mobility is to make new friends (75%) and to learn
something new about foreign cultures (50%).
A very positive impulse was received from Q1 students in relation to
employability and the skills necessary for the process of applying for a
job. Of the Q1 students, 80.8% said that by going through the application
process for mobility they learned how to create or improve their CVs;
30.8% of Q1 students also said that that was the first time for them to have
written a motivation letter; 76.9% of Q1 students filled in an employment
application for the first time (online) and 46.2% of them felt encouraged
to apply again online (for different purposes, mostly for a job).By contrast,
the results from Q2 point to the fact that only a few students of those who
haven’t realised student mobility have had an experience with filling in
an online application (10.2%); some Q2 students have worked on their
CVs (30.2%), and 92.5% have never written a motivation letter.
As to building students’ personality and character, 100% of Q1 students
said that after their mobility they have felt significantly more confident
and convinced that they could succeed in life, and that they would function
better in any new environment if they went abroad again. Of the Q1
students, 80.8% expressed their enthusiasm that they could function better
even in their own country after their mobility. Out of all these benefits,
Q2 students believed that becoming independent is the most important
benefit (25%). This is quite understandable if we take into account the
fact that 90% of our students study in the same city where they have been
born and raised. Q1 students, on the other hand, said they have become
more independent in making decisions and more reliable after they had
participated in a student mobility program (84.6%); 61.5% have improved
their time and money management skills, and 65.4% stated that they act
more proactively in life, in general.

The results from both questionnaires concerning the relation between a)
student mobility and employability, and b) student mobility and the treatment

Pogledi študentov na učinek mobilnosti študentov na njihove dosežke in prihodnje možnosti .../
University
Students’ Views on the Impact of Student Mobility on their Achievements ...


141

outgoing students receive from their professors at their home Faculty, called for
special attention and directed us towards doing a comparative analysis. In both
questionnaires, students stated that employers’ recognition of student mobility
boosts their employability prospects considerably. Namely, 46.2% of Q1 students
thought that employers see mobility as a positive experience; whereas 89.9% of
Q2 students believed that if they had realised mobility that would improve their
chances of employment (Q2).Interestingly, only 37.5% of these Q2 students thought
that employers consider student mobility as a clear advantage in the hiring process.
The situation with the professors at the home Faculty is almost the same: both Q1
and Q2 students stated that they did not believe that student mobility could earn
them greater appreciation on the part of their professors (85%).
Asked about the possible obstacles to embarking on a student mobility program, Q2 students listed the following: lack of financial support (43.2%); the need
for prior foreign language preparations (5%); insecurities about credit recognition
by the home Faculty (26.3%);lack of professors’ support for using student mobility
options (26.3%); fear of leaving home and their comfort zone (26.3%); the need for
greater support while being abroad (21.7%); employers do not recognise mobility
as an advantage in the hiring process (21.7%); and lastly, the lack of information
about student mobility (35.6%).
Finally, we believe that if we want to draw a much more solid conclusion related
to this issue, we need to do cross-sectional data analysis taking into account other
relevant factors such as the general gender structure of the Faculty; the financial
state of the student’s family; etc. Nevertheless, these factors are not included here
as they are not in the focus of this research.
In addition, we haven’t analysed the results obtained herein relation to the
Faculty the interviewed students came from, especially in the case of the mobile
students. We also did not analyse students’ different fields of study as they can be
of a different length, for instance. Finally, we believe that these limitations do not
influence the results significantly, and that is why they are deemed irrelevant here.
Conclusions and further research
In general, our findings confirm Souto-Oteroet al.’s (2013, p.70) contention
that participation in student mobility can be greatly increased by providing better
dissemination of the information related to student mobility programs and the process of application itself, as well as by stressing the benefits of student mobility. In
fact, the results that we have obtained also suggest that the increase in successfully
completed student mobility is closely related to the level of informedness of students.
With that being said, the recommendation in that respect is that special attention should be paid to the process of disseminating information regarding student
mobility. Initially, all students should receive general information regarding the
opportunities they have for student mobility and the conditions they need to meet
to be able to apply and complete a student mobility program. Additionally, the students who have shown interest in realising student mobility should be thoroughly

142

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Bogdanoska Jovanovska, et al.

informed about the wide range of versatile benefits they are likely to gain from
undertaking student mobility.
Another recommendation that can further enhance the informedness of students refers to the actual channels used for disseminating information. Namely,
apart from using the conventional and traditional ways of informing students
via the Faculty/University websites, and by establishing contact with the contact
person for a particular student mobility program, it is necessary to organise events
in which alumni will be invited to take part and to share their positive experiences
with student mobility. In order to have a real impact on the level of informedness,
this activity should be organised on a regular basis.
As to a possible future research related to this issue, it would be truly interesting to examine employers and professors’ position regarding the achievements,
skills and competences of their employees/students who have the status of student
mobility alumni versus their employees/students who have never participated in
a similar undertaking.
References
Cross-Border Tertiary Education: A Way Towards Capacity Development. (2007). OECD and
IBRD/The World Bank. OECD Publishing. Co-edition with the World Bank. ISBN:
9789264038493, Publication: 08/08/2007 (Accessed on 17.12.2017).
Eddy, L. (2011). The effect of Student Mobility on Student Achievement. Lexington: University
of Kentucky. Doctoral Dissertations.
Education Indicators in Focus. (2013). OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/EDIF%202013--N%C2%B014%20(eng)-Final.pdf (Accessed
on 15.12.2017).
Employers’ perception of graduate employability. (2010). Eurobarometer Flash No 304. The
Gallup Organization.
Erasmus+ Student Mobility for Studies. (2015). European Commission. Retrieved from http://
www.esci-paris.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/3-erasmus-student-mobility-studies.pdf
(Accessed at 26.09.2017)
Hauschildt K., Vogtle, E.M., Gwosc, Ch. (2018). Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life
in Europe. EUROSTUDENT VI 2016-2018. Synopsis of Indicators. German Center for
Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW) (Ed.). http://www.eurostudent.
eu/download_files/documents/EUROSTUDENT_VI_Synopsis_of_Indicators.pdf(Accessed
on 12.04.2018)
Knerr, B., Tlatlik, R. and Xi, Z. (2010). The benefits of international student mobility. A comparison between Chinese and Indian students in Germany. Retrieved from https://iussp.org/
sites/default/files/event_call_for_papers/Knerr-Tlatlik-Zhao.pdf (Accessed on 10.12.2017)
Knight, J. (2005b). Cross-border Education: An Analytical Framework for Programme and
Provider Mobility. In J. Smart and W. Tierney (eds.), Higher Education: Handbook of
Theory and Practice, Springer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Kuzmanovska Tasetovikj, B. (2017). Managerial students’ abilities – determinant for development of the international student mobility. Bitola: “St. Kliment Ohridski” University.
Master thesis.
Parey, M. and Waldinger, F. (2008). Studying abroad and the effect on international labor
market mobility: evidence from the introduction of ERASMUS, IZA Discussion Papers,
No. 3430, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2008040959

Pogledi študentov na učinek mobilnosti študentov na njihove dosežke in prihodnje možnosti .../
University
Students’ Views on the Impact of Student Mobility on their Achievements ...


143

Retrieved from http://www.ceepus.info/default.aspx?CMSPage=86#nbb. (Accessed on 5.02.2018)
Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., de Wit, H. and Vujić, S. (2013). Barriers to
International Student Mobility. Evidence from the Erasmus Program. Educational
Researcher,Vol. 42, issue 2, pp. 70-77. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12466696
Statistical Annex Erasmus+. Enriching lives, opening minds. (2016). Annual Report. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents/ erasmusannual-report-2016-statistical-annex_en(Accessed on 05.01.2018).
Student Mobility. (2016). University of Glasgow. Retrieved from https://www.gla.ac.uk /media/
media 242620 en.pdf (Accessed on 08.01.2018)
Sursock, A. (2015). Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities. European University Association 2015, ISBN: 9789078997542. http://www.eua.be /Libraries/
publications-homepage-list/EUA_Trends_2015_web. (Accessed on 11.04.2018)
Verbik, L. and Lasanowski, V. (2007). International Student Mobility: Patterns and Trends.
London: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Mimoza BOGDANOSKA JOVANOVSKA, Silvana NESHKOVSKA, Daniela ANDONOVSKA TRAJKOVSKA,
Natasha BLAZESKA TABAKOVSKA (Univerza v Bitoli, Makedonija) in Biljana KUZMANOVSKATASETOVIKJ (EducationUSA, Makedonija))
POGLEDI ŠTUDENTOV NA UČINEK MOBILNOSTI ŠTUDENTOV NA NJIHOVE DOSEŽKE
IN PRIHODNJE MOŽNOSTI
Povzetek: Ugotavljanje vpliva mobilnosti študentov na njihove dosežke ni preprosta stvar. Ravno nasprotno, je zelo kompleksno in povezano z različnimi dejavniki. Namen prispevka je opredeliti učinek
mobilnosti na makedonske študente, tj. na njihove akademske dosežke in razvoj njihovih kompetenc ter
njihove prihodnje poklicne možnosti. V Republiki Makedoniji je možen dostop do številnih programov,
povezanih z mobilnostjo študentov. V akademski skupnosti je na žalost splošno mnenje, da makedonski
študenti teh možnosti ne izkoristijo dovolj. Rezultati raziskave kažejo na naslednje dejavnike: pomanjkanje
zanimanja med študenti; strah pred odhodom v tujino; nezadostno znanje tujih jezikov; pomanjkanje
informacij o prednostih študijskih izmenjav in drugo. V prispevku so predstavljeni rezultati primerjalne
študije, ki se osredotoča na dve manjši skupini študentov z Univerze St. Klimenta Ohridskega v Bitoli: v
eni so bili nekdanji študenti, ki so bili med študijem tudi v tujini, in kontrolna skupina študentov, ki niso
bili vključeni v mednarodne aktivnosti. Ugotovitve so precej pomembne, saj razkrivajo, da v nasprotju
s študenti, ki študijsko nikoli niso bili v tujini, mobilni študenti dokazujejo, da se zaradi dragocenih
izkušenj, pridobljenih v procesu uresničevanja študentske mobilnosti, precej spremeni njihov celotni
pristop k učnemu procesu, napredovanju v karieri in življenju na splošno.
Ključne besede: mobilnost študentov, učinek, dosežki, spretnosti, Erasmus+ in program CEEPUS
Elektronski naslov: mimoza.jovanovska@fikt.edu.mk
This article was prepared in the scope of the Support to the implementation of EHEA reforms
project. It has been funded with support from the European Commission and the Ministry of Education,
Science and Sport. This paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be
held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.