The academic mobility of Lithuanian students: trends, experiences and challenges
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The international academic cooperation between higher education institutions and the encouragement of academic mobility have become one of the priorities of Lithuania’s higher education policy, consistently with the European Bologna process and the Lithuania Progress Strategy 2030 approved by Lithuanian Government in 2012. Lithuanian higher education institutions encounter the challenge to promote student mobility with the aim to develop students’ cultural awareness, transferable competences and, most importantly, to strengthen students’ employability. The student mobility strategies, accordingly, have to emphasize the study quality as defined in the document Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. As the official statistical data reveals quite steady growth in outgoing student numbers in Lithuania, the mobility rate is still insufficient. The paper aims to explore the empirical findings on the experiences of outgoing students with the focus on their intentions for educational mobility, their expectations, and the factors influencing their satisfaction with study quality. Methods: statistical analysis, descriptive and factor analysis using SPSS 19.0 version. The empirical findings highlighted that the majority of respondents are satisfied with their academic mobility in foreign countries. Teaching quality, career prospects, increased employability possibilities, learning – oriented environment and the organization of study process were listed as the main elements that effect students’ satisfaction on studies and internship. The analysis of statistical data and empirical study results implied the discussion on the challenges for Lithuanian higher education for promoting high quality student mobility.
Â
Keywords: mobility ; academic mobility ; students ; higher education institutions ; Lithuania.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
References
AbuSeileek, A. F. (2012). The effect of computer-assisted cooperative learning methods and group size on the EFL learners’ achievement in communication skills. Computers & Education , 58, 231–239.
Alpaydin, E. (2010). Introduction to Machine Learning. London: The MIT Press.
Ayotola, A., & Adedeji, T. (2009). The relationship between gender, age, mental ability, anxiety, mathematics self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences , 4, 113-124.
Ayres, R. U. (1991). Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Volume 1: Revoluton in Progress. London: Chapman & Hall.
Bagheri, M., Ali, W. Z., Abdullah, M. C., & Daud, S. M. (2013). Project-based learning as a facilitator to promote students’ technology competencies. World Journal on Educational Technology , 5, 207-214.
Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting Professional Learning Communities to Increase College Readiness: The Importance of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Education & Educational Research , 40 (4), 175-178.
Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Cambridge: Springer.
Blake, C., & Scanlon, E. (2007). Reconsidering simulations in science education at a distance: features of effective use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 23 (6), 491–502.
Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: Mc Kay.
Carrillo, F. A. (2012). Can Technology Completely Replace Human Interaction in Class? World Journal on Educational Technology , 4 (3), 153-164.
Churlyaeva, N., & Kukushkin, S. (2011). Experience in applying educational technologies to the integrated system of engineering students. World Journal on Educational Technology , 3 (2), 75-89.
Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Marine, R. J. (2002). Faculty Motivation To Use Alternative Teaching Methods. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for Computer Assisted Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology , 32 (2), 183–194.
Erdoğdu, B., Zaim Gökbay, İ., & Karahoca, A. (2006). Interactive Learnability Assessment For CNC Machines via Simulation And Hardware Environment in CIM Lab. Lloret de Mar: 10th International Research/Expert Conference Trends in the Development of Machinery and Associated Technology.
Farajollahi, M., & Moenikia, M. (2011). The effect of computer-based learning on distance learners’ self regulated learning strategies. World Journal on Educational Technology , 3 (1), 28-38.
Goodman, P. S., & Darr, E. D. (1998). Computer-Aided Systems and Communities: Mechanisms for Organizational Learning in Distributed Environments. Management Information Systems Quarterly , 22 (4), 417-440.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics , 66 (1), 64-74.
Harman, G., & Çelikler, D. (2012). Eğitimde Hazır Bulunuşluğun Önemi Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching , 1 (3), 147-156.
Hsu, C.-W., & Lin, C.-J. (2002). A Comparison of Methods for Multiclass Support Vector Machines. IEEE Transactions On Neural Networks , 13 (2), 415-425.
Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 29 (3), 292–301.
Karahoca, A., Karahoca, D., & Yengin, I. (2010). Computer assisted active learning system development for critical thinking in history of civilization. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences , 5, 04-25.
Keady, G., Fitz-Gerald, G., Gamble, G., & Sangwin, C. (2006). Computer-aided assessment in mathematical sciences. UniServe Science Assessment Symposium.
Keser, H., Uzunboylu, H., & Ozdamli, F. (2011). The trends in technology supported collaborative learning studies in 21st century. World Journal on Educational Technology , 3 (2), 103-119.
Liao, C. H., Yang, M. H., & Yang, B. C. (2013). Developing a diagnosis system of work-related capabilities for students: A computer-assisted assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 29 (6), 530–546.
Millde-Luthander, C., Högberg, U., Nyström, M. E., Pettersson, H., Wiklund, I., & Grunewald, C. (2012). The impact of a computer assisted learning programme on the ability to interpret cardiotochography. A before and after study. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare , 3, 37–41.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93 (1), 116-130.
Peng, H., Long, F., & Ding, C. (2005). Feature Selection Based on Mutual Information: Criteria of Max-Dependency, Max-Relevance, and Min-Redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 27 (8), 1226-1238.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education , 58 (1), 136–153.
Smeureanu, I., & Isaila, N. (2011). New information technologies for an innovative education. World Journal on Educational Technology , 3 (3), 177-189.
Sullivan, M. E., Ortega, A., Wasserberg, N., Kaufman, H., Nyquist, J., & Clark, R. (2008). Assessing the teaching of procedural skills: can cognitive task analysis add to our traditional teaching methods? The American Journal of Surgery , 19 (1), 20–23.
Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. (1961). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (2nd Edition ed.). Oxford : Wiley.
Traxler, J. (2012). Mobile Learning – The Future Already Behind Us. Amman: International Conference on Interactive Mobile and Computer Aided Learning.
Uzun, L. (2012). The Internet and computer enhanced foreign language learning and intercultural communication. World Journal on Educational Technology , 4 (2), 99-112.
van Berkum, J. J., & de Jong, T. (1991). Instructional environments for simulations. Education and Computing , 6 (3-4), 305–358.
Vapnik, V. N. (1995). The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Veermans, K., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (2006). Using heuristics to facilitate discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. International Journal of Science Education , 28, 341-361.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, P., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 29 (2), 109–121.
Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A Call to Action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 29 (1), 4–14.
Zaim Gökbay, İ., & Erdoğdu, B. (2006). Computer Aided Learning Assessment of Simulation and Hardware Environment for CNC Lathe Machine in CIM Laboratory. Iasi: 4th European Conference on Intelligent Systems and Technologies.