HIBLend Framework Model on Quality Blended Mobility

HIBLend FRAMEWORK MODEL ON QUALITY BLENDED MOBILITY HIBLend FRAMEWORK MODEL ON QUALITY BLENDED MOBILITY Angeliki Psychogyiou, Irina Ferencz, Veronika Kupriyanova, Lorenzo Dello Iacovo, Mark Frederiks, Dagmar Provijn, Salome Dermati, Eeva Heikkilä, Jiri Vilppola, Henri Annala, Violeta Osouchová AUTHORS: 1 Title: HIBLend framework model on quality blended mobility Published by: Academic Cooperation Association - ACA Project: HIBLend: Fostering high-quality blended student mobility in higher education Authors: Angeliki Psychogyiou, Irina Ferencz, Veronika Kupriyanova, Lorenzo Dello Iacovo, Mark Frederiks, Dagmar Provijn, Salome Dermati, Eeva Heikkilä, Jiri Vilppola, Henri Annala, Violeta Osouchová Design: Nikolina Đurić Publication: December 2025, Brussels, Belgium This publication is available for free download at hiblend.eu. It can be freely used and copied for non-commercial purposes, provided appropriate credit is given and any changes made are indicated. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License. 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. 2 Contents List of tables ............................................................................................. 3 List of figures ........................................................................................... 3 Abbreviations ........................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 5 2. Student Blended Mobility landscape ................................................ 6 3. Internal Quality Assurance for SBM ............................................... 14 3.1 ESG Part 1 standards applied to SBM .............................................................. 15 3.1.1 ESG 1.1 Policy for quality assurance ............................................................................. 15 3.1.2 ESG 1.2 Design and approval of SBM ............................................................................ 15 3.1.3 ESG 1.3 Student-centred learning, teaching and assessment ....................................... 15 3.1.4 ESG 1.4 Student admission, progression, recognition and certification ....................... 16 3.1.5 ESG 1.5 Teaching staff ................................................................................................... 16 3.1.6 ESG 1.6 Learning resources and student support ......................................................... 17 3.1.7 ESG 1.7 Information management ................................................................................ 17 3.1.8 ESG 1.8 Public information ........................................................................................... 17 3.1.9 ESG 1.9 On-going monitoring and periodic review of SBM ........................................... 17 3.1.10 ESG 1.10 Cyclical external quality assurance .............................................................. 18 4. The HIBLend framework - Strategy, Design, Implementation and Internal Evaluation of SBM .................................................................. 19 4.1 Strategic considerations and policy development stages .............................. 20 4.2 Phased implementation approach .................................................................. 29 4.2.1 Pre-Implementation Phase............................................................................................ 29 4.2.2 Implementation Phase .................................................................................................. 32 4.2.3 Post-Implementation Phase .......................................................................................... 37 5. From practice to policy - Strategic recommendations ................. 40 5.1 EU policy makers ............................................................................................. 40 5.2 National Agencies ............................................................................................ 41 5.4 QA agencies ..................................................................................................... 42 6. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 43 7. Annexes .............................................................................................. 44 3 Annex 1. The HIBLend project ............................................................................... 44 List of tables Table 1. Existing SBM types and paths for further exploration ................................................ 9 Table 2. Key SBM actors by role and phase .............................................................................. 23 Table 3. Practical Tools for Online Learning, Collaboration, and Student Engagement ....... 33 List of figures Figure 1. The HIBLend Framework based on ESG 2015 .......................................................... 19 4 Abbreviations ACA Academic Cooperation Association BIPs Blended Intensive Programmes EEA European Education Area ESG Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area EUAs European Universities Alliances EC European Commission EUF European University Foundation HEIs Higher Education Institutions IRO International Relations Officers MU Masaryk University NAs National Agencies for Erasmus+ NVAO Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders QA Quality Assurance SBM Student Blended Mobility TAMK Tampere University of Applied Sciences 5 1. Introduction Higher education institutions increasingly integrate Student Blended Mobility in their internationalisation efforts, combining physical and virtual learning to enhance accessibility and inclusivity, offer exposure to the digital environment, and provide alternative mobility formats for their students. This shift has been accelerated by the European Union’s Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027) and the innovations fostered by the Erasmus+ Programme, as well as the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted the potential of hybrid mobility models. However, despite its growing adoption, HEIs face challenges in ensuring high-quality SBM, particularly in areas such as pedagogical design, quality assurance, institutional support, and student engagement. The HIBLend project aims to address these gaps by providing a comprehensive framework to support institutions in effectively designing, implementing, and evaluating SBM activities. This document builds upon previous project phases and particularly the WP2 Report on Approaches to Blended Student Mobility and the WP3 Report on Quality Perceptions and Quality Assurance approaches to Student Blended Mobility HIBLend WP2 report, which analysed types, institutional drivers, key implementation challenges and quality considerations for SBM, among others. The document starts by exploring the current landscape of SBM, analysing key trends, participation rates, and institutional perspectives in terms of implementation and uptake. This is followed by a chapter contextualising the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for Quality Assurance within SBM and a chapter providing the HIBLend framework, supported by a checklist of actionable items institutions can follow regarding the strategy, design, implementation and internal evaluation of SBM. Next follow strategic recommendations for the European Commission, National Agencies of Erasmus+ as well as Quality Assurance Agencies in the field of higher education. The HIBLend framework serves as a practical guide for higher education institutions, ensuring that SBM initiatives are well-structured, effectively managed, and aligned with international quality standards. By addressing institutional, pedagogical, and strategic considerations, the HIBLend project contributes to the sustainability and scalability of SBM, fostering greater collaboration, inclusivity, and excellence in higher education mobility activities. 6 2. Student Blended Mobility landscape This chapter provides an overview of the key trends in the SBM field based on official statistical data published by the European Commission and data collected by the HIBlend project. SBM is emerging as a relevant element within EU higher education policy developments The interim evaluation of the European Education Area 1 and the interim evaluation of the 2021–2027 Erasmus+ programme and the final evaluation of the 2014–2020 Erasmus+ programme 2 both underline the growing attention to flexibility, digital approaches, and inclusion in EU mobility policies. In this context, blended mobility is increasingly present in the Commission’s discussions as one of the formats that can support wider participation and offer opportunities for students who may face barriers to long-term physical mobility. Participation in SBM has been steadily growing over the last few years, propelled by the Erasmus+ programme Blended Intensive Programmes scheme and related funding opportunities. A wider uptake of SBM, involving “strategic combinations of phases of online learning with periods of short physical mobility 3 ,” has been driven by a stronger focus on digitalisation and digital skills in the current Erasmus+ programme (2021-2027). This latter has not only actively supported and promoted blended mobility (particularly BIPs), building on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, but has also contributed to the conceptualisation of this field through a series of framework documents and related definitions. The introduction of the Blended Intensive Programmes under Erasmus+, along with shorter mobilities and virtual exchanges, has shown promising preliminary results, particularly in terms of inclusivity, facilitating the participation of students who typically face challenges with the traditionally longer Erasmus+ exchange durations 4 . Institutions participating in the 1 European Commission. (2025). Interim evaluation of the 2021–2030 European Education Area strategic framework. https://education.ec.europa.eu/news/interim-evaluation-confirms-added-value-of-european-education-area 2 European Commission. (2025). Interim evaluation of the 2021–2027 Erasmus+ programme and the final evaluation of the 2014–2020 Erasmus+ programme. https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/resources-and-tools/data-evaluations-statistics/evaluation 3 O'Dowd, R., & Werner, S. (2024). The first steps of blended mobility in European higher education: A survey of blended intensive programmes. Journal of Studies in International Education, 28(5), 798–817. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7348-135X 4 Academic Cooperation Association. (2025). The future of Erasmus+ is the future of Europe: Why further invest in (higher) education at EU level? 7 HIBlend project activities noted a gradual rise as well in engagement with these formats across departments as well as among students. The potential of these initiatives should therefore be further explored during the remainder of the current programme. The sector’s interest in SBM has been mostly driven by the new opportunities for internationalisation, particularly intercultural learning, access to mobility, and pedagogical innovations. According to the mapping 5 conducted by the HIBLend project, the main drivers of SBM within higher education institutions in Europe are mainly linked to the opportunities for enhancing internationalisation, and the added value of the Erasmus+ programme and its BIP scheme, which were particularly highlighted by the surveyed administrative staff. From an academic staff perspective, the drivers include opportunities to strengthen intercultural learning, expand student interest in mobility, and experiment with new learning formats. The mere increased use of technology does not, in itself, motivate students or staff to engage in SBM— an unsurprising finding, given that technology is generally perceived as a tool to facilitate learning opportunities rather than a driver of engagement. HIBlend interviews also indicate that European Universities Alliances are emerging as frontrunners in experimenting with blended mobility formats. Several alliances use BIPs and related online components to deliver challenge-based, sustainability-focused or interdisciplinary modules, illustrating the potential of SBM to support innovation in mobility and curriculum reform. BIPs represent the most common type of SBM engaging most academic and administrative staff. Based on the same mapping, BIPs emerge as the predominant form of SBM within institutions. Their high visibility within higher education institutions is linked not only to the available funding, but also to the flexibility of the funding line, which allows for experimenting with different formats and pedagogical approaches. On the downside, this flexibility and potential for innovation often come with a sizeable workload – comparable to 5 Psychogyiou, A., & Kupriyanova, V. (2024). Approaches to blended student mobility. Academic Cooperation Association. (pp. 21) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13383253 8 ‘typical’ longer-term student mobility, particularly highlighted by administrative staff, who oversee more closely the processes and the funding-related reporting 6 . Structurally, the use of the online component in SBM is most common for background preparation to the (core) physical mobility component. Under the most common sequence of SBM delivery, accounting for nearly half of all cases encountered in the project 7 , the online component precedes the physical one, typically to facilitate initial engagement and preparation (e.g., prior knowledge sharing, team building, cultural or language training). The second most common way of structuring SBM involves a model where the physical part is followed by the online component, which is used for follow-up activities to the physical interaction. In some cases, the online component is used both prior to and following the physical component, offering a gradual entry and exit from the intensive in-person experience. Table 1 below provides a broad overview of the main types of SBM encountered to date in practice, acknowledging that SBM formats continuously evolve. 6 Psychogyiou, A., & Kupriyanova, V. (2024). Approaches to student blended student mobility. Academic Cooperation Association. (pp. 25) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13383253 7 Idem. (pp. 26). 15 3.1 ESG Part 1 standards applied to SBM 3.1.1 ESG 1.1 Policy for quality assurance A structured quality assurance policy is fundamental to ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of SBM within higher education institutions. Such a policy should encompass both the online and physical components of SBM, ensuring coherence and alignment with institutional standards for education quality. The policy may either be integrated into an institution’s broader QA framework or developed as a distinct policy addressing the specific dynamics of blended learning. The implementation, monitoring and revision of the policy is the institution’s responsibility. However, the QA policy for SBM is most effective when it supports that institutional leadership, organisational units, individual staff members, students and relevant external stakeholders (involved in e.g. internships, service learning) take on their responsibilities in QA. If the institution is participating in a university alliance, then the policy may also address the value of the alliance for SBM, e.g. regarding resource sharing, frameworks for student selection, and credit recognition. 3.1.2 ESG 1.2 Design and approval of SBM The design and approval of SBM requires careful integration of online and physical learning elements to ensure a cohesive academic experience. Effective design ensures that students can transition smoothly between digital and physical components, enhancing both their academic and intercultural learning experiences. SBM design should align with institutional guidelines, facilitating curriculum integration, academic calendar coordination, and mutual recognition of credits across partner universities. The objectives of SBM should be aligned with the internationalisation policy of the programme/institution and with the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). Dedicated administrative teams can be instrumental in managing the complexities of SBM, reducing administrative burdens, and enhancing coordination between departments. Equitable internal resource allocation among the design of components is also essential to support the sustainability and continuity of SBM, ensuring alignment with institutional strategic goals. 16 3.1.3 ESG 1.3 Student-centred learning, teaching and assessment SBM should be structured in a way that actively involves students in shaping their learning process. To maximize the impact of SBM, the design of learning activities should reflect a balance between structured academic content and opportunities for intercultural exchange. Creating a sense of continuity between the virtual and physical components contributes to a more immersive and interactive learning journey. The assessment methods used should also reflect this participatory approach. The role of feedback mechanisms is crucial in capturing student experiences at different points of SBM and fostering continuous improvements in the learning design, based on empirical evidence of student learning experiences. Assessment practices should align with the broader educational objectives of SBM, incorporating perspectives on digital, international, and intercultural competencies. 3.1.4 ESG 1.4 Student admission, progression, recognition and certification Institutions should have fit-for-purpose SBM admission, recognition and completion procedures, aligned with the broader framework of student mobility across higher education systems. These processes should be transparent for students and implemented in a consistent manner, as they are essential components for ensuring the students’ progress in their studies, while also promoting SBM. Additionally, continuous evaluation of student engagement and progression can enhance the overall impact of SBM within higher education. 3.1.5 ESG 1.5 Teaching staff The role of teaching staff in SBM is fundamental to ensuring a high-quality learning experience. The effectiveness of SBM depends on the pedagogical and technical competencies of educators, particularly in managing diverse student groups within digital and intercultural learning environments. The digital nature of blended mobility requires continuous professional development, as well as institutional strategies that support faculty in adapting to new teaching modalities. Professional growth in this context should be facilitated through both formal training and participation in peer-learning communities. Institutional support mechanisms can contribute to the sustainability of SBM by fostering collaboration among educators, recognising their contributions, and ensuring that necessary resources are available. By investing in professional development and fostering the longterm establishment of SBM teams, institutions can enhance the quality and scalability of blended learning initiatives. 17 3.1.6 ESG 1.6 Learning resources and student support The effectiveness of SBM is closely tied to the availability of adequate learning approaches and student support mechanisms. The integration of digital and physical learning environments should be designed to facilitate seamless engagement, fostering intercultural exchange and academic collaboration. Comprehensive guidance before and during mobility enhances students’ ability to navigate the blended experience effectively. Ensuring that all participants have access to the necessary academic and technological resources contributes to the inclusivity and sustainability of SBM. Addressing disparities in resource allocation between online and physical components further strengthens the overall learning experience, supporting a more integrated and holistic approach to SBM. 3.1.7 ESG 1.7 Information management Effective information management plays a key role in ensuring the continuous improvement of SBM. A structured approach to collecting and analysing data allows institutions to monitor participation trends, assess student and staff experiences, and refine the overall quality of SBM activities. Feedback mechanisms are essential in capturing perspectives from multiple stakeholders, contributing to more informed decision-making. Ensuring clear communication and transparency about evaluation processes fosters greater alignment between institutional strategies and student experiences. By adopting these strategies, institutions can create a feedback loop that strengthens the quality and coherence of SBM programmes over time. 3.1.8 ESG 1.8 Public information Transparent and accessible information should be a fundamental component of SBM. Clear communication about programme structures, learning objectives and environment, participation requirements, required (technical) skills/equipment and assessment procedures ensures that both current and prospective students can make informed decisions. The availability of up-to-date information also enhances the credibility of SBM initiatives. 3.1.9 ESG 1.9 On-going monitoring and periodic review of SBM Institutions should monitor and periodically review their SBM structures, processes and activities to ensure that they meet their objectives and respond to the needs of students and 18 society. Evaluative processes contribute to identifying areas for refinement, strengthening the integration of online and physical learning components. The reviews should lead to continuous improvement and any actions taken as a result of these reviews should be communicated to all those concerned. 3.1.10 ESG 1.10 Cyclical external quality assurance Institutions undergoing regular external quality assurance should include SBM activities where relevant. Although it is currently not common to include SBM in external QA, it is in the spirit of the ESG to build external QA on the internal QA for SBM. For instance, in systems of programme accreditation, the institution can describe SBM activities in the self-evaluation reports of programmes that provide SBM. In systems of institutional reviews/accreditation the institution may describe in its self-evaluation report the QA policy for SBM (ESG 1.1). The institution may also highlight SBM information on other ESG standards, if relevant and proportionally to the extent of SBM activities (when an institution has significant SBM activities it makes sense to explicitly cover SBM in the institutional review/accreditation). In this manner, external QA can verify the effectiveness of internal QA for SBM, act as a catalyst for improvement and assure the public of the quality of SBM. The ESG Part 1 standards applied to SBM lay the foundation for the HIBLend framework by informing its strategic, design, implementation, and internal evaluation dimensions, which are analysed in Chapter 4. 19 4. The HIBLend framework - Strategy, Design, Implementation and Internal Evaluation of SBM The institutional engagement with SBM depends on (1) broader institutional strategies or strategic approaches supporting this type of mobility (typically alongside other types of internationalisation activities) and (2) more specific implementation processes covering the design, implementation and evaluation of different SBM types. While in most institutions observed to date, different SBM types seem to have developed organically – most often in a bottom-up manner, preceding the development of any related strategic approaches at the institutional level – the diversification, further mainstreaming, and consolidation of SBM types would ideally lead to the emergence of a strategic dimension (a posteriori), fostering a comprehensive institutional approach. Consequently, this chapter introduces the HIBLend Framework (see Figure 1 – available also as an interactive tool on the HIBLend website), composed of four stages of strategic considerations at an institutional level related to SBM as an overarching concept and a set of action-oriented points, to be considered at three key phases of SBM activities, i.e. the preimplementation, implementation, and post-implementation phases. Figure 1. The HIBLend Framework based on ESG 2015 STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS STAGES 1 2 4 3 Mapping strategic relevance, interest and potential Formulating clear SBM goals within the institutional strategy Assessing institutional readiness and feasibility Preparing for the three-phase implementation PHASES PRE IMPLEMENTATION • Define SBM type and actors. • Secure funding. • Set/update interinstitutional agreements. • Publish clear, up-todate information online. • Define student selection criteria. • Prepare a technical contingency plan. • Design the blended course/programme. • Organise student logistics. • Align academic calendars. IMPLEMENTATION • Deliver innovative teaching and learning. • Maintain a collaborative working environment. • Provide real-time academic and technical support. • Conduct mid-term SBM evaluation. POST IMPLEMENTATION • Ensure credit recognition and staff acknowledgement. • Conduct final evaluation. • Apply lessons learned for improvement. • Support transition to more formalised cooperation. 20 Both sections build on predecessor guiding documents developed for some types of SBM, such as BIPs 12 . To ensure clarity in terms of alignment with the quality standards applied to SBM, presented in the previous chapter, each checklist item is tagged with its corresponding ESG(s). Given its foundational nature, Phase 1 functions as an enabler for the feasibility and operational planning conducted in Phase 2. Institutions may also benefit from structured internal policy dialogues to ensure that SBM related objectives are understood and endorsed by senior leadership and key units. 4.1 Strategic considerations and policy development stages Higher education institutions seeking to upscale or mainstream one or several SBM types across the institution or to develop new formats, while simultaneously enhancing the quality of existing SBM formats, would benefit from a comprehensive strategic reflection and feasibility assessment, before proceeding with the design of an implementation roadmap. These reflections are particularly relevant for the institutional leadership, regardless of the specific governance model or job titles used across higher education systems. Depending on country traditions and institutional structures, responsibility for strategic decision-making may be held by senior academic or administrative leaders—such as executive heads, viceleaders, directors, or heads of central units—who oversee internationalisation, education quality, programme development, or mobility services. Within the HIBLend Framework, the strategic reflections are grouped into four main stages, as follows: Stage 1: Mapping strategic relevance, interest and potential During this stage, the institutional leadership would clarify why the institution should support SBM more strategically. Concretely, this would entail, as a minimum: Checking for alignment with the institution’s broader institutional strategy, as well as with its internationalisation, digital transformation, inclusion and environmental sustainability objectives and policies. If this alignment is missing, it is recommened to 12 Austria’s Agency for Education and Internationalisation & The Dutch Organisation for Internationalisation in Education (Nuffic). (2024). Erasmus+ blended intensive programmes: Basic toolkit. https://erasmusplus.oead.at/fileadmin/Dokumente/erasmusplus.at/Hochschulbildung/Mobilitaet_Programmlaender/Mein_laufendes_Projekt/2 024/OeAD_BiP_E_Toolkit.pdf ESGs 1.1, 1.6 21 identify where related SBM goals can be integrated into existing policies to maintain strategic coherence. Integrate SBM into the broader internationalisation strategy, ensuring it complements existing mobility formats. Position blended mobility as an embedded element of study programmes to enhance inclusion and reduce participation barriers that disproportionately affect underrepresented groups. Where relevant, highlight that SBM may reduce the need for longdistance travel, while also acknowledging and managing the environmental footprint of digital infrastructures (e.g. energy use, data-processing requirements, e-waste) to ensure a balanced and evidence-based approach to sustainability. Ensure coherence with the strategic directions of the institution’s key partnerships (e.g. alliances). In Practice: CIVIS Alliance The CIVIS European University Alliance is among the leading organisers of Blended Intensive Programmes, having delivered over 200 BIPs in just three years. Each BIP is co-developed and taught by academics from at least three partner universities, combining online learning with a five-day physical mobility at one host institution. Despite most partners being Erasmus+ programme countries, CIVIS also actively includes universities (as full or associate members) from other countries, including in Africa. Key success factors • A common alliance-wide model with a dedicated support structure (CIVIS Units, HUBs, Officers) • Predictability and standardisation through shared formats • Strong interdisciplinary anchoring in societal challenges • Accessible structure enabling participation from diverse students • Commitment to green mobility (train or bus travel when feasible, eco-friendly route guidance, financial support) Takeaways for replicability and sustainability CIVIS placed BIPs at the centre of its educational vision, helping them evolve into a platform for innovation leading to COILs, micro-credentials, micro-programmes, and joint degree development. Early investment in a structured model enables scaling, accessibility, and high academic quality. Additional efforts to broaden participation and reduce carbon impact further strengthen the model’s sustainability. 22 Analysing the key strengths of SBM and how it could be used for different strategic goals at the institutional and faculty levels. Analysing how SBM could support the needs of different students in the specific institutional context. Mapping key institutional actors that would need to be involved (see Table 2 below for most typical actors involved in SBM). Table 2. Key SBM actors by role and phase (list non exhaustive) 13 Key SBM Actors Pre-Implementation roles During Implementation roles Post-Implementation roles International Relations Coordinators/ Officers Strategic planning, funding, partnerships, agreements; coordination and student outreach; aligning SBM with Erasmus+ priorities; Identifying long-term funding strategies Student support; administrative processes for student mobility; ensuring compliance with funding rules during mobility; financial management Programme evaluation, long-term planning; Improving administrative processes based on feedback; evaluating compliance with funders’ rules; sustainability strategies for future SBM Teachers/ Professors Course design, curriculum integration, pedagogy Teaching, student mentoring, assessment Feedback collection, curriculum improvement Study Programme Coordinators SBM alignment with curriculum objectives Ensuring compliance with programme objectives Reviewing programme impact & lessons learned Instructional Designers Developing digital learning methodologies Advising on digital pedagogy strategies Refining digital pedagogy for future iterations 13 Psychogyiou, A., & Kupriyanova, V. (2024). Approaches to blended student mobility. Academic Cooperation Association. (pp. 18) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13383253 ESG 1.2 ESG 1.3 ESG 1.1 23 IT Officers Technical infrastructure setup Providing IT support and troubleshooting Assessing technical infrastructure effectiveness Quality Assurance Officers Ensuring / supporting compliance with QA frameworks Supporting monitoring programme quality and evaluation Conducting / supporting quality assessments and audits, disseminating QA results, supporting the closing of the feedback loop, follow-up on international QA framework development that can be used as methodological tool to support the further qualitative development of SBM. Considering what the internal quality assurance approach/policy needs, in order for it to be specifically applied to SBM (including relevant assessment standards, minimum hours for online component, academic oversight, student support, and digital standards). ESG 1.1, 1.9 In Practice: University of Antwerp University of Antwerp: Alternative Internationalisation & Quality Assurance University of Antwerp: The "ideal team" 24 Stage 2: Assessing institutional readiness and feasibility During this stage, the institutional leadership would strive to assess both the available capacity (IT infrastructure, staff and students, financial), as well as the institutional readiness to support or participate in new/upscaled SBM activities. Concretely, this would entail, as a minimum: Technical infrastructure and readiness Mapping existing LMS platforms (e.g., Moodle, Blackboard), video conferencing tools (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams), and digital collaboration platforms (e.g., Miro, Padlet). Evaluating their compatibility with SBM and identify any missing functionalities or additional tools needed to support online components. Opt for collaborative learning tools that match the capacity of the digital infrastructure and comply with the university IT and data protection policies. In a context of low capacity digital infrastructure, low-bandwidth tools, recorded materials, and free open-source platforms can serve as alternatives, supporting institutional virtual learning environments. Ensuring that the digital infrastructure supports accessibility, including real-time captioning, adaptive technologies, and mobile compatibility, where applicable. ESG 1.6 ESG 1.6 ESG 1.6 In Practice: Algebra Bernays University Algebra Bernays University in Croatia has extensive experience in designing and delivering short-term educational programmes, such as international summer and winter schools, including micro-credentials. The university implements robust quality assurance in the assessment and recognition of Blended Intensive Programmes, guided by Quality Policy, which focuses on continuous improvement, transparency, and stakeholder engagement. Quality assurance ensures that learning outcomes are consistently met and that achievements are internationally recognised. The approach features systematic monitoring and evaluation aligned with European Higher Education Area standards, clear assessment criteria, timely feedback, and active collaboration among faculty, staff, and students. External expert reviews and regular audits ensure rigorous standards are maintained. 31 Co-developing the blended course with academic staff and instructional designers from partner institutions can strengthen interdisciplinary exchange, align learning methodologies and support pedagogical innovation, ultimately contributing to richer and more coherent learning experiences. In Practice: University of León Strengthening the Online Collaborative Component of BIPs Structuring the online collaborative element of a BIP in a way that is as interactive and pedagogically enriching as the physical phase. Many teachers feel more confident with in-person formats, and the online component risks becoming passive and lecture-driven. Ensuring intercultural learning, active engagement, and collaborative working cultures online is a core challenge. Main goals of the initiative • Enhance intercultural and collaborative competencies through a well-designed BIP model. • Ensure the online phase is active, inclusive, and grounded in project-based learning. • Provide preparatory training for both students and teachers to support smooth progression across online and physical components. • Integrate local class activities with the BIP to reinforce learning and address misunderstandings early. Key success factors • Structured preparation and training: Pre-BIP cultural sessions, clear group roles (chair/secretary), and the use of collaborative digital tools. • Intentional group composition: Small, intercultural teams that promote exchange, accountability, and mutual learning. • A coherent 4-week blended model: 1–2 weeks online → 1 week physical → 1 week online, ensuring continuity and reinforcement of learning outcomes. • Teacher engagement: Information sessions for faculty, including newcomers, help build alignment, awareness, and motivation. To complement the handbook, FH Salzburg offers one-on-one sessions for staff members planning to organise a BIP within their study programme. This personalised support helps staff navigate the procedural aspects and ensures they feel confident when engaging with the format. This combination of a practical handbook and tailored staff guidance facilitates smoother implementation, reduces uncertainty, and strengthens institutional capacity to deliver high-quality BIPs. • Reflective student portfolios: Including intercultural reflections, these deepen learning and provide meaningful assessment beyond content knowledge. Key takeaways for replicability and sustainability • Invest in online facilitation training and intercultural tools to ensure the online component has high impact. • Clearly define roles, expectations, and workflows for students in virtual collaboration. • Use case-based preparatory materials to anticipate common challenges and develop intercultural agility. • Co-design the BIP with a committed core team from partner institutions, while allowing flexibility in annual participation cycles. 32 Aligning academic calendars, to the extent possible, and develop clear scheduling protocols to allow students to participate in both virtual and physical learning phases. To reduce administrative burden and improve consistency, institutions are advised to consider developing internal checklists, indicative timelines, or templates for agreements and coordination workflows. These tools can be particularly beneficial for staff with limited prior experience in SBM and can help ensure smoother coordination across departments and partners. 4.2.2 Implementation Phase The Implementation Phase encompasses key activities, including structured orientation, innovative teaching strategies, student support mechanisms, and continuous evaluation processes to enhance learning outcomes and engagement. Concretely, this would include, at a minimum: ESG 1.2 In Practice: Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences developed a clear, practical visual guide to support academic and administrative staff in hosting BIPs. The poster maps out the institutional workflow from early conceptualisation to implementation and post-programme follow-up. It highlights five key criteria for successful BIP delivery—time-management, commitment building, process clarity, intercultural competence, and sustainability—and offers concise guidance to help staff avoid common planning and coordination pitfalls. The resource also includes a month-by-month BIP timeline, covering partner coordination, agreement preparation, content development, student nomination processes, virtual phase preparation, on-site delivery, and follow-up tasks. By summarising the full process in an accessible format, the tool supports first-time and experienced organisers alike in navigating Erasmus+ requirements and structuring efficient, well-coordinated BIPs. In Practice: Ulysseus – Blended Intensive Programmes Handbook The Ulysseus Blended Intensive Programme Handbook provides essential guidance for creating and delivering BIPs under Erasmus+ KA131. It offers clear definitions, practical advice for organising blended mobility, and explanations of partnership roles and participant engagement. Designed for academic staff, the handbook supports anyone who wishes to develop a new Blended Intensive Programme or contribute to the co-creation of one. 33 Ensuring innovative teaching and learning in the student blended course to strengthen student engagement and motivation. Institutions need to adopt innovative, versatile and active learning methodologies—such as problem-based learning, case studies and collaborative digital projects—supported by adaptive learning pathways and digital collaboration tools (e.g., Padlet, Miro, Trello, Google Docs). Engagement strategies like gamification, flipped classrooms, and structured discussion forums can sustain participation across the blended environment. Table 3 highlights commonly used practical tools that can facilitate these forms of online learning, collaboration, and student engagement. Learning approaches should promote inclusivity by integrating interdisciplinary challenges, culturally sensitive exchanges and team-building activities that facilitate equitable participation, including for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Smaller working groups can enhance collaboration, knowledge transfer and a sense of belonging, while intercultural competence can be strengthened through reflection exercises and peer interaction. Institutions also need to consider incorporating structured social or intercultural activities to strengthen emotional bonding and group cohesion during SBM. To further motivate students, institutions need to identify drivers and barriers such as employability expectations, networking opportunities or perceived workload, and communicate clearly how SBM contributes to ECTS credits and supports the development of transversal skills linked to future employability pathways. Table 3. Practical Tools for Online Learning, Collaboration, and Student Engagement Collaboration & Communication Tool Description Link Slack AI-assisted project management and team communication tool enabling real-time and asynchronous discussions, file sharing, app integrations and more. slack.com Trello Visual task-management platform using boards, lists, and cards, helping to coordinate activities and tasks. trello.com Miro Interactive whiteboard allowing users to brainstorm, plan, and co-create in real time or asynchronously, and offering templates for workshops and project mapping. miro.com Padlet Online tool for creating interactive digital boards where users can post text, images, links, or padlet.com ESG 1.3 34 videos, useful for brainstorming and sharing ideas, while supporting asynchronous participation. Mural Digital workspace for visual collaboration, providing a canvas with sticky notes, diagrams, and templates for real time or asynchronous interaction. mural.com Learning Platforms Tool Description Link Canvas Learning management system ideal for hybrid course delivery, allowing educators to create and manage learning materials and assignments, and students to submit work, track progress, and communicate through digital tools. instructure.com/canvas LearnWorlds All-in-one learning platform for blended or flipped classrooms, with tools for video interaction, assessment, and course design. It allows creators to sell their courses, making it more suitable for private training providers. learnworlds.com Perusall Collaborative reading platform allowing students to read digital texts together and leave comments or questions, while educators can assign readings and assess understanding automatically. perusall.com Accessibility Tool Description Link Voiceitt AI-powered speech recognition tool that translates non-standard speech into clear digital text or voice, supporting mobility participants with speech impairments during classes. voiceitt.com ReachDeck Supports reading, writing, and comprehension across web and digital learning environments through screen reading and language support. texthelp.com/products/reachdec k/ Wheelmap A crowdsourced accessibility map that helps incoming or travelling students locate wheelchairwheelmap.org 35 accessible buildings, public spaces, and transport options. Audience Engagement Tool Description Link Poll Everywhere Real-time polling, quizzes, and word clouds for interactive sessions. polleverywhere.com Mentimeter Interactive presentation platform that enables realtime audience participation, through the creation of polls, quizzes, word clouds. mentimeter.com Slido Platform enabling participants to take part in live polls, quizzes, and Q&A sessions, while helping presenters collect feedback and gauge opinions in real time. slido.com Doodle Ideal for group polling and sign-ups to online sessions/meetings. doodle.com Kahoot Gamified platform for individual or team learning through quizzes and presentations. Increases participation and creativity while facilitating the assessment of results. kahoot.com Promotion and Visibility Tool Description Link ThingLink Tool for creating interactive images, videos, or 360° virtual tours, ideal for virtual campus visits or showcasing mobility destinations. thinglink.com Genially Platform for creating visually engaging and interactive presentations, games, infographics, and microsites. genially.com 36 Maintaining a vibrant collaborative ecosystem. This step entails both university / faculty collaboration, ensuring that teaching teams can codeliver, co-evaluate and supervise SBM courses, as well as student peer learning exchange, allowing them to engage in virtual group work and discussion. Clear communication protocols and regular coordination meetings between partner teams engaged in SBM are necessary to address differences in academic calendars, workflows, and platform use. Where possible, institutions need to establish centralised communication channels for students, such as unified information hubs or single contact points, to ensure clarity and reduce fragmentation. Institutions are recommended to explore resource-pooling mechanisms across faculties or partner universities to streamline support services, optimise staffing, and reduce duplication of effort. ESG 1.3, 1.5 In Practice: European Commission – Good Practices in the Virtual Component of BIPs The European Commission’s publication ‘’Erasmus+ Higher Education Student and Staff Mobility: Good Practices in the Implementation of the Virtual Component of Blended Intensive Programmes (BIPs)’’ presents practical examples and insights from institutions across Europe on how to design, deliver, and enhance the virtual elements of BIPs. The document highlights innovative approaches to collaborative online learning, methods for fostering interaction and teamwork, and ways institutions have addressed common challenges in digital and blended mobility formats. By showcasing concrete cases and successful models, the publication supports higher education institutions in strengthening the quality, inclusiveness, and pedagogical coherence of the virtual component of BIPs. It offers inspirations for both academic and administrative staff involved in planning or improving blended mobility activities. In Practice: Unite! European University Alliance – U!Train 2024 The U!Train 2024 initiative, developed within the Unite! European University Alliance, offers an example of an innovative BIP combining virtual preparation with a challenge-based, real-world learning journey. After completing the online phase, 30 students travelled by train across all eight Unite! cities before reaching Barcelona in small groups and then Grenoble collectively. The design allowed students to analyse the European railway network directly, observe different infrastructures, and reflect on the practical challenges of sustainable cross-border mobility. Through this experiential approach, participants generated insights into green mobility systems, collaborated in multicultural teams, and proposed solution-oriented ideas grounded in real European transport contexts. U!Train demonstrates how blended mobility can merge academic learning with hands-on, challengebased experiences, while promoting sustainability, European interconnectedness, and the development of transversal skills. 37 Providing real time academic and technical student support. This step entails, among others, assigning faculty members to guide students on SBM coursework, learning expectations, and workload management, connecting experienced participants to the new ones, providing technical helpdesks for troubleshooting and accessibility support and enabling escalation procedures for problem resolution overall. Conducting mid – SBM evaluation. This step entails gathering regular student and staff feedback through satisfaction surveys, live polls, LMS-based feedback tools, weekly or bi-weekly student reflection logs and crossinstitutional reflection meetings, among others, to assess and refine the student experience with SBM. 4.2.3 Post-Implementation Phase The Post-Implementation Phase focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of SBM, supporting the integration of lessons learned into future iterations, and ensuring long-term sustainability beyond Erasmus+ funding cycles. Concretely, this would include, at a minimum: Ensuring that recognition of credits gained through SBM is fully carried out for students, and that staff participation is formally acknowledged. This includes ensuring that, in specific cases such as BIPs, local students also receive full and transparent recognition for their work. Partner institutions have to ensure credit recognition, also in cooperation with national recognition authorities, if beneficial for students. Clear and timely recognition is essential to avoid delays in students’ academic progression and to ensure that SBM participation contributes meaningfully to their study pathway. Institutions should provide students with official documentation (e.g., in the diploma supplement) outlining SBM activities and achieved learning outcomes, particularly if needed for further studies or employment. Similarly, staff contributions to SBM, whether through teaching, mentoring, coordination, or course design, should be formally acknowledged within institutional frameworks. This may include workload recognition, integration into evaluation or promotion procedures, or inclusion in professional development records. Ensuring transparent staff recognition supports motivation, sustainability, and long-term engagement in SBM activities. ESG 1.6 ESG 1.7, 1.9 ESG 1.4 38 Conducting post – SBM evaluation. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, including surveys, focus groups and interviews, help capture student and faculty experiences, technical challenges, virtual component contribution to learning outcomes, and institutional goals. Structured debriefing sessions involving students, academic staff, administrative staff, and partner institutions can support shared reflection, alignment on key findings, and coordinated improvement actions. These sessions help consolidate lessons learned and ensure consistent follow-up across all actors. Using key performance indicators (KPIs) such as completion rates, credit recognition, engagement levels, and digital learning effectiveness can help measure success. Inclusivity metrics should also be introduced to assess how accessible SBM has been, particularly for students with fewer opportunities or diverse backgrounds. Institutions should evaluate SBM’s contribution to academic progression, employability skills, and internationalisation impact. Additionally, ensure that internal QA audits explicitly evaluate the physical and virtual components of SBM in a standardized way for both students and academics. Informing future iterations and ensure continuous improvement. Evaluation findings directly inform the refinement of future iterations of SBM, impacting their design, delivery, and administration. Institutions can also exchange good practices with peers— for example within university alliances—to identify areas for improvement, such as streamlining administrative workflows, enhancing virtual engagement strategies, and optimising student support mechanisms. Facilitating the transition from ad hoc SBM activities to mainstream cooperation (where applicable). Where SBM is still implemented in an ad hoc or optional manner, institutions can work towards more structured and sustainable cooperation formats. This includes embedding SBM more clearly into programme design, aligning it with learning outcomes and existing internationalisation activities, and reducing uncertainty regarding recognition and long-term planning. As part of this transition, institutions can create an internal catalogue of existing blended activities and identify recurring partner institutions whose curricula and pedagogical ESG 1.7, 1.9 ESG 1.9, 1.10 ESG 1.1 In Practice: CIVIS Alliance Participation in a CIVIS BIP is recorded in the student’s CIVIS Passport, issued in the form of a digital certificate through Open Badge, an innovative tool that documents all CIVIS activities, credited and noncredited, received upon graduation. The CIVIS Passport is issued at central level by the CIVIS Coordination Office, through the Digital Campus Unit, and is seen as a complementary tool for students to showcase their CIVIS experiences. 39 approaches are compatible. These partnerships can be prioritised for more structured and systematic development of SBM activities. 40 5. From practice to policy - Strategic recommendations The successful implementation and sustainability of SBM at the institutional level is not solely dependent on the efforts of individual higher education institutions. A supportive policy environment at multiple levels is crucial. Key policy and implementation actors at national and European level play a vital role in shaping measures that enable institutions to develop and sustain high-quality SBM initiatives. This section outlines strategic recommendations for EU policy makers, National Agencies for Erasmus+, and Quality Assurance Agencies in higher education. 5.1 EU policy makers To strengthen SBM, EU policy makers should consider: → Offering adequate financial support, recognising and addressing high costs associated with digital infrastructure, staff training, and blended course development as well as the overall need to ensure accessibility and inclusivity. → Considerably simplifying administrative requirements for BIPs in the future Erasmus+ programme to ensure possibilities to upscale them for a wider group of learners. → Enhancing SBM monitoring mechanisms across the Erasmus+ programme, particularly for the online component, to improve consistency and enhance qualitative assessments of SBM, allowing for more effective evaluation of impact and outcomes. → Clarifying and updating the ECTS Users’ Guide, which remains primarily oriented toward physical mobility, to ensure that learning outcomes achieved through blended mobility formats are fully and consistently recognised across institutions. → Fostering good practice sharing and collaboration by strengthening networks like the European Digital Education Hub and similar peer exchange platforms. → Supporting knowledge-sharing initiatives that connect higher education institutions to facilitate the development and scaling of SBM.