other than recognition of learning objectives, also the recognition of the international dimension should be considered (not sure if this is already included in other sections and – if so – please excuse me I missed it)

Totally agree on including students

Here and the point below the teaching and learning centre (or equivalents) could be included

In my opinion this is a very interesting point, especially when we are dealing with students coming from difficult economic/social backgrounds and/or remote geographical areas who may not have appropriate IT tools/internet connection. Because VE is more inclusive than physical mobility, it is successful among this kind of students. Universities should reflect on having areas/rooms dedicated to VE and equipped with the needed IT tools, maybe?

I think that the idea to convey is that VE/BM has the same value (and deserves the same dignity) of other international experiences. This also means provide stable funding to these activities, like it is for other mobility activities. However, we still need to consider that the vast majority of mobilities are funding through Erasmus (and the single institutions do not provide any own funding). Thus, funding for VE/BM can only be marginal. This is, at least, the case of the University of Padova.

Thank you dear Anna, your feedback is indeed important and enriching! Thank you from the entire FRAMES team!!!!

thank you Fabio, we could add reference to the outputs produced within FRAMES

thank you Fabio, hereby we referred more to the overall concept and hence to VE as a hyperonym

I totally agree! the community of practice is indeed a pivotal aspect in terms of sustainability and also of sharing of info, updates, best practices in VE

Thank you Anna! Am I right in understanding you would suggest adding “tech” in the title, right?