• Working Language: English
• Participation Fee: Free
• Registration
  • https://forms.gle/gz9C1jLf6GLxbnpc6
  • Please fill in English.

The sudden outbreak of COVID-19 has had a huge impact on international higher education. As the largest exporter of international students, many countries bore the brunt. Facing the uncertainty of health and overseas study policy brought by the pandemic, international students are all waiting and considering whether to abandon or change their study abroad plans. The growth in international education as an economic sector has countries around the world developing strategies to attract international students, but why are students becoming more mobile in Europe and Asia? And what does increased student mobility mean for higher education stakeholders?
With the process of globalization, the term internationalization is increasingly used to discuss the international dimension of higher education. According to Knight (2012a), the internationalization of higher education include two pillars: "at home" and "cross-border". Cross-border education refers to the cross border flow of people, projects, providers, policies, knowledge, ideas, projects, and services, including face to-face and virtual flows. Among different forms of internationalization, international student mobility has received the greatest attention and has become a priority area (Knight, 2012a).
Scholars from various countries have conducted a lot of research on the concept, structure, motivation, and value of international student mobility. Regarding the concept, the scope defined by academic organizations or scholars has expanded with the diversification of international student mobility. A broad definition in a Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) report of 2004 is that International Student Mobility is “any form of international mobility which takes place within a student’s program of study in higher education” (King, et al., 2004, p. 11). Knight (2012b) classified the forms of international student mobility into the following six categories: (a) a complete degree program in a foreign country, (b) short-term study abroad experience as part of a degree program in a domestic institution, (c) two or more cross-border cooperation degree programs between institutions or providers, (d) research and field trips, (e) internships and practical experience, (f) study tours, seminars. With the development of society and technology, new virtual forms of international student mobility have emerged. Wells (2014) expanded the conceptual scope of international student mobility. He proposed that international student mobility can be virtual (computer mediated, remote) or physical (also called spatial or geographic); it can be introverted (to enter a country) or outgoing (to leave a country). At present, virtual mobility is becoming more and more common in cross border learning. Therefore, international student mobility discussed in this symposium also includes virtual mobility.
In terms of structure, the scale and direction of international student mobility are the focus of scholars and governments. In the past ten years, the number of international students has grown rapidly. There are currently more than 5 million international students worldwide, an increase of 67% compared to a decade ago (Ma & Chen, 2018). International organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and educational groups with international influence such as the Institute of International Education (IIE) and the National Association of Foreign Student Affairs (NAFSA), have played an important role in the statistics of international student mobility.Ma and Chen (2018) analyzed the relevant data and reports of international organizations and found that the number of international students continued to grow, but the number of students in destination countries was uneven, showing a trend toward high-end academic qualifications and sought-after STEM fields. In terms of spatial distribution, international students are unevenly distributed among different countries according to the level of education and population size. Nicolescu and Galalae (2013) conducted statistics on the main exporting/receiving countries of international students from 1968 to 2006, finding that European and United States were the most popular study destinations, and China, India, and South Korea were the most active providers of international students.

At present, although European and American countries are still the preferred destinations for studying abroad, Asian countries such as Japan and China are emerging as host countries for international students. In particular, more and more Asian students are turning their study destinations to Asian universities (Pfaff-Czarnecka, 2020).
Regarding the motivation of international student mobility, scholars often use theoretical frameworks to support their analysis, including push-pull theory, human capital theory, cultural capital theory, international migration theory, etc. The push-pull theory advocates that the motivation of international students is combined with the "push" factors from the home country and the "pull" factors from the destination country. The human capital theory advocates that the international mobility of students is a typical human capital investment of individual students by the national government or individual families (Crossman & Clark, 2010). On this basis of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital, Waters (2007) proposed that the pursuit of high-quality overseas higher education is to protect the advantages of the class and promote the reproduction of family cultural capital. International migration theory advocates that international student mobility is a special phenomenon of international migration (Bai et al., 2018). Wolf, Freedman, and Soldo (1997) proposed that international migration is a collective decision and strategy aimed at ensuring the economic survival and development of family units. Therefore, social units (such as families) influence the formation of international student mobility and migration decisions.
International students represent a valuable asset to universities in the form of increased revenue and more diversity, but recruiting these students is not enough. University need to ensure that their international recruits will succeed and graduate. Globally-oriented higher education must include strategies that prepare and support international students. Pathway and preparatory programs are well established in many English-speaking countries, but the global shift towards international education has more countries adopting the practice in order to give overseas students more opportunities. Preparatory programs can help to align international students’ skills and knowledge with local requirements, so that they have the tools to succeed in their chosen program. Likewise, language instruction and resources are also an important resource for colleges and institutions hoping to attract more international students.
   Similarly, it is important for internationally-minded universities to reassess curricula and teaching methods. Universities that want to recruit more international students should make sure that course offerings appeal to a global student market and that students can earn transferable or internationally recognized credentials. It can also be beneficial to look at instruction and assessment strategies. While it is reasonable to expect students to adapt to local standards, it can still be helpful to understand and anticipate the challenges posed by independent study, group projects, academic integrity requirements, or examination structures.