Assess Your Offices Inclusive Practices (Students with Disabilities)
Mobility International USA provides us with a unique exercise to assess disabilities inclusion in your office.
Authors:
Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) has gained momentum for fostering global competence and internationalizing curricula, offering a more accessible alternative to traditional study abroad programs (Hackett et al., 2023). In the K-12 space, COIL provides younger students and teachers the opportunity to engage in cross-cultural communication when physical travel across time, space, and cultures is difficult due to students’ minor status and other structural barriers, e.g., cost, school calendars, and local instructional requirements (Hinshaw et al., 2022).
Virtual Exchange (VE) is a broader term that encompasses COIL and other online instructional approaches focusing on cross-cultural teaching and learning (O’Dowd, 2018). VE connects youth participants in “a more neutral third space” mediated through online technologies, as compared to traditional cultural exchanges when one group travels to another country (Stevens Initiative, 2024, n.p.). This shared space is co-constructed by adult facilitators, who “help students enter into the realm of collaborative inquiry and construction of knowledge, viewing their expanding repertoire of identities and communication strategies as resources in the process” (Kern & Warschauer, 2000, p. 21).
This article describes a school-university partnership and how educators collaborated in a Community of Practice (CoP) to create a cross-cultural VE between secondary students in China and the United States.
For nearly a decade, educational researchers at North Carolina State University’s Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (Friday Institute) have facilitated collaborative learning opportunities between Suzhou North America High School (SNA), a private international secondary school in Suzhou, Jiangsu, China, and partner schools in the United States (Spires et al., 2018a). Through facilitating these cross-cultural school partnerships, the Friday Institute team has explored students’ engagement in Border-Crossing Discourse (Spires et al., 2023) and teachers’ and students’ evolving cosmopolitan literacies and participation in cross-cultural inquiry (Spires et al., 2018b; 2019a; 2019b).
In spring 2022, Xiaohong Lin, an Asian languages and cultures teacher at Coastal High School (CHS), a public charter secondary school in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA, reached out to Marie Himes and Sarah Bausell at the Friday Institute seeking a connection with a partner school in China. Ms. Lin wanted to enhance her students’ understandings of Chinese culture and language through a collaborative learning experience with similarly aged peers living in China.
After an introductory conversation with Ms. Lin, Ms. Himes reached out to SNA contacts to gauge interest and capacity for a VE. As an international school, SNA aims to provide students with an educational environment in which they can “develop an international perspective” through internationalized curricula, extracurricular activities, and international exchange opportunities (SNA, n.d., n.p.). Thus, SNA Assistant Principal, Carolyn Gao, was eager to speak with the school’s faculty and find a teacher from the SNA side to lead this VE.
Ms. Lin believed that a VE between her U.S. students and students in China would be an opportunity to “create a learning community beyond the classroom” and cultivate her students’ “open-mindedness and global competence.” As an international teacher from China living and working in the US, Ms. Lin was keenly aware of rising political tensions between China and the US. These tensions motivated Ms. Lin to seek cross-cultural student connections, seeing the possibilities for “learning from each other so they [students] can see the potential for collaboration in the future and have a different source of information on China and the US than just social media and the news.”
Michael Angelo Ehilla Baiño, an international teacher at SNA from the Philippines, was selected by Ms. Gao for the teacher leadership role. Mr. Baiño’s motivation for partnering in this VE was twofold: (1) “wanting students to learn more about other cultures” and (2) supporting students in “realizing how cross-cultural interactions can build mutual respect and understanding.” As a biology teacher at SNA, Mr. Baiño recognized that he and his students would be engaging in the VE in an extracurricular fashion, which provided some added logistical and curricular flexibility; however, it also presented some drawbacks in terms of SNA student recruitment, available time investment, and academic alignment.
In the summer of 2022, Ms. Lin, Mr. Baiño, Ms. Himes, and Dr. Bausell held an organizational meeting prior to the beginning of the 2022-23 academic year, marking the beginning of our school-university Community of Practice (CoP).
Hinshaw et al. (2022) highlighted teachers’ professional development through the facilitation of VE as it “directly and indirectly exposes teachers to cross-cultural perspectives” (p. 2). In addition to the professional growth experienced by educators via cross-cultural interactions in designing and implementing VE, facilitators also navigate challenging contextual factors, including time differences, restricted and uneven access to technology, and local instructional requirements, e.g., instructional standards, curricular sequences, and standardized assessments (Baroni et al., 2019; O’Dowd, 2018).
Co-constructing a Community of Practice (CoP), as originally conceptualized by Wenger (1998), with the school- and university-based educators facilitating this cross-cultural student VE offered a professional learning orientation toward enhancing educators’ relevant skills and knowledge in VE while also strengthening our collegial network through collaborative problem-solving. Moreover, with the goal of cultivating understanding and community among students in the VE across cultural contexts, a CoP provided educator participants with opportunities to experientially mirror students’ explorations of “interaction, mutual dependence, and identification with a group” (Westheimer & Kahne, 1993, p. 325).
As educators and experts on their school community contexts and students, Mr. Baiño and Ms. Lin brought to bear insider knowledge in our CoP alongside Ms. Himes and Dr. Bausell’s expertise as university-based educators in connecting educators and students across time, space, and cultures to create a shared vision for student learning in the VE. Four principles have guided our CoP:
In collaboratively developing a cross-cultural student VE, school- and university-based educators have co-constructed and operated within a CoP to iteratively address VE design and implementation. The CoP approach has afforded participants with opportunities that mirror what their students are experiencing through VE to engage in and reflect on how their professional and personal identities shape and are shaped by engagement in cross-cultural dialogue. To view a short video from the 2022-23 cross-cultural student VE, please visit https://go.ncsu.edu/ccsve_snachs22-23.
Baroni, A., Dooly, M., García, P. G., Guth, S., Hauck, M., Helm, F., … & Rogaten, J. (2019). Evaluating the impact of virtual exchange on initial teacher education: a European policy experiment. Research-publishing.net.
Hackett, S., Janssen, J., Beach, P., Perreault, M., Beelen, J., & Van Tartwijk, J. (2023). The effectiveness of Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) on intercultural competence development in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 5.
Hinshaw, N., Gonzalez, S., & Engel, L. (2022). K-12 schooling through virtual exchange: Opportunities in a fractured context. Journal of International Students, 12, 1–16.
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of networked-based language teaching. In R. Kern & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press.
O’Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1, 1–23.
Spires, H., Gambino, A., Himes, M., & Wang, L. (2023). Project-Based Inquiry (PBI) Global: Border crossing discourse within a collaboration of students from China and the United States. In S. Kerkhoff & H. Spires (Eds.), Critical perspectives on global literacies: Bridging research and practice. Routledge Publishing.
Spires, H., Himes, M., & Wang, L. (2018a). Designing a state-of-the-art high school in Suzhou, China: Connecting to the future. In H.A. Spires (Ed.), Digital transformation and innovation in Chinese education (pp. 191–210). IGI Global.
Spires, H., Medlock Paul, C., Himes, M. & Yuan, C. (2018b). Cross-cultural collaborative inquiry: A collective case study with students from China and the US. International Journal of Educational Research, 91, 28–40.
Spires, H., Himes, M., Paul, C. & Kerkhoff, S. (2019a). Going global with project-based inquiry: Cosmopolitan literacies in practice. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 63(1), 51–64.
Spires, H., Kerkhoff, S., & Fortune, N. (2019b). Educational cosmopolitanism and collaborative inquiry with Chinese and US teachers. Teaching Education, 30(4), 437–454.
Stevens Initiative (2024). Virtual exchange. https://www.stevensinitiative.org/virtual-exchange/
Suzhou North America High School [SNA] (n.d.). https://www.sna-edu.com/en/
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (1993). Building school communities: An experience-based model. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 324–324.
Author:
In order to better understand the potential of online community-based learning for fostering global citizenship capacities in an increasingly interconnected and digitized world, the study examined data from three institutions in the United States who moved their in-person community-based global learning programs to the fully online modality during COVID school closures. College students in the sample worked with a range of community partners, for example a non-profit working with migrants in Mexico and a healthcare clinic in Ghana. And common projects included activities like organizing virtual conferences, creating digital archives, and applying for grants.
The study utilized data from the Global Engagement Survey (GES) (n = 187) collected primarily during the summer of 2020. The GES is a pre-/post mixed-methods tool which assesses student global learning related to three components: cultural humility, global citizenship, and critical reflection (Hartman et al., 2015). Zoom interviews with alumni (n = 23) were conducted during the summer of 2023, which was one to three years after program completion. More details about this study can be found in the full dissertation.
As a purpose-driven study, the aim of this research was to produce results and recommendations for effective and inclusive teaching and learning practices. Thus, analysis included disaggregating data by key demographic factors including first-generation to college status. And mixed-methods analysis found that first-generation students participating in an online community-based global learning program reported greater gains in learning than their non-first-generation peers
Quantitative analysis
Independent-sample t-tests revealed a statistically significant difference in mean pre- and post-survey scores where p ≤ .039 between first-generation students (n = 40) and non-first-generation students (n = 140) on 7 of the 8 survey scales. The chart below details mean change scores (mean pre-survey score subtracted from mean post-survey score), standard deviations, and p-values for the 8 survey scales.
| Opennessto Diversity | CulturalAdaptability | CivicEfficacy | PoliticalVoice | ConsciousConsumption | Global CivicResponsibility | HumanRights Belief | CriticalReflection | |
| Non-First GenMean Change Score | .14 | .08 | .25 | .25 | .20 | .19 | .0018 | .12 |
| Non-First Gen SD | .365 | .361 | .452 | .620 | .340 | .478 | .355 | .313 |
| First Gen MeanChange Score | .38 | .29 | .59 | .48 | .36 | .42 | .08 | .29 |
| First Gen SD | .389 | .381 | .461 | .593 | .406 | .511 | .198 | .386 |
| p | ≤.001 | =.002 | ≤.001 | =.039 | =.013 | =.010 | =.214 | =.003 |
Thus, quantitative analysis found that after participating in an online community-based learning program, first-generation students reported greater learning gains compared to their non-first-generation peers.
Student demographics
Qualitative analysis of survey and interview data sheds light on the quantitative findings above. Qualitative analysis suggests that first-generation students who are more likely to be non-White, born outside of the United States, and low-income than non-first-generation students in the sample brought attitudes and lived experiences—openness to an unfamiliar learning environment, intrinsic motivation for experiential learning, intercultural collaboration, and experience with resisting systems of oppression—which facilitated their learning. An overview of student demographics is presented in the table below.
Qualitative analysis
This article focuses on how one particular attitude—a strong sense of openness and curiosity—may have been a way that first-generation students sustained motivation despite uncertainty and barriers that came with participating in an unfamiliar learning environment in the middle of a global pandemic.
Non-first-generation students: Online as an ok alternative to the “real” experience
Many non-first-generation students said that they saw the online program as preparation for future in-person learning experiences like study abroad, internships, volunteerism, or community-based learning. These students viewed the in-person experience as “real” and the online as an ok alternative given the circumstances of not being able to travel or have in-person contact during the pandemic. It was common for non-first-generation students to state things like, “If this was an actual program, I would have probably been traveling around India and the survey that I ended-up creating would have gone out far earlier.” It is possible that non-first-generation students had fixed ideas from their family and friends about what their college experience was supposed to look like—internship sophomore year, study abroad junior year, apply to graduate school in their senior year. In fact, one non-first-generation student said the only reason they participated in the online program was that the competitive summer internships in their field of Architecture did not happen during the pandemic.
First-generation: Online as a great opportunity
What is most revealing is that no first-generation students in the interview sample expressed the view that the online program was an ok alternative to the “real” experience. Instead interview data revealed that first-generation students overwhelmingly viewed the online program as a great opportunity, such as the student who said, “I pray that such opportunities could be available for other people because it was beneficial for me. I would love to do more of this, and it exposed me to a lot of knowledge and skills.” It seems that first-generation students were less stuck in ideas about “how things are supposed to be” than their non-first-generation peers, and more willing to engage open-mindedly in a learning experience that was not what they expected.
Research in the field of positive psychology shows that people who display mindsets such as openness and curiosity are better able to explore, take risks, and trust others; therefore, openness and curiosity are agents of personal growth and learning (Neff et al., 2007; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Thus, approaching the unfamiliar and perhaps uncomfortable experience of online community-based learning with an open and curious mindset may have spurred greater learning for first-generation students compared to their non-first-generation peers.
a. Guide students to reflect on their strengths
This analysis suggests that first-generation students came into the online global learning experience with attitudes and lived experiences that helped them to thrive; however, students may not be consciously aware of how their lived experiences can be strengths. This can be especially true for students who are traditionally marginalized in higher education, like first-generation students, who have been told their whole lives that their background (e.g., not having family to guide them in the college process or not speaking English as their first language) is solely a challenge to overcome rather than also an asset. I suggest that educators provide concrete language and a framework for students to think about how their lived experiences are strengths, such as Yosso’s (2005) theory of cultural wealth, which could be useful for all students but especially for those who are traditionally marginalized. Further, educators should provide a way for students to reflect on their strengths through writing and discussion; an example is Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s evidence-based asset mapping exercise.
b. Introduce mindfulness
This study found that an open and curious mindset in first-generation students fostered greater learning gains while engaging with the uncertain experience of online community-based learning during a global pandemic. Research supports that practicing mindfulness exercises, such as meditation or walking in nature, can help individuals feel a sense of calm and safety that allows them to be open to new experiences as well as recognize joy amidst uncertainty (Fredrickson, 2009; Neff, 2011). Thus, I suggest that introducing students to mindfulness exercises may help cultivate an open and curious mindset and identify joy in educational and life experiences that are new and uncertain. Motivated by my study findings, I have developed a resource for global educators interested in teaching mindfulness in their own classrooms: Mindfulness exercises to prepare for community based global learning.
Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positivity: Top-notch research reveals the 3-to-1 ratio that will change your life. Harmony.
Hartman, E., Lough, B., Toms, C., & Reynolds, N. (2015). The beauty of global citizenship: The problem of measurement. In J. Friedman, V. Haverkate, B. Oomen, E. Park, & M. Sklad (Eds.), Going glocal: The theory, practice, evaluation, and experience of education for global citizenship (pp. 125–145). Drukkerij Publishing.
Neff, K. (2011). Self-compassion: The proven power of being kind to yourself. Harper Collins.
Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination of self-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 908–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Authors:
Maximizing the potential of virtual exchanges to decolonize virtual mobility through the intercultural co-construction of knowledge is a compelling idea. Virtual exchanges can be powerful learning experiences that enable learners to collaborate across geographical boundaries and approach a task or project by leveraging students’ diverse identities, disciplinary knowledge, and worldviews. The literature on virtual exchanges has expanded in recent years, highlighting the learning benefits for students and the challenges of implementing collaborative projects mediated by technology across cultures (Mittelmeier, Rienties, Gunter, & Raghuram, 2021; Gutiérrez, Gilmäng, Sauro & O’Dowd, 2022, Huang & Landford, 2024; Hamada & Iwasaki, 2024). A clear gap in the literature, however, is understanding the conditions and dispositions that best support educators in designing virtual exchange projects that yield robust and equitable learning benefits.
With this aim, researchers from Monash University and The Pennsylvania State University have been collaborating since mid-2023 to co-create and collate a suite of resources to support educators in designing and implementing equitable and mutually beneficial virtual exchange projects. After a critical review of existing virtual exchange toolkits and websites, we identified current gaps in available faculty support from project inception through research and dissemination of results. Further, our multidisciplinary team of global educators have reflected on our experiences in virtual mobility, as administrators, instructional designers, and educators to map out the major milestones that would support other educators in designing virtual exchange programs (i.e., forming partnerships, designing projects and activities, preparing students, implementing COIL projects and activities, assessing outcomes, and conducting research). To achieve this, an iterative process incorporating peer feedback and collective decision-making has been implemented, aligning with the core principles of online collaboration in education. Our negotiations and collaborations have highlighted the need for clear foundational principles that support and guide educators in designing and implementing inclusive, equitable, and pedagogically sound virtual exchange programs within their institutions.
Based on this work, we propose three macro-level guiding principles that can guide educators in developing meaningful and equitable virtual exchange projects: (1) pedagogical intentionality, (2) criticality, and (3) plurality. These macro-level principles prompt educators to reflexively consider how virtual mobility initiatives can be developed and positioned so that they result in a meaningful co-construction of knowledge(s).
Pedagogical intentionality involves deliberate planning and execution of teaching practices to achieve specific educational outcomes. This concept emphasizes decision-making processes where educators thoughtfully consider the purpose of introducing virtual exchanges at classroom, institutional, and cross-institutional levels. It involves blending pedagogy and subject content, understanding what is to be taught, learned, and assessed, how learners learn, ways to facilitate effective learning, and scaffolding learning through content and pedagogy (Jones & Moreland, 2015). By emphasizing pedagogical intentionality as a macro-principle, we highlight the agency of educators in purposefully designing learning exchanges; this stands in contrast to creating virtual exchange projects that fall into the “let’s just see what happens” approach. Pedagogical intentionality underscores the need for reasoned and structured approaches to fostering intercultural learning instead of assuming that intercultural learning will occur as a natural by-product of virtual exchange (Deardorff & Arasaratnam-Smith, 2017).
For virtual exchanges to foster intercultural co-construction of knowledge(s) across geographical boundaries, criticality is fundamental. Criticality encompasses being attuned to wider socio-historical dimensions that shape physical and virtual mobilities (of ideas and practices) and grounding virtual exchange practices in continuous self-reflection. Decoloniality can support educators in actualizing criticality. Decoloniality can be understood as “first and foremost liberation of knowledge, […] of understanding and affirming subjectivities that have been devalued by narratives of modernity that are constitutive of the control matrix of power” (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, p. 146). Adopting a decolonial approach in virtual exchanges means embracing difference as constitutive of educational relationships and designing projects that challenge dominant global narratives perpetuated by modernity.
Another important corollary of criticality is ensuring both equality of opportunities and outcomes in virtual exchange. Equity and inclusion help educators consider all stakeholders, design projects to address disadvantages, and foster a sense of belonging. Equity focuses on achieving equality of outcomes, not just opportunities. This means, for example, designing projects that can leverage learners’ multilingual repertoires instead of framing knowledge of languages other than English as a “deficit” that needs to be compensated for (Robbins, 2023; Pineda & Bosso, 2023).
Virtual exchange offers a third space, described as an interruptive and interrogative space, where multiple discourses can be woven together without sacrificing or dismissing the importance of their speakers’ experiences and ways of knowing the world (Bhabha, 1994; Wimpenny et al., 2022). This plurality of third spaces can act as a powerful counterbalance to scenarios where virtual exchange is implemented expressly for some groups of students, usually from the Global North, to become more interculturally competent through interactions with “other” groups, usually from the Global South. Challenging and breaking down these North-South power dynamics is imperative for engendering non-hegemonic approaches to virtual exchange pedagogies (Breaden et al., 2023).
Intercultural plurality, then, is especially important in virtual exchange as it “suggests a permanent and active process of negotiation and interrelation in which difference does not disappear. Sociocultural, ancestral, political, epistemic, linguistic, and existence-based difference is affirmed in collective and community-based terms and understood as contributive to the creation of new comprehensions, coexistences, solidarities, and collaborations” (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, p. 59). Plurality supports a true shift in knowledge production and uptake, recognizing and incorporating multiple languages, perspectives, and knowledge in virtual exchange projects.
These three macro-level principles—pedagogical intentionality, criticality, and plurality—work together to establish a dispositional space that can guide educators in designing and implementing effective and equitable virtual exchange projects. By embracing these guiding principles, educators can harness the full potential of virtual exchanges to create inclusive, decolonial, and sustainable educational experiences that prepare students for an increasingly interconnected world. Future research should focus on evaluating the impact of these principles on virtual exchange outcomes and student learning.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.
Breaden, J., Do, T., Moreira dos Anjos-Santos, L., & Normand-Marconnet, N. (2023). Student empowerment for internationalisation at a distance: Enacting the students as partners approach in virtual mobility. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(5), 1182–1196. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2193728
Chun, D. M. (2015). Language and culture learning in higher education via telecollaboration. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2014.999775
Deardorff, D., & Arasaratnam-Smith, L. (Eds.). (2017). Intercultural competence in higher education: International approaches, assessment and application (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315529257
Gutiérrez, B. F., Gilmäng, M. R., Sauro, S. & O’Dowd, R. (2022). Preparing students for successful online intercultural communication and collaboration in virtual exchange. Journal of International Studies, 12(S3), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v12iS3.4630
Hamada, I., & Iwasaki, S. (2024). Assessing benefits: A comparative evaluation of English-Japanese online intercultural exchanges (OIE) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Language Learning Journal, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2024.2369920
Huang, Y., & Lanford, M. (2024) Framing the barriers to collaborative online international learning implementation: The impact of political, infrastructural, temporal, and experiential factors. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2024.2302821
Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2015). Considering pedagogical content knowledge in the context of research on teaching: An example from technology. Waikato Journal of Education, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v20i3.22
Mignolo, W. & Walsh, C. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822371779
Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2021). Conceptualizing internationalization at a distance: A “third category” of university internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(3), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315320906176
Pineda, I., & Bosso, R. (Eds.). (2023). Virtual English as a lingua franca (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003342922
Robins, M. B. (2023). Language equity in virtual exchange: Problems and possibilities. In: T. C. Woodman, M. Whatley, C. R. Glass, (Ed.), Digital internationalisation in higher education: Beyond virtual exchange. Routledge. pp. 144–157.
Wimpenny, K., Finardi, K. R., Orsini-Jones, M., & Jacobs, L. (2022). Knowing, being, relating and expressing through third space Global South-North COIL: Digital inclusion and equity in international higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 26(2), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153221094085
Authors:
“My daughter tried to take her own life several times and I am not sure how to approach the situation.” This was what Laura said in one of the virtual exchange programs I was facilitating. The group consisted of 10 participants from different regions of the world. They connected on Zoom each week to share their perspectives and experiences around a specific topic. The topic that week was about social media and its impacts on our mental health.
The group didn’t know how to respond to what Laura shared and hoped someone could take the mic and break the silence. After a few seconds of silence, I asked Laura, “Would you like to elaborate more if you are comfortable with that?”
Participants may bring up sensitive topics like personal traumas, religion, or politics during virtual exchanges. The key is not to shy away from these discussions but to engage with them fully. As virtual exchange facilitators, we are equipped with various tools and techniques to spot learning opportunities and capitalize on them. One of the tools we use is asking follow-up questions. This not only lets participants elaborate on their feelings and thoughts but also model questions that we encourage participants to ask.
Laura shared that her teenage daughter was dealing with depression and other mental health issues. She had several suicide attempts and had to go through therapy and counseling sessions. Laura expressed that her daughter’s situation was confusing for her especially because she is providing her with everything she needs.
I gave Laura the space to share and neutralize her emotions. This could build a safer space for authentic and fruitful discussions. Other techniques that we can use include having meta discussions, which are discussions about how the discussions are going so far, reflections on assumptions, and emphasis on being open-minded when approaching these types of conversations.
And at the end of each week, we give space to participants to share their concerns, feedback, and any recommendations which would give us insights to plan for the next session.
The group was able to give Laura words of support and encouragement. One of the participants shared his experience with depression and how he started the journey to healing. Many of the stories shared enabled Laura to understand her daughter’s struggles more, and at the end of the program she reflected on the program by writing: “I got emotional listening to a young man telling the group about his struggles, which were the exact same struggles my immediate family was experiencing. Through him I began to have a better understanding of the issues my family members are going through. Their experiences were so much alike. I am so grateful I got the opportunity to LISTEN to him. My family member tells me you don’t understand. This young man has helped me tremendously!!”
Being a part of these conversations made me realize the importance of the tools we apply to foster engaging, authentic, and constructive discussions. From asking critical thinking questions to conducting meta discussions, we aim as facilitators to create an environment in which participants feel heard and seen even in a virtual setting.
Through this process, we realize that while we are all different, we are also equal—there is no superior or inferior human being. Our differences stem from our unique stories, traditions, cultures, and beliefs. In Virtual Exchange, our goal is to embrace these differences and explore why we think the way we do. For instance, was there an encounter or experience that shaped our political views? Or an event or person that influenced how we perceive mental health issues? Answering these questions fosters a proactive environment where participants learn with and from each other. By the end of the experience, participants come to understand that stories like Laura’s are happening all around us. We just need to approach one another with greater empathy and compassion to build resilience in the face of challenges.