teff Position Paper: International Mobility in Teacher Education & Schools in Europe
Read our position paper below or on ResearchGate.
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
Introduction
International mobility in teacher education and educational settings is regarded as a key element in equipping students and teachers for working in today’s increasingly diverse and interconnected world. Experiences like student exchanges, study visits, teaching internships, and working with colleagues abroad are regarded to support intercultural understanding, professional development, and global citizenship. International mobility is a key aspect of education policy and programs around the world, especially in initiatives like Erasmus+ and other international exchanges (Boix Mansilla & Jackson 2023; Majewska 2022;). International mobility has been shown to positively influence skills relevant to the teaching profession, such as intercultural awareness and communication, as well as students’ perception of ‘good teaching’ (e.g., Berk 2017; Moorhouse 2022, 2024; Leutwyler & Lottenbach 2009).
This teff Position Paper first examines international mobility opportunities in teacher education programs and schools and subsequently offers recommendations on how to shape international mobility practices that are meaningful, inclusive, and support wider societal goals, both in the educational contexts of today, and, of the future. In addition to the manifold teff activities and events, most often including a mobility of various people, a small additional data set has been collected during fall 2025 through individual and group interviews with:
12 teachers and 5 administrative staff from teff schools
16 teacher educators and 18 administrative staff from teff universities
33 student teachers from teff universities
21 pupils from teff partner schools
The activities/events themselves, their respective evaluations, and the results from the exploratory, yet fascinating interviews will all be used as data basis for this teff publication.
Our overarching question here is: How is international mobility implemented across institutions and what are its key outcomes for different stakeholder groups in Teacher Education?
In Europe, international networking amongst universities, supported by Erasmus+, has become increasingly important for enhancing international dimensions in teacher education (Beelen 2011; O’Dowd 2023). Sieber and Mantel (2012) outlined the strategic value of internationalization in teacher education in shaping local teacher education programs and emphasized that this positively influences future teachers’ professional personal development (e.g. Leutwyler & Meierhans 2016; Klein & Wikan 2019; Knudsmoen & Helleve 2025). Nevertheless, obstacles in studying or completing an internship abroad still exist for student teachers. Missing mobility windows in teacher training programs, the recognition of international academic achievements, caring responsibilities at home, and financial burdens are all common examples that highlight the difficulties posed by international mobility in teacher education in Europe (Leutwyler 2014; Mantel et al. 2022; Pedersen 2023).
At the same time, new innovative mobility formats are not yet consistently integrated into seminar structures of universities, even though they have the potential to address some of the challenges outlined above. Moreover, within research and literature, innovative short-term mobility models and their benefits for teacher education in general, but also for students and teachers specifically, are not yet fully understood (Kaiser & Biehl 2024; Enns et al. 2026).
Data collection: Interviews
All interviews were done in the local language of the home institution. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring their voluntary participation and confidentiality. The participants were introduced to the aim of the interviews and assured that they could have retracted their data up until three weeks after the interview. Each participant gave their consent verbally. Research clearance was obtained from the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT). The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed into verbal protocols. The data were summarized per partner and stakeholder group on five themes based on the General Program Logic Model of Deardorff (2006, p. 243). These five themes of international mobility are:
background and context information,
input and resources needed for the implementation of international mobility and the context of international mobility activities,
activities of international mobility,
outputs of international mobility activities, and
expected outcomes and perceived outcomes, including benefits as well as challenges.
The results of the interviews with student teachers as well as academic and administrative staff from the University of Florence (Italy), KU Leuven (Belgium), Saxion University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands), Oslo Metropolitan University (Norway), the University of Murcia (Spain), the University of Cologne (Germany), and Linnaeus University (Sweden) gives data to the policy document. Microsoft 365 CoPilot has been used to summarize the interviews per stakeholder group and partner. These summaries were used to formulate the findings. An overview of the data available per partner is included in Table 1.
Different, yet complementary perspectives on Mobility in Teacher Education at European (teff) Universities
Student teachers
The interviews with student teachers reveal that international mobility is perceived as a highly valuable, yet unevenly structured, component of teacher education, often characterized by strong similarities in outcomes but notable differences in access, integration, and implementation.
(I) A first key similarity concerns the diversity and multidimensionality of mobility activities. In all countries, student teachers engage in a mix of academic, practical, and intercultural experiences, including study abroad periods, internships or school placements, and participation in international collaboration such as blended formats. Despite these shared activity types, an important difference for student teachers lies in their degree of coherence and progression. In Florence, mobility is often described as a cumulative and structured pathway, where experiences build on one another over time. Similarly, Oslo presents a relatively coherent structure with a clearly defined mobility window and international phases. In contrast, Leuven and Cologne, following the student teachers’ description, show more fragmented and individually assembled mobility trajectories, lacking systematic integration into program structures.
(II) A second major point of comparison relates to institutional support and curricular integration. Across most contexts, students report that participation in mobility requires significant personal initiative, indicating a common reliance on student agency. This is particularly pronounced at Leuven and Cologne, where limited communication, weak curricular embedding, and structural barriers constrain access: “I just think it’s a bit of a shame that these stays abroad are not so well integrated into the study program itself.” (student / Cologne)
Similarly, students in Murcia note that mobility is not always fully integrated into study programs. Student teachers from Linnaeus further reinforce this pattern by highlighting that participation often depends on individual initiative and the ability to navigate structural constraints, such as scheduling conflicts and limited institutional agreements. In contrast, Oslo presents, from the students’ perspective, a more structured and supportive model, with clear mobility windows in their primary and secondary teacher education, as well as preparatory guidance and institutional frameworks. Florence occupies an intermediate position in this spectrum, offering diverse and relatively well-supported opportunities, though still involving administrative complexity. Overall, from the student teachers’ perspective, huge differences exist in the extent to which mobility is systematically embedded versus individually navigated, with Linnaeus and Cologne representing more decentralised and student-driven models, and Oslo and Florence reflecting more structured approaches.
(III) Despite these differences in structure and access, there is a striking similarity in the perceived outcomes of mobility, which are consistently described as transformative across all contexts. Next to personal development, students frequently mention the professional impact they relate to their stay abroad: “It really helped my teaching practice, my presentation skills, and everything that belongs to my teacher personality.” (student / Cologne)
One of the most prominent shared outcomes is the development of an international and comparative perspective: “Internationalisation is not just about exchange, but about an attitude of openness and willingness to learn.” (student / Cologne)
Students across all countries emphasize that exposure to different educational systems challenges taken-for-granted assumptions of their home systems and fosters a more reflective and open-minded approach to teaching.
Mobility is thus interpreted not as idealization of the “elsewhere,” (student / Florence) but as comparative learning. It is also described as reciprocal enrichment: participants do not merely learn from host contexts but actively contribute their own educational backgrounds. Another strong similarity lies in the development of intercultural competence and personal growth. Across all interviews, mobility enhances confidence, adaptability, and autonomy, while fostering openness to diversity. Linnaeus further highlights that even informal or non-mobile international experiences contribute to this development, reinforcing the idea that intercultural learning is not limited to physical mobility: “Internationalisation does not have to mean going away: it can be about working together with international [students/people], it doesn't necessarily have to be in another place, but that you get to take part in other perspectives.” (student / Linnaeus).
Students frequently describe increased resilience and independence, particularly when navigating unfamiliar environments. While Leuven frames this as the development of an “international personality,” and Florence and Oslo emphasize identity formation and ethical reflection, Linnaeus underlines the emergence of a flexible, context-sensitive professional identity.
(IV) At the professional level, student teachers from all countries report that mobility contributes to a broadened pedagogical repertoire and reflective teaching practice. Students gain insight into different teaching methods, classroom management strategies, and educational systems, fostering a more adaptive professional stance. Linnaeus adds a distinctive emphasis on the transferability of knowledge across contexts, showing how students learn to adapt pedagogical strategies, materials, and organisational ideas between systems. However, differences remain in the depth of practical engagement: in Oslo and Cologne, students often assume active teaching roles, whereas in other contexts (including Leuven and parts of Florence), observation plays a larger role. Linnaeus reflects both patterns, with hands-on placements but often in short-term or less formally structured settings.
Another shared outcome is the importance of network-building and career orientation, though its prominence varies.Leuven and Saxion highlight international networks as key resources, while Florence and Oslo frame mobility as part of a long-term professional trajectory. Linnaeus places comparatively less emphasis on formal networking, instead highlighting learning processes and reflective capacity as central outcomes.
(V) Finally, a key cross-cutting difference concerns the equity and accessibility of mobility opportunities. While all students report positive outcomes, access remains uneven. Structural barriers–such as financial constraints, bureaucratic complexity, and curricular rigidity–are evident across contexts, particularly in Cologne, Leuven, and Linnaeus. In the latter, limited institutionalization and reliance on self-organization further accentuate inequalities in participation. In contrast, more structured mobility windows, such as in Oslo, are better positioned to mitigate these barriers, although challenges persist across all countries.
One interviewee from Florence emphasizes that staff availability was decisive in “understanding how to navigate the process,” and in preventing feelings of isolation when facing procedural complexity.
In sum, the findings reveal a clear pattern across countries: international mobility is consistently experienced as highly transformative and beneficial, but its implementation varies significantly. The main similarities lie in the diversity of activities and the strong personal, intercultural, and professional outcomes. The key differences concern the degree of curricular integration, institutional support, coherence of mobility pathways, and accessibility. The inclusion of Linnaeus further highlights the importance of informal and embedded forms of internationalization, as well as the risks of fragmented provision. Overall, these findings suggest that the full potential of international mobility in teacher education depends not only on the availability of opportunities, but crucially on how systematically, inclusively, and coherently they are embedded within institutional structures.
Teacher Educators
Across the countries investigated, international mobility from the perspective of teacher educators is consistently understood as a valuable but structurally conditioned component of teacher education, combining physical mobility, virtual formats, and internationalization at home. While all contexts emphasize the importance of mobility for both student teachers and teacher educators, they differ significantly in degree of structure, institutional embedding, and pedagogical integration.
(I) A key similarity across all countries is the diversification of mobility formats. In every case, mobility is no longer limited to long-term Erasmus exchanges but includes short-term programs, Blended Intensive Programmes (BIPs), virtual collaboration such as Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), and internationalization at home initiatives. Teacher educators in all contexts actively contribute through activities such as Erasmus teaching mobilities, research collaborations, conferences, and guest lecturing. Linnaeus and Oslo add further nuance by highlighting that teacher educators engage in activities such as visiting students abroad, staff exchanges, and embedding international perspectives into local curricula, while studentteachers undertake teaching placements abroad and participate in Erasmus intensive courses. This reflects a shared shift toward more flexible, inclusive, and hybrid forms of internationalization, designed to reach a broader group of students and integrate global perspectives into curricula.
(II) However, the degree of structure and coherence of these activities differs markedly between countries. Oslo and Florence stand out for their highly structured and scaffolded approaches to staff and student mobility. In Oslo, mobility is embedded within a clearly defined framework, including dedicated mobility windows, preparatory sessions, guided support during the stay, and systematic debriefing. Florence similarly emphasizes coordinated Erasmus programs, strong alignment with curricula, and continuous mentoring by teacher educators. Linnaeus represents a hybrid model, where both formal placements and international programs coexist with informal and home-based internationalization efforts; participation is often dependent on individual initiative and practical constraints, such as course recognition, English-taught provision, and financial considerations.
In contrast, Leuven and Cologne reflect a more fragmented and constrained model. At Leuven, mobility opportunities are shaped by tight program structures, particularly in one-year master’s programs, limiting participation despite active internationalization at home. Similarly, Cologne relies heavily on individual initiative, and internationalization is not yet fully embedded. Saxion occupies an intermediate position, offering compulsory short-term mobility in early stages, with later elective participation and still evolving in coherence and integration. As one teacher educator from Cologne puts it: “You really have to put a lot of effort into it and sort out a lot of organisational details.” Therefore, from his opinion, international mobility is not just a matter of institutional programs, but also of job security and a culture of organizational support. A lecturer from Saxion emphasizes accessibility and a continuous learning path: “The strength lies in the fact that not only are those activities organized, but it is important that everyone, from every socio-economic background, so to speak, can participate. Above all, it is also integrated into the curriculum of the primary teacher training program. So you see, as you become a fourth-year primary teacher training student, that the program - or at least what we aim to do - focuses on the level of the students at that moment.”
Another important difference concerns the role of teacher educators in facilitating mobility. In Florence and Oslo, educators are highly active, designing programs, ensuring curricular alignment, providing mentoring, and embedding mobility pedagogically. Linnaeus highlights that educators with direct international experience often drive mobility initiatives and act as advocates, reinforcing internationalization at home, though institutional structures for systematically capturing and disseminating returning students’ learning remain limited. In Leuven, Saxion and Cologne, teacher educators contribute where possible, but their impact is constrained by structural conditions. Educators are engaged but face challenges of workload and limited structural clarity.
(III) Despite these differences in organization, there is a strong similarity in the perceived outcomes of mobility. For student teachers, mobility consistently leads to intercultural competence, global awareness, and comparative educational perspectives. Student teachers’ personal development, including autonomy, confidence, and resilience, is a consistent outcome across all contexts. For teacher educators, mobility outcomes are similarly aligned. Participation in international activities enhances professional renewal, pedagogical innovation, and international networking. Linnaeus highlights that such experiences enable educators to become drivers of internationalization, expand their professional networks, and better support students in globalized contexts. In all cases, mobility contributes indirectly to student learning by enriching curricula and teaching practices. At the institutional level, it fosters a culture of internationalization, though the collective institutional impact remains underdeveloped, with benefits often individualized rather than systematically integrated.
(IV) Finally, a shared but differently manifested challenge across all contexts concerns structural and resource-related constraints. Issues such as limited time, financial resources, workload pressures, and administrative complexity affect all countries. In Leuven and Cologne, these constraints significantly limit mobility access, whereas Oslo, Saxion and Florence provide stronger institutional frameworks of international mobility windows. Linnaeus shows that even when support exists, institutional transparency, course recognition, and provision of English-taught options remain barriers.
In conclusion, the analysis reveals a clear pattern: while teacher educators across countries share a common understanding of the value and transformative potential of international mobility, there are significant differences in how mobility is structured, supported, and integrated pedagogically. The main similarities lie in the diversity of mobility formats and consistently positive outcomes for students, educators, and institutions. The main differences concern the level of institutionalization, the role of teacher educators as facilitators and advocates, and the extent to which mobility is embedded as a coherent and accessible component of teacher education. Overall, these findings underline that effective mobility depends not only on participation, but on systematic integration into teaching, learning, and institutional strategies.
Administrative Staff in Universities
Across cases administrative staff consistently frame international mobility as a complex, multi-layered, and increasingly diversified component of teacher education, supported through institutional structures, partnerships, and evolving program formats. At the same time, the analysis reveals significant differences in how mobility is structured, coordinated, and strategically embedded, particularly regarding accessibility, coherence, and institutional commitment.
(I) The administrative staff also emphasize similarity across all countries regarding the broad range of mobility activities available to both student teachers and teacher educators. In all contexts, traditional Erasmus study exchanges and traineeships form the foundation, complemented by internships, teaching placements, and participation in international projects and networks. Furthermore, all institutions highlight the growing importance of short-term and hybrid formats, such as BIP, COIL and virtual exchanges. In parallel, internationalization at home is recognised everywhere as an important complementary strategy in teacher education, aiming to provide international experiences to students who do not participate in physical mobility. This convergence indicates a shared European trend toward flexible, diversified, and more inclusive mobility formats.
Despite this shared landscape, there are clear differences in the degree of institutionalization and strategic coordination. Florence, Leuven and Oslo stand out for their highly structured and systematized approaches. In both cases, mobility is embedded in multi-level governance structures involving central, faculty, and departmental coordination, and is explicitly aligned with curriculum development, research collaboration, and institutional strategies. Mobility is framed not merely as an opportunity, but as a strategic instrument for enhancing the quality and international orientation of teacher education, with diversified formats used deliberately to widen participation and ensure sustainability.
In contrast, Cologne represents a flexible but less integrated model. While offering a wide range of opportunities and strong advisory support, the system relies heavily on students’ ability to independently navigate and plan their mobility pathways. Mobility is theoretically accessible at all stages, but this flexibility creates complexity, particularly in multi-subject teacher education programs. Similarly, Linnaeus reflects a fragmented and unevenly implemented system, where a variety of mobility opportunities exist but are not consistently embedded or clearly communicated. In both cases, participation depends significantly on individual initiative, pointing to weaker institutionalization compared to Florence, Leuven and Oslo.
Florence occupies an intermediate position, characterized by a relatively clear structure centred on Erasmus programs and supported by administrative guidance. However, the emphasis is less on systemic coordination and more on the experiential and pedagogical value of mobility, with administrative support focused on facilitating placements and enabling immersive learning experiences. Compared to Leuven and Oslo, Florence places less explicit emphasis on strategic alignment with institutional development, while offering more structured support than the more fragmented systems observed in Cologne and Linnaeus.
(II) Another important difference concerns the approach to accessibility and equity. Leuven and Oslo explicitly address unequal participation across subject areas and student groups, identifying structural barriers such as curriculum constraints and professional obligations, and responding with diversified mobility formats to broaden access. Cologne similarly acknowledges financial barriers, organizational complexity, and time constraints, though solutions rely more on advisory support than systemic redesign. Linnaeus's colleagues further highlight the persistence of structural constraints, limited resources, and insufficient institutional support, which hinder participation and limit the effectiveness of mobility initiatives. Florence, by contrast, places comparatively less emphasis on structural inequalities, focusing instead on the transformative potential of participation.
(III) In terms of outcomes, there is a strong and consistent convergence across all countries. Administrative staff universally emphasize that mobility enhances intercultural competence, global awareness, and professional development. Students gain comparative insights into different educational systems, which strengthen their reflective capacity and prepare them for increasingly diverse classrooms. Personal development–particularly increased autonomy, adaptability, and confidence–is also a shared outcome. Additionally, mobility is often described as a cumulative process, encouraging continued international engagement over time.
However, differences emerge in how these outcomes are conceptualized beyond the individual level. At Leuven and Oslo, outcomes are explicitly framed as multi-layered, encompassing not only student development but also impacts on academic communities and institutional transformation. Mobility contributes to curriculum innovation, research collaboration, and the establishment of coherent internationalization strategies. In contrast, Cologne and Florence place greater focus on individual and professional benefits, with less explicit emphasis on systemic institutional change. Linnaeus, while recognizing broad outcomes, stresses that their realization is conditional on overcoming structural barriers and embedding mobility more systematically: “Teacher Education being highly national regulated and “over-structured”, the space for international mobility is limited. Low priorities and lack of clear strategies reduce guidance and resources. Supporting structures exist but the complexity of for example. Erasmus+ or COIL applications inhibit participation” (colleague / Linnaeus).
(IV) Finally, all contexts identify common challenges, including financial constraints, administrative complexity, time limitations, and the need for strong personal initiative. Yet their significance varies. In Cologne and Linnaeus, these challenges acknowledge similar constraints but demonstrate more strategic efforts to mitigate them through structured frameworks and diversified formats. Florence recognizes organizational challenges, but frames them less as systemic barriers and more as an inherent aspect of the mobility experience.
In conclusion, the administrative perspectives across countries reveal a shared recognition of international mobility as a highly valuable and increasingly diversified element of teacher education. The main similarities lie in the range of activities offered and the consistently positive outcomes for students and educators. The key differences concern the degree of institutionalization, strategic alignment, and accessibility of mobility opportunities, as well as the balance between system-level coordination and reliance on individual initiative. These findings suggest that while all institutions are moving toward more flexible and inclusive models, the effectiveness and equity of mobility depend strongly on how coherently it is embedded within institutional strategies and support structures.
The three different perspectives, in a nutshell, on international mobility
International mobility in teacher education emerges as a consistently transformative experience, contributing to the development of intercultural competence, global awareness, and a more reflective professional identity. Across contexts, participation in mobility–whether through formal programs, such as teaching placements and short-term exchanges, or through more informal, embedded internationalization practices–broadens student teachers’ pedagogical repertoires and strengthens key personal attributes, including confidence, resilience, and autonomy. These experiences collectively foster a more adaptable and globally oriented teaching workforce.
However, access to and engagement with mobility opportunities remain uneven. Structural barriers such as financial constraints, rigid curricula, administrative complexity, and limited availability of courses in widely accessible languages continue to restrict participation. The findings suggest that well-structured and institutionally embedded models of mobility are more effective in mitigating these barriers, while fragmented or loosely coordinated approaches tend to shift responsibility onto individuals. In such contexts, the benefits of mobility often depend heavily on student and staff initiative, potentially reinforcing inequalities in both participation and outcomes.
At the institutional level, mobility is widely recognized as a driver of educational quality, curriculum innovation, and broader internationalization strategies. It also plays a significant role in the professional development of teacher educators, enhancing their pedagogical practices, expanding international networks, and strengthening their capacity to mentor future teachers. Nonetheless, the extent to which these individual gains translate into collective or systemic impact varies considerably. In more coordinated systems, mobility is actively designed and integrated into curricula and institutional strategies, whereas in less structured environments, its impact remains more fragmented and reliant on personal engagement.
A key challenge across contexts lies in the limited systematic capture, dissemination, and institutionalization of learning derived from mobility experiences. While its transformative potential is widely acknowledged, universities often underutilize opportunities to translate individual experiences into sustainable institutional learning, curriculum development, and long-term international partnerships. Addressing these gaps requires a more strategic approach, ensuring that mobility is not only accessible but also effectively embedded within teacher education systems to maximize its impact at both individual and institutional levels.
Recommendations to enhance International Perspectives in Teacher Education
- Embed Structured and Inclusive Mobility Pathways
Teacher education institutions should systematically integrate mobility into curricula through clearly defined mobility windows, aligned learning outcomes, and automatic recognition mechanisms. Structured pathways reduce reliance on individual initiative and ensure that all students can participate meaningfully, regardless of background. - Ensure Equity and Accessibility Across All Mobility Formats
Address persistent barriers by expanding financial support, increasing flexible program design, and offering diverse formats such as short-term, blended, and virtual mobility. Early guidance and targeted support should enable students to anticipate and navigate constraints related to cost, scheduling, and curriculum requirements. - Strengthen Reflective and Transformative Learning Processes
Mobility should be supported by structured reflection before, during, and after the experience. Tools such as portfolios, mentoring, and guided debriefings can help student-teachers translate intercultural and pedagogical insights into their professional practice. - Position Teacher Educators as Key Enablers of Mobility
Teacher educators should be empowered to design, integrate, and mentor mobility experiences. This includes aligning mobility with course objectives, fostering comparative pedagogical reflection, and supporting students throughout the mobility cycle. Institutions should recognize and incentivize this role. - Leverage Mobility for Institutional Learning and Curriculum Innovation
Universities should establish systematic mechanisms to capture and disseminate knowledge generated through mobility. Insights from students and staff should inform curriculum development, pedagogical innovation, and continuous program improvement. - Strengthen Institutional Coordination and Support Systems
Effective mobility requires coherent collaboration between academic and administrative entities. Institutions should streamline procedures, provide transparent guidance, and ensure consistent support structures, including preparation and reintegration processes. - Foster Sustainable and Strategic International Partnerships
Shift from ad hoc exchanges to long-term, reciprocal partnerships that enable stable mobility pathways, joint program development, and shared innovation in teacher education. - Encourage Active Engagement and Professional Networking
Student teachers and educators should be encouraged to actively engage in international communities, building professional networks that extend beyond the mobility experience and contribute to long-term career development and collaboration. - Adopt a Holistic Approach to Internationalization
Mobility should be complemented by “internationalization at home” strategies, ensuring that all students benefit from intercultural learning opportunities, regardless of their ability to participate in physical mobility. - Implement Systematic Monitoring and Impact Evaluation
Institutions should develop robust evaluation frameworks to assess the impact of mobility on student learning, teaching practices, and institutional development. Evidence-based insights should guide strategic decisions and continuous improvement.
Mobility opportunities in selected European schools
The Perspective of School Teachers on International Mobility
International mobility and intercultural learning are widely recognized as significant components of contemporary education, fostering both pupil development and teacher professional growth. However, the implementation, scope, and impact of mobility initiatives differ considerably across school contexts, as evidenced by interviews with school practitioners from Sweden, Germany, and Belgium. This comparative analysis examines the similarities and differences in the structuring, activities, outcomes, and challenges associated with international mobility in three school contexts: a German comprehensive school from Cologne, schools affiliated with KU Leuven and Linnaeus University.
Across all cases, teachers perceive international mobility as valuable for promoting intercultural competence and preparing pupils for a globalized world. Yet, the degree of institutional support and formal embedding varies substantially.
The German comprehensive school presents a more structured and programmatic model, with mobility integrated into pedagogical frameworks through mobility windows, exchange programs, and project-based travel. Institutional mentoring and counseling support these initiatives, linking them to broader educational goals such as inclusion and experiential learning. Similarly, schools associated with Leuven exhibit highly structured and coordinated mobility programs, characterized by annual teacher participation, comprehensive administrative support, and systematic preparatory and follow-up procedures. Swedish schools illustrate a hybrid model, where mobility initiatives are less formalized and heavily dependent on individual teacher or school initiative, with sustainability contingent on available resources, leadership, and institutional support.
The types of mobility activities reflect these structural differences. The German comprehensive school offers a wider and more formalized range of activities, including exchange programs, project-based travel, and longer stays abroad embedded within the curriculum. Leuven schools support diverse mobility initiatives, ranging from pupil exchanges and internships to professional exchanges for teachers, facilitated by structured preparatory sessions and parental involvement. Linnaeus schools implement a combination of physical and virtual mobility activities, including low-threshold exchanges, hosting visiting pupils, and teacher participation in professional development programs such as teff, although the intensity and sustainability of these activities vary significantly between schools. For one Swedish public school, for example, international exposure occurs primarily indirectly through pupil diversity, with no active mobility programs: “We used to do that when the economy was better. But now we don't have the funds to do that. But otherwise, we don't have any international connections. Not more than what the pupils bring to the school from their parents' home country and so on. But it's not a big part of the school.” (teacher / Sweden) In contrast, an international-profile primary school in Linnaeus utilizes virtual exchange formats, including collaborative projects and communication with international peers, allowing students to engage with intercultural perspectives despite limited physical mobility. “Maybe even if just a class in England is reading the same book as we're reading in English. And then we can zoom or we have a virtual meeting, and they get to meet each other and talk about the books. So, I think that is international mobility in a way.” (teacher / Sweden)
Despite variations in implementation, mobility is consistently associated with positive outcomes. The Swedish international-profile primary school demonstrates observable outcomes in daily practice, including pupil motivation, intercultural awareness, and identity development. The German comprehensive school reports profound learning effects, with pupils applying language skills in authentic contexts, developing self-confidence, and critically engaging with cultural and political differences. Schools affiliated with Leuven show strong outcomes at the pupil, teacher, and institutional levels, including enhanced self-confidence, talent discovery, intercultural competence, professional networking, and a strengthened international profile. Linnaeus schools also report positive outcomes, particularly in intercultural awareness and professional development, but the realization of these benefits is uneven and highly dependent on institutional support and resources.
Challenges are a common theme across all school contexts, though they manifest differently. Limited time, funding, and staffing represent major barriers, compounded in some contexts by administrative complexity and workload pressures. For the German context, the need for ongoing organizational effort and coordination was identified, while Leuven schools focus on ensuring inclusive access and managing logistical coordination. Swedish schools emphasize the dependence on individual initiative and contextual factors with sustainability and consistency of mobility activities being the primary concerns.
The comparison of these school contexts reveals key patterns regarding the implementation and impact of international mobility. Structured, institutionally supported programs, as exemplified by Leuven and the comprehensive school in Cologne, tend to produce more consistent and profound outcomes for both pupils and teachers. In contrast, contexts reliant on individual initiative, such as Swedish public schools, demonstrate more variable results, with outcomes contingent on resources, leadership, and teacher motivation. The Swedish school illustrates a hybrid model, where embedded, everyday intercultural learning and virtual mobility compensate for limited formal exchange programs, resulting in visible pupil engagement and intercultural development.
The comparative analysis underscores that effective mobility is influenced not only by the availability of programs but also by the degree of institutional support, the coherence of activities, and the integration of mobility into daily pedagogical practice. Equity of access remains a critical concern, as participation often depends on socio-economic background or individual initiative, particularly in less structured contexts.
In conclusion, international mobility in schools is universally valued but highly context-dependent in its implementation. Structured and institutionally embedded programs, such as those in Leuven, produce consistent educational and professional benefits. Hybrid models, like the Swedish school, achieve meaningful outcomes through everyday integration and virtual activities, while schools with limited formal support, such as some of the Swedish schools, show unrealized potential. This analysis highlights the importance of balancing formal programmatic structures with embedded, flexible intercultural practices, ensuring both sustainability and equitable access to mobility opportunities across diverse school contexts.
The data on pupils is very limited and is therefore not covered in detail here. In a nutshell, the findings show that international mobility plays a valuable role in pupils’ language development, intercultural skills, and personal growth in both Belgium and Sweden, but its impact depends heavily on how it is implemented. Belgian schools offer highly structured, well-supported mobility programs with immersive experiences, leading to consistently strong outcomes such as improved language proficiency, independence, and future academic motivation. In contrast, Swedish pupils’ experiences vary widely: while internationally oriented schools provide meaningful, integrated mobility opportunities, others rely on informal or self-initiated activities, resulting in less consistent benefits. Overall, both contexts highlight that active engagement and institutional support are key to maximizing the educational value of mobility experiences.
Recommendations
International mobility and intercultural learning are valued in the schools in Sweden, Germany, and Belgium for enhancing pupils’ skills, teacher development, and school innovation. Their impact depends strongly on institutional support: well-structured programs deliver consistent benefits, while less formal approaches lead to uneven outcomes. Some schools compensate through embedded intercultural practices and virtual exchanges. While students generally gain language and personal development skills, access and experience vary by context. Key challenges include funding, workload, administrative complexity, and ensuring equal access.
- Strengthen Institutional Support
Schools should embed international mobility into formal structures, including preparatory and follow-up activities, administrative support, and mentoring systems, to ensure equitable participation and consistent outcomes. - Promote Hybrid Mobility Models
Combining physical exchanges with virtual collaboration and classroom-based intercultural learning can increase accessibility, especially for younger pupils or resource-limited schools. - Ensure Equity and Inclusion
Funding mechanisms and program design should actively target pupils with limited socio-economic resources, ensuring that mobility opportunities are not restricted to a privileged subset. - Leverage Teacher Professional Development
Teacher participation in international exchanges should be facilitated and incentivized, as this enhances classroom practices, intercultural teaching, and program sustainability. - Intentional Design of Activities
Mobility experiences should prioritize meaningful interaction and authentic engagement, rather than passive exposure, to maximize learning outcomes. Structured reflection, collaborative projects, and integration into the curriculum are key. - Monitor and Evaluate Outcomes
Schools should systematically track both pupil and teacher outcomes to assess the effectiveness of mobility programs, inform continuous improvement, and provide evidence for institutional support and policy advocacy. - Balance Formal Programs with Embedded Practices
Schools should combine programmatic mobility initiatives with everyday intercultural learning to ensure sustainability, resilience to resource constraints, and ongoing exposure to international perspectives.
Concluding remarks
Overall, the interviews with all stakeholders revealed that international mobility, in school as well as in teacher education, can be a meaningful impetus for personal growth, pedagogical innovation, intercultural understanding, and institutional development. Participants emphasized enhanced pedagogical awareness, increased intercultural competence, and a better understanding of diverse educational contexts. Mobility experiences were also seen to foster reflection on one’s own practices and assumptions, contributing to professional confidence and adaptability. The benefits of international mobility might even extend beyond the individual, influencing schools and teacher education programs through new perspectives, networks, and practices. Crucially, mobility creates a European sense of belonging, as mentioned in one of the Spanish interviews.
References
Beelen, J. (2011). Internationalisation at home in a global perspective: A critical survey of the 3rd Global Survey Report of IAU. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), 8(2), 249-264.
Berk, Z. (2017). Short term international study for teachers as a form of experiential learning. A case study of American educators in Turkey. University of South Carolina. Retrieved from: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4062.
Boix Mansilla, V. & Jackson, A. (2023). Educating for global competence: Preparing our youth for the world. ASCD.
Enns, I., Knudsmoen, H. & Certini, R. (in print). Mobility models for a future in flux: Exploring alternatives in European teacher education. Iin: Springob, J. et al. (Eds.), (Re-)Imagining Teacher education for a Future in Flux perspectives from the Erasmus+ Teacher Academy teff. Waxmann.
Majewska, I. (2022). Teaching global competence: Challenges and opportunities. College Teaching, 71, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2022.2027858.
Mantel, C., Kamm, E., & Buschor, C. B. (2022). International teaching internships for future teachers: Potential and challenges for learning. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 23, 215–227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-022-09313-4.
Moorhouse, B. L. (2022). Teaching abroad during initial teacher education: The effects as perceived by recently qualified teachers on their preparedness for teaching. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(4), 760-771. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05961-2.
Moorhouse, B. L. (2024). Virtual teaching abroad during initial teacher education: pre-service teachers’ professional learning. Journal of Education for Teaching, 50(3), 390-402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2023.2247351.
Kaiser, K., & Biehl, C. (2024). Blended mobility format of continuing education links school teachers of German schools abroad and students of teacher education of the University of Cologne. In A. Brück-Hübner, U. B. Müller, & A. Seifert (Eds.), Internationalization of teacher education in higher education: Theories, concepts and practical approaches of virtual, blended and physical mobility (pp. 181-188). Wbv Publikation. DOI:, https://doi.org/10.3278/I77352W018.
Klein, J., & Wikan, G. (2019). Teacher education and international practice programmes: Reflections on transformative learning and global citizenship. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 93–100.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.003.
Knudsmoen, H. & Helleve, M.B. (2025). Develop teachers’ professional identity through global internship. In N. Bianquin & F. Magni (Eds.), ATEE Spring Conference 2024: Teacher education research in Europe: trends, challenges, practices and perspectives. ATEE - Association for Teacher Education in Europe.
Leutwyler, B. (2014). Between myths and facts: The contribution of exchange experiences to the professional development of teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 3(2), 106–117.
Leutwyler, B. & Lottenbach, S. (2009). Normalitätsreflexionen – Das lehrerbildungsspezifische Potential von Mobilitätsprogrammen. Journal für Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung 9(1), 66-74.
Leutwyler, B., & Meierhans, C. (2016). Effects of international student exchange on pre-service teachers: A quasi-experimental study. Intercultural Education, 27(2), 117–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2016.1144713.
O’Dowd, R. (2023). Internationalising higher education and the role of virtual exchange. Routledge.
Pedersen, T. D. (2023). Making mobility meaningful: A study of policy and practices of international student mobility in Norwegian teacher education. Doctoral dissertation, Oslo Metropolitan University.
Sieber, P., & Mantel, C. (2012). The internationalization of teacher education: An introduction. Prospects, 42(1), 5–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-012-9218-x.
Authors
- Oslo Metropolitan University:
- Wilfried Admiraal & Hege Knudsmoen
- University of Cologne:
- Inna Enns, Katrin Kaiser & Jan Springob
- Saxion University of Applied Sciences:
- Lida Klaver, Henny Oude Maatman & Lauren Sprik
- Linnaeus University:
- Kerstin Hansson, Hennie Kesak & Mattias Lundin
- University of Murcia:
- Alodia López-Sola & Marina Llanos Olmos Soria
- University of Florence:
- Chiara Funari & Rossella Certini
- Catholic University of Leuven:
- Oliver Holz
DOI
10.13140/RG.2.2.29878.87368