Allison Witt, Director, Teaching Associate Professor, University of Illinois
ABSTRACT:
This article explores the potential of virtual exchange (VE) in undergraduate teacher education to develop global competencies and foster diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). It presents the IGlobal model, an extracurricular club focusing on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, where preservice teachers collaborate virtually with international students to lead cross-cultural STEAM activities for middle school students. The IGlobal model reimagines VE as a boundary space for encountering and engaging with difference, emphasizing cultural humility and multidirectional knowledge creation. Participants learn to navigate cross-cultural collaboration while gaining global awareness and competencies. Despite the benefits, challenges to DEI persist, such as the digital divide limiting access for participants from less affluent areas. Nevertheless, VE in teacher education offers hope for addressing these challenges and preparing culturally competent teachers for diverse classrooms.
A growing body of literature demonstrates the potential for virtual exchange (VE) to develop global competencies in participants (O’Dowd, 2017; Machwate et al., 2021). Such research is particularly encouraging for undergraduate teacher education, where training culturally competent preservice teachers is widely acknowledged to be paramount as a foundation for DEI in future classrooms across the spectrum of education. Currently, teacher education is developing unique models for advancing DEI in and through VE that may have possibilities for broader application in other disciplines as well.
Teacher education places a high priority on developing global competence in preservice teachers in order to prepare them for the cultural diversity of their future classrooms. In fact, teacher education programs have long developed education abroad programs with the specific goals of training preservice teachers in global competencies. Yet, ongoing challenges persist in providing accessible global engagement opportunities. Education abroad programs have shown great promise, but the costs and lockstep course schedules of most education programs keep many students from participating. Moreover, lack of diversity in teacher training programs overall is compounded and more pronounced when considering the lack of diverse participation rate in programs of education abroad. By providing accessible global learning opportunities for preservice teachers, VE holds potential to overcome these barriers and develop many of the intercultural skills that teacher education demands (Jaramillo Cherrez & Gleason, 2022; Sapkota et al., 2023)
One example of a VE model developed for teacher education is IGlobal, an extracurricular club focused on the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals, led by education undergraduate students and international students, attended by middle school students from around the world. DEI is not only a characteristic of each group of participants, but also informs the content and focus of the program. Supported by the University of Illinois College of Education, the Illinois Global Institute, and grants from the U.S. Department of Education Title VI program, preservice teachers are partnered with international students and work in tandem with practicing teachers locally and from around the world. Modeling cross-cultural collaboration, they virtually lead groups of middle school students in extracurricular STEAM activities and projects that require cross-cultural collaboration, which we call STEAM-C. It is the multilayered, cross-cultural collaboration that distinguishes the IGlobal model from collaborative online international learning (COIL). Designed specifically for preservice and in-service teachers, IGlobal reimagines virtual exchange as an online international teaching and learning laboratory where participants gain global awareness and global competencies, as well as practice in globally collaborative online teaching and learning. In COIL, by contrast, participants are typically partnered virtually with peers from a different cultural context to study topics of mutual interest or shared language. In IGlobal, participants are partnered with both peers and mentors from multiple cultural contexts while also engaging in teaching activities with multinational, multilingual middle school students. Seeming barriers of language, culture, and technology instead all become the sites and source of collaboration, as teachers, preservice teachers, and international students all work together to educate globally based middle school participants about the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
In the IGlobal project model, we conceptualize the online environment as a boundary space, where difference can be encountered and engaged. Drawing from boundary crossing theory, diversity is recognized as a vital force for change and development (Akkerman & Baker, 2011). Differences are recognized as potential learning resources that depend on multiple perspectives from multiple parties. Rather than giving simplistic calls for agreement, boundary crossing theory acknowledges the potential difficulty of action and interaction across cultural and belief systems, while at the same time emphasizing the value of communication and collaboration. Boundary crossing does not mean imposing ideas from one side of the boundary to the other. Instead, using this framing encourages participants to accept that differences will remain. All participants learn to engage with difference in a stance of cultural humility amidst multidirectional flows of knowledge creation. IGlobal works from the assumption that encountering cultural difference is challenging and disrupting. Encountering cultural difference will not automatically result in greater understanding but must be treated as a learning opportunity.
Following this model in practice means recognizing that all participants have contributions to make as well as potential knowledge to gain from each other within the boundary spaces of VE. This theory undergirds practice in IGlobal, in which the virtual space shared by multiple cultures functions as a boundary ground where cultures of teaching and learning encounter each other and learn to respectfully engage to solve challenges through the medium of technology. The differences encountered here in this virtual boundary space serve as the catalysts for learning. DEI flourishes in this multinational, multicultural, multilingual VE. Serving as club chapter leaders, preservice teachers participate in cross-cultural collaboration while at the same time learning how to teach these skills in complex virtual environments. Preservice teachers practice facilitating cross-cultural respect and creating spaces where multiple perspectives can be heard and addressed in proposed solutions.
In addition to synchronous virtual club meetings with students, all preservice teachers and international student leaders meet together weekly to discuss what they learned as co-leaders in their session. They take turns sharing video clips that illustrate successful or challenging moments. Talking through these examples as a group allows preservice teachers and international students to both teach and learn from each other. In what is commonly referred to as the multiplier effect, as future teachers, the education students will potentially continue to transmit what they have learned from their international peers, mentors, and students into their school communities for decades to come.
While the benefits of providing greater access to global learning for all preservice teachers cannot be overstated, even within these new models of VE, significant challenges to DEI remain. Access to the VE is limited by the digital divide, with schools around the world lacking the technological capabilities to join. Teacher training, equipment, and internet connection all serve as major barriers to participants from the Global South, or even from less affluent areas of the Global North. VE provides an important step in providing global learning for more students who could not afford traditional mobility, or don’t have opportunity to travel, but it will not solve all the inequities that remain. VE focused on DEI for educators and young students provides hope that these challenges will continue to be addressed by the generations to come.
References:
Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Gleason, B. (2022). A virtual exchange experience: Preparing pre-service teachers for cultural diversity. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 38(3), 126–138.
Machwate, S., Bendaoud, R., Henze, J., Berrada, K., & Burgos, D. (2021). Virtual exchange to develop cultural, language, and digital competencies. Sustainability, 13(11), 5926.
O’Dowd, R. (2017). Virtual exchange and internationalising the classroom. Training Language and Culture, 1(4), 8–24.
Sapkota, B. K., Zhou, L., Mbewe, R., Newton, J., & Phillion, J. (2023). Fostering preservice teachers’ social justice awareness and intercultural competence through a virtual global community of practice. At School in the World: Developing Globally Engaged Teachers, 212.
Holly Djang, Director of Research and Evaluation, Global Citizen Year
Jake Seltzer, Teaching and Learning Lead, Global Citizen Year
ABSTRACT:
Global Citizen Year faced the challenge of continuing their mission during the COVID-19 pandemic. They pivoted to launch the Global Citizen Year Academy, a virtual program that effectively built global competence in nearly 1,500 culturally and experientially diverse students. The article describes three elements of the Academy, enabled by its virtual format, contributing to success: organic exposure to diverse perspectives, local lens exploration of global communities, and creating a vulnerable virtual environment. The virtual orientation facilitated more equitable student recruitment and diverse instructor selection, expanding course content to represent global perspectives. The Academy pushed students to challenge inherited cultural lenses, promoting meaningful cross-cultural relationships. Finally, the article introduces the Take Action Lab, a new blended program, combining virtual experience with an in-person immersive component to advance students’ global citizenship skills.
So… how do we achieve our mission during a pandemic?
This is the question that we, at Global Citizen Year, asked ourselves when COVID-19 threw the whole world off of its axis. Prior to the pandemic, Global Citizen Year supported over 1,000 students through our international immersive fellowship program as part of our mission to help young people emerge into self-aware and culturally humble global citizens. Our Fellows developed insights and skills that shaped their character, guided their higher education, and equipped them to collaborate towards a positive social impact*.
At the onset of COVID-19, we paused this fellowship program and pivoted to launch Global Citizen Year Academy—a 12-week virtual program that combined synchronous and asynchronous learning to help nearly 1,500 young people cultivate that same set of insights and skills: self-awareness, cultural humility, and global empathy. According to a study by Harvard researchers, the Academy effectively built global competence in this culturally and experientially diverse group of students. We also helped to foster a deep sense of community between these students of vastly different backgrounds. In fact, over 90% of our students connected with other students after completing the program, illustrating the strength and endurance of the cross-cultural relationships they developed.
We believe that many of the positive results we achieved in our Academy were not in spite of but due to the virtual format of the program. In this article we describe three elements of the Academy that we were able to incorporate because of the virtual nature of the program and that we believe contributed to this success: students’ organic exposure to diverse and global perspectives, a focus on helping students see global communities through a local lens, and an opportunity for students to be vulnerable while in a safe and secure setting. Throughout, we provide relevant student quotes that were collected at the end of the program to illustrate these three elements.
Advancing diversity and equity
Being virtually oriented allowed us to ground program recruitment and design in our commitment to diversity and equity in ways we had not yet been able to do in our immersive in-person program. First, we could recruit students who would not have engaged in an international travel program such as our fellowship program for a variety of reasons reflective of paying capacity, personality, culture, safety, and visas. As such, the virtual format facilitated more equitable and inclusive approaches to student recruitment and participation.
Second, being virtually oriented allowed us to recruit an international team of instructors. Not only did this expand our talent pool, but this also allowed students to be taught by instructors with diverse and global perspectives. The increased diversity among instructors also created fertile ground for their professional growth, as they were able to learn from colleagues across the globe, each with distinct context, experience, and training.
Finally, the virtual environment also led us to expand our course content to represent more global perspectives. During our in-person fellowship we were hesitant to “overload” students with too much content which could detract from the unique opportunity to become fully immersed in their new community. Conversely, the virtual Academy provided space for students to engage deeply with written and viewable content representative of diverse cultures, worldviews, and perspectives. The expansion of course content resulted in a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive learning framework which pushed students to extend and challenge their own perspectives beyond their inherited cultural lens.
To illustrate this, one student explained,
“Global Citizen Year allowed me to explore the world and challenge my beliefs. It was enlightening to hear so many people talk on the same topic and express such different points of view. I think that the program made me much more prepared for the variety of opinions and cultures.” -Student from Lviv, Ukraine
Seeing global communities through a local lens
The virtual nature of our program also pushed us to redefine the culminating program project. While in the in-person fellowship, students’ projects centered on the community where they were immersed, we requested that students in the virtual program explore their own local community through a new lens. As a final project, students applied the principles of asset-based community development to identify assets in their home communities which could be leveraged to inspire meaningful local change. In sharing the final projects with their global peers, students were introduced to multiple communities across the world and invited to view them through a local, asset-based lens. In this way, the virtual nature of the Academy offered students meaningful viewpoints into multiple communities across the world, a breadth of perspective that was not possible through an in-person experience alone.
For example, one student said,
“We’re a diverse group so we don’t know how other cities and countries are. This allowed us to see places I’d never seen and gain a more intimate perspective of that community.” -Global Citizen Year student from Tunisia
A virtual invitation to vulnerability
Unlike in our in-person immersive program, whereby only a few students were placed in communities together, students of our virtual program were placed in virtual learning cohorts curated to maximize diversity across students’ place of citizenship, racial identity, gender identity, and family income. Throughout the course, students developed meaningful relationships and deep connections with their global peers by synchronously interacting with a curriculum that was grounded in the exploration of self and community as a pathway to developing a global orientation. The program asked students to reflect on their identity, privilege, implicit biases, and other characteristics in an attempt to push students to engage in deep reflection and be vulnerable in ways that gave them space to be exposed to and consider the various culturally and experientially based perspectives of other students. The fact that students engaged in the program from the comfort of their own home allowed students to be in a physically safe and familiar place for reflection and contemplation. Further, students did not have the inherent social distractions of in-person classes to detract from reflection and vulnerability, and they seemed less apt to “perform” by presenting an invulnerable exterior shell in the virtual environment.
To illustrate, one student said,
“Students need an experience like this one because in no other program is there a safe learning space with people from all over the world willing to get to know you and grow with you and share knowledge.” -Global Citizen Year Student from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
So now what? Combining the best of both worlds
We recently launched our newest program, Take Action Lab, to continue our mission to help students develop skills needed to be impactful global citizens. This program, informed by the lessons we learned about the value of virtual exchange, blends a virtual experience with an in-person immersive component. Fifty students from over 25 countries came together virtually for four weeks to participate in a synchronous curriculum designed to help the students create community and vulnerably reflect on and share their own predispositions. These students then were sent to Cape Town, South Africa to live together and work in local human rights NGOs for 12 weeks. We look forward to sharing what we learn about this blended approach with you.
*Students explicitly consented to allow their quotes and their names to be presented in Global Citizen Year publications.
Ron Krabill, PhD, Professor, School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences Co-Founder and Co-Director, UWB Global Scholars University of Washington Bothell
ABSTRACT:
This opinion piece challenges the perception of international virtual exchange (IVE) as a secondary option to traditional study abroad for marginalized students. It argues that IVE and study abroad should be seen as distinct approaches, each with unique strengths and weaknesses in terms of equity and inclusion. IVE provides a more equitable space for students to interact across geographic and social boundaries, while study abroad can perpetuate power imbalances. However, IVE requires more preparation to navigate issues of identity and difference. The article cautions against substituting study abroad efforts with IVE, as it could lead to a two-track system of inequitable international education. Instead, the focus should be on making both IVE and study abroad more accessible, ethical, and reciprocal to enhance opportunities for marginalized students.
“If they can’t study abroad, at least they can still do something.”
This all-too-common response to international virtual exchange (IVE) must be resisted, especially when it is invoked in conversations around diversity, equity, and inclusion in international education. The argument goes something like this: because IVE requires fewer financial resources and is an option for place-bound students, we should promote IVE as providing greater access to international education for first-generation and marginalized students facing obstacles to studying abroad.
This argument is dangerous not because it is false, but because it is only a partial truth. While IVE is more affordable and does not require travel, and while some international education is indeed better than none, statements such as these run a serious risk of relegating IVE to a secondary status of “study abroad lite.” Doing so misses the unique strengths of IVE, including for those marginalized by more traditional educational settings. More profoundly, viewing IVE as a substitute for study abroad provides political cover for institutions to reduce their efforts to make study abroad programs more accessible for first-generation and marginalized students, pushing them instead toward IVE. Urging marginalized students to participate in what is understood to be a second-rate international experience in the name of equity and inclusion should raise alarm bells.
Rather than viewing IVE as the lesser sibling of study abroad, we instead should see the two as distinct approaches to international education, with their own strengths and weaknesses, particularly those related to equity and inclusion. Likewise, we should take seriously the demands that a commitment to equity and inclusion places on both IVE and study abroad, rather than imagining IVE as an easier (read: less expensive, less time-consuming, less logistically complex, less training-intensive) mode of delivering an international experience to marginalized students. Consider the following three points:
Creating Equitable Virtual Spaces Through IVE
First, IVE (at least in its collaborative and reciprocal form) provides a more equitable space for students to meet across geographic and social boundaries than study abroad. By definition, study abroad requires one group of students to travel to another location, immediately casting participants in the role of either guest (those traveling) or host (those receiving the travelers). Interactions between guests and hosts can be incredibly rewarding and meaningful, but they can also be almost entirely superficial, or imbued with profound differentials in power and access. More often than not, it becomes more privileged students who travel, received by hosts who lack the resources to engage in similar travel. These dynamics are exacerbated when study abroad programs originating in the Global North travel to the Global South, with further racialized, gendered, and class-based differences thrown into high relief.
By contrast, IVE participants meet as equals, in a shared virtual space that is not already inhabited by one or the other group. In practice, of course, this dynamic is more complicated. Global and local inequities—with their own racialized, gendered, and economic histories—reappear in access to technology. Inequities also extend into vexing questions of language dominance, time, cultural capital, and geopolitical dynamics.
Preparing IVE Participants for Reciprocal Engagement Across Difference
These potential obstacles to full inclusion within IVE bring us to a second point: many who promote IVE in the name of equity and inclusion drastically underestimate the importance of preparing both students and instructors to deal with issues of identity and difference. Institutions accept that students studying abroad should receive at least some pre-departure training in navigating cultural differences ethically and respectfully. Yet IVE participants often receive very little preparation for their encounters with difference and diversity, and when they do, it lands almost entirely on the individual instructor to do so. This lack of institutional investment in preparation can have dire consequences, not only for relationships between IVE sites—especially between the Global South and the Global North—but also for marginalized students within the Global North.
At its best, IVE provides a context in which students usually marginalized within global centers of power find themselves empowered by their diverse language skills, backgrounds, and abilities to navigate cultural difference. At its worst, though, these same students are forced to negotiate intolerance and entitlement in how their peers engage with both them and their colleagues in the Global South. By imagining IVE to be a less-demanding version of study abroad, and thus paying insufficient attention to preparation around issues of equity and inclusion, educational institutions in the Global North can further alienate their own marginalized students along with their partners in the Global South.
Resisting the Temptation to Substitute DEI Efforts in Study Abroad With Expanded IVE
Finally, imagining IVE as the preferable option for marginalized students with limited resources or access to travel while leaving access to study abroad programs untouched fails to address the longstanding and persistent inequities within study abroad. As IVE gains traction, this could result in a two-track system, with marginalized students experiencing one type of international education—a lower-status, under-resourced form of IVE—and more privileged students continuing to travel the world through the gold standard, study abroad. We must avoid allowing IVE’s strengths—including its flexibility and affordability—to make us complacent or even exacerbate the very inequities we seek to address across international education.
Generating Greater Equity and Inclusion in Both IVE and Study Abroad
We have not yet reached the point of a two-track system. But if we intend to take issues of equity and inclusion seriously, we need to work tirelessly to make both IVE and study abroad more accessible, ethical, and reciprocal. A crucial first step would be to disentangle the ways in which we speak about and imagine both forms of international education, not as first and second choices, but rather as two distinct and intriguing approaches, each of which provides affordances that the other does not, and each of which demands distinct consideration of identity, equity, and access. If we manage to do this, the opportunities for marginalized students to thrive within both IVE and study abroad experiences will increase dramatically.
Anna Glenn, 4-H Agent, University of Maryland Extension
Taryn Devereux, Senior Faculty Specialist, Department of Geographical Sciences, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland
ABSTRACT:
This article investigates the significance of virtual exchanges for students in the Global South by analyzing a 3-year partnership between universities in the United States and Liberia. The study explores the benefits and distinct experiences of students from both regions, emphasizing the need for culturally responsive and equitable virtual exchange programs. Despite the increasing popularity of global education programming, much of the existing pedagogy and scholarship primarily focuses on the experiences and outcomes of students in the Global North, overlooking the impact on counterparts in the Global South. Many global exchanges between these regions are structured unidirectionally, perpetuating colonial notions of Western privilege. Virtual exchange programs can provide more accessible global educational opportunities for diverse students, but careful attention must be paid to addressing disparities and inequalities. This article draws from a case study of a Global Classroom Model (GCM) course centered around Global Agriculture, where students engaged in cross-cultural collaboration and addressed various global challenges. The results highlight how the framing of benefits differs for students from the two regions, reflecting their respective value systems. It underscores the need for participatory research and pedagogy to create a transformative learning environment that empowers students in the Global South and promotes cross-cultural understanding and collaboration.
Introduction
Despite the rise in popularity of global education programming, much of the surrounding pedagogy and scholarship continues to center on the experiences and outcomes for students in the Global North, while neglecting to cultivate and investigate the impact on counterparts abroad, particularly in the Global South.
Globally, study abroad programs and virtual exchange opportunities are largely driven by educators in the Global North, as these experiences are often predicated on specific resources, infrastructure, and capacity not available at many institutions in the Global South. As a result, many global exchanges between these regions are developed and structured unidirectionally, with learning objectives oriented toward one group of learners, and/or with one group of learners being positioned to learn about or “help” the other, oftentimes further reinforcing colonial notions of Western privilege (Villarreal & Lesniewski, 2021; Zuchowski, 2017).
Given the mobility and financial limitations of study abroad, virtual exchange programs can make global educational opportunities more accessible to a more diverse range of students, provided the program is culturally responsive and designed to address and mitigate structural, technological, and other disparities (Arkorful & Abaidoo, 2015; Krasnoff, 2016; Membrillo-Hernández et al., 2023). Without addressing the unique needs and identities of students and staff, these exchanges risk reinforcing neoliberal and colonialist frameworks that can perpetuate global learning inequalities (Villarreal & Lesniewski, 2021).
Equally important is research and scholarship that reflects the experiences of students and counterparts in the Global South, who oftentimes are not interviewed and tend to form the “backdrop” in many case studies about global exchanges (e.g., Oberhauser & Daniels, 2017). In order to create a more equitable and culturally responsive classroom environment, it’s essential to investigate the unique impacts of these programs and identify best practices for partners as global exchanges become more prominent
This article draws from research conducted around a 3-year virtual exchange partnership between two universities in the United States and Liberia which captured the respective student benefits and generated practical considerations for the participating faculty and administrators (Devereux & Glenn, 2022). The goal of this article is to center the experiences of Global South students in the scholarship and provide context and praxis for leveraging virtual exchanges to better address their learning needs and priorities in a transformative classroom environment.
Case Study: Global Agriculture Global Classroom
Between 2019-2022, faculty at universities in the US and Liberia designed, implemented, and evaluated a Global Classroom Model (GCM) course centered around Global Agriculture (Devereux & Glenn, 2022). GCMs are innovative, project-based, cross-cultural, and virtual courses specifically designed to engage students “across national, geographical, and cultural boundaries, [while] recognizing the cultural, historical, epistemological, and ethical context” in identifying problems and developing sustainable solutions collaboratively (Wiek et al., 2013).
Within this course, each week students explored a new topic related to global agriculture (e.g., gender, climate change, spirituality) through case studies, guided discussions, and guest speaker presentations, and collaborated on solutions that could address some of these issues locally within their own communities.
The course instructors adapted tools including the Transformational Learning Scale and other approaches to guide student self-reflection and to promote collaborative, equitable, and reparative relationships between students in the Global North and South (Clayton et al., 2010). Transformational learning approaches are particularly relevant for decolonizing Western educational frameworks as they seek to empower indigenous people to detect and resist treatment of inequality via a recentering on human consciousness, collective soul, and holistic self (Akena, 2019; Dei, 2002).
The respective benefits and outcomes of this course were captured via semi-structured pre- and post-interviews. U.S. student outcomes are shared as a point of comparison to highlight the distinct nature of the Liberian experiences.
Results: GCM Benefits as Reported by Liberian & U.S. Students
Liberia
Common Themes
United States
Realized that other countries experience similar suffering / struggles, and this commonality gave hope
Shifts in Perspectives
Better understanding of the nature of global relationships, the role the US plays, and the development industry
Spirituality, gender, technology, and climate change
New Knowledge
Africa, agriculture, and extension
Reading, writing, and problem solving
New Skills
Technical writing, monitoring & evaluation
Ability to serve others and make an immediate impact in their communities
Application
Individual support for future interviews, jobs, or graduate school
Confidence in sharing their opinions and ideas with people from outside of their culture
Cross-Cultural Communication
Understanding the importance of listening to understand and asking questions before speaking
The unity and friendship they felt during the class
Favorite Aspect of the GCM
New perspectives and knowledge that enhanced their undergraduate education
(Devereux & Glenn, 2022)
Reflection & Summary
While both groups of students reported outcomes related to new perspectives, skills, and knowledge, the framing of these benefits was distinctly different for the two groups. While Liberian students tended to focus on the immediate application of these benefits to their communities, the U.S. student experience was grounded in self-discovery and reported in terms of the future impact on their careers (Devereux & Glenn, 2022). Broadly, this reflects the value systems of their respective cultural backgrounds where Liberian society tends to be more collective and the US more individualistic (Zhao et al., 2021).
Evaluating the impact of cross-cultural exchanges on students within the Global South can be difficult due to limitations of time and resources, and differences in research policies and protocol between universities (Flint et al., 2022). However, global educators must strive to capture this data through participatory approaches that can inform both scholarship and pedagogy. The impact and adoption of virtual cross-cultural experiences varies significantly by cultural and educational context, meaning educators must adapt their courses according to the unique backgrounds and needs of diverse groups of students (Zhao et al., 2021; Joy & Kolb, 2009; Hornik & Tupchiy, 2006). Learning objectives and course content should reflect an iterative collaborative process which allows for flexibility, individual tailoring of assignments and activities, and open exchange of ideas. For example:
Encourage faculty to co-develop the class from the beginning rather than one institution developing the class and inviting the other to participate;
Providing separate syllabi with parallel curriculum and assignments tailored for each group of students and their institutions;
Developing specific learning objectives for each group of students that reflect their educational goals and cultural backgrounds;
Providing separate but overlapping reading materials that are tailored for the reading levels and languages of both student groups;
Designing parallel project assignments to account for differences in reading, writing, math, and skills;
Provide resources and support to professors and administrators at partner universities in the Global South to initiate, develop, and sustain these types of classes.
By tailoring virtual exchanges to the needs and interests of each specific group of students, practitioners can create a more equitable and inclusive environment that celebrates and leverages diversity among cultures and individuals rather than minimizing it. Virtual exchanges like the GCM that focus on decentering Western pedagogy and elevating the unique knowledge, skills, and perspectives of those in the Global South have the potential to create a more transformational learning environment that can empower members to then go on to address global challenges within their own communities. This shift enables actors in the Global South to go beyond merely partaking in global exchanges to actively shaping the global education sphere and beyond.
References:
Akena, F. A. (2012). Critical analysis of the production of Western knowledge and its implications for Indigenous knowledge and decolonization. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 599–619.
Akolgo-Azupogo, H., Rubens, A., & Bardy, R. (2021). Soft skills in developing economies: An African view on the hidden linkage between indigenous knowledge and business perspectives. Journal of African Studies and Development, 13(3), 47–58.
Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29–42.
Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., Senor, B., Huq, J., & Morrison, M. (2010). Differentiating and assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitative, transactional, or transformational. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 5–21.
Dei, G. J. (2002). Rethinking the role of indigenous knowledges in the academy. (NALL Working Paper)
Devereux, T., & Glenn, A. (2022). Transformational learning through shifting global perspectives: The impact of COVID-19 on a global classroom in the US and Liberia. Journal of International Students, 12(S3), 96–115.
Flint, A., Howard, G., Baidya, M., Wondim, T., Poudel, M., Nijhawan, A., Mulugeta, Y., & Sharma, S. (2022). Equity in Global North–South research partnerships: Interrogating UK funding models. Global Social Challenges Journal, 1(1), 76–93.
Hornik, S., & Tupchiy, A. (2006). Culture’s impact on technology mediated learning: The role of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 14(4), 31–56.
Joy, S., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural differences in learning style? International Journal of intercultural relations, 33(1), 69–85.
Krasnoff, B. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching: A guide to evidence-based practices for teaching all students equitably. Region X Equity Assistance Center, Education Northwest.
Kubota, R. (2016). The social imaginary of study abroad: Complexities and contradictions. The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 347–357.
Membrillo-Hernández, J., Cuervo Bejarano, W. J., Mejía Manzano, L. A., Caratozzolo, P., & Vázquez Villegas, P. (2023). Global shared learning classroom model: A pedagogical strategy for sustainable competencies development in higher education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 13(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v13i1.36181
Oberhauser, A. M., & Daniels, R. (2017). Unpacking global service-learning in developing contexts: A case study from rural Tanzania. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 21(4), 139–170.
Villarreal Sosa, L., & Lesniewski, J. (2021). De-colonizing study abroad: Social workers confronting racism, sexism and poverty in Guatemala. Social Work Education, 40(6), 719–736.
Wiek, A., Bernstein, M. J., Laubichler, M., Caniglia, G., Minteer, B., & Lang, D. J. (2013). A global classroom for international sustainability education. Scientific Research, 4(4A), 19–28.
Zhao, Y., Wang, N., Li, Y., Zhou, R., & Li, S. (2021). Do cultural differences affect users’ e‐learning adoption? A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 20–41.
Zuchowski, I., Gopalkrishnan, N., King, J., & Francis, A. (2017). Reciprocity in international student exchange: Challenges posed by neo-colonialism and the dominance of the Western voice. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(1), 77–87.
Kaishan Kong, Associate Professor of Chinese, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Kalai Vaani Rajandram, Senior Lecturer, Taylor’s University, Malaysia
ABSTRACT:
This article presents a 6-week virtual exchange project that connected undergraduate students from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire in the United States and Taylor’s University in Malaysia. The project aimed to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion while enhancing students’ cultural awareness and intercultural understanding. Emphasizing access, inclusion, diversity, and equity (AIDE), the project was designed with mutual benefit, using Flipgrid as the online video recording tool and open-ended discussion topics. Ongoing feedback from students indicated positive learning experiences, expanding their understanding of each other’s cultures and identities. The instructors’ reflections provide valuable suggestions for educators seeking to promote high-impact intercultural learning through global virtual exchange.
An increasing amount of scholarship has shed light on the myriad benefits of virtual exchange in fostering students’ intercultural competency. Some addressed the importance of establishing social connectedness in remote settings (Bolliger & Inan, 2012; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007); some documented the development of students’ intercultural understanding through authentic cultural experiences (Jin, 2013; Kong, 2022; O’Dowd, 2020; O’Rourke, 2007); others underscored students’ empathy and the drive for active and integrative learning in both language and culture (Catalano & Barriga, 2021; Lomicka, 2020, p. 307). As Guillén, Sawin, and Avineri (2020) aptly summarized,
“A successful virtual exchange compelled our students to engage with different perspectives and challenge their assumptions about others and their own identity, beyond classroom walls and narrowed approaches to language growth. (p. 324). While existing scholarship demonstrates the pedagogical potential and common”,
practices of adopting virtual exchange to foster intercultural communicative competence, we need to be mindful and intentional in designing virtual exchange “to contextualize this practice in terms of access, inclusion, diversity and equity (AIDE)” (Kastler & Lewis, 2021, p.17). In the same light, Christensen and Kong (2022) reflected on their intention to create an equitable and inclusive learning environment for both international students and local students to conduct virtual exchange so that international students will not feel tokenized to serve the local students’ learning
One way to increase equity and inclusion through virtual exchange is to co-construct a mutually beneficial project to engage all students to explore nuances and diversity from each other’s cultures and stories. Building on this understanding, we designed and completed a virtual exchange project to connect students across the Pacific Ocean to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as explore cultural identities.
Project Description
This 6-week global learning project involved 40 undergraduate students, 20 from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire in the United States where they studied Chinese language and culture as well as second language acquisition, and 20 from Taylor’s University in Malaysia where they studied English language and culture. The purpose of this collaboration was to extend language education beyond the classroom and to broaden students’ cultural awareness through interacting with peers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
The project design reflects our attention and intention toward access, inclusion, diversity, and equity (AIDE). (1) We designed a mutually beneficial model by mapping our course objectives to ensure that both cohorts would have equal opportunities to achieve their respective learning goals. (2) We selected Flip (formerly known as Flipgrid), an online video recording tool, for this project due to its various advantages addressed in existing studies (Apoko & Chong, 2022; Stoszkowski, Hodgkinson & Collins, 2021; Yeh, Choi, & Friesem, 2022). In particular, Flip offered easy accessibility and many user-friendly features for students as they built a social presence and established interconnectedness with each other. (3) Weekly discussion topics were open-ended and allowed ample space for students to explore the diversity and intricacies of culture, gender, identity, and intercultural citizenship (Table 1 & Figure 1). (4) We collected weekly feedback from students and made adaptations accordingly so students’ voices were included and impactful during the ongoing learning experience.
Table 1: Weekly topics and an example list of prompts
Figure 1: Weekly activity procedure
Students’ Feedback
Students’ active participation and written feedback displayed a positive learning experience towards AIDE. Flip statistics showed that students created a total of 95 video responses to the prompts, viewed each other’s videos 4,022 times, generated 118 comments, and invested over 170 hours in this virtual exchange. These impressive statistics within 6 weeks reflected students’ dedication to getting to know their partners on the other side of the world and thus inspired both instructors to continue the momentum of global exchange.
In addition, students offered positive feedback and underscored the valuable opportunities for them to hear authentic voices from their peers from different backgrounds. Echoing Kastler and Lewis’s (2021) suggestion to pay attention to contextual understanding, students’ feedback divulged their benefits from this project in relation to their learning context and course goals. For instance, the Malaysia cohort’s course focused on exploring complex identities, and many students shared how the virtual exchange expanded their horizons on identities and human rights. As one participant (Yan) reflected,
The society undoubtedly has its own stereotypes on how members of all genders should behave or express, and often times these stereotypes limit one’s freedom of expressing their own identity without having to worry about judgement from others. While my partner agreed with me, he also talked about his experience with coming out to his family and friends, from his video I learned that the US is currently discussing on revoking gay marriage rights which is very saddening to hear. Through the sharing of our opinions, I learned that our society still needs progress and improvement.
Meanwhile, the American cohort explored general cultural diversity to increase cultural awareness, and many students shared their appreciation of knowing about cultural equity and inclusion in another country. For instance, one participant (Mike) elaborated on his expanded understanding of Malaysian culture through his partner,
Topics like “What hats do you wear” and “Through your eyes,” made me think deeper about myself. Talking with my partner gave me topics that I might not have gotten to talk about with the other, and that is the trans- community. I might not be trans myself but my oldest sister is, and getting to share things my sister told me about with someone who is also trans is something more special compared to someone who isn’t trans or known someone going through the experience. She also told me what it was like being a part of the LGBTQ+ community in Malaysia.
Similar reflections were also shared by other students, highlighting the value of talking with their intercultural partner, such as “keeping me motivated to learn about other cultures,” “connecting with another person all the way across the world,” “getting to learn about another country from the residents’ eyes, not from a textbook written by a non-native,” and “learning important things going on in their country, like activism.”
Instructors’ Reflections and Suggestions
In the process of integrating and fostering AIDE, we learned the importance of commitment, reflection, and adaptation. We encourage more educators to adopt global virtual exchange to promote high-impact intercultural learning, and thus offer the following suggestions
Give students sufficient space to form their ideas and voices. We found it significantly beneficial to offer broad and open-ended prompts to encourage students to present their views in innovative ways. For instance, when discussing the topic “Roles & Performativity,” students’ presentations ranged from Disney characters to pop music, from male cosmetics to gender inequity.
Instructors’ communication and continued support played an instrumental role in successful learning. Such support could include training on effective intercultural communicative strategies, weekly check-in, revising prompts based on students’ feedback, language
Taking on an equity lens to design this virtual exchange was modeling equity and inclusion to our students, by demonstrating the importance of mutual understanding and ethno-relative worldviews. Our guided reflection and debrief sessions reminded students of intellectual humility and an inclusive mindset.
References:
Apoko, T. W., & Chong, S. L. (2022). The attitudes of primary teacher education program students towards utilizing Flipgrid in English speaking skill. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning (JETL), 7(2), 154–160.
Bolliger, D. U., & Inan, F. A. (2012). Development and validation of the online student connectedness survey (OSCS). International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1171
Catalano, T., & Muñoz Barriga, A. (2021). Shaping the teaching and learning of intercultural communication through virtual mobility. Intercultural Communication Education, 4(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.29140/ice.v4n1.443
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Learning, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Guillén, G., Sawin, T., & Avineri, N. (2020). Zooming out of the crisis: Language and human collaboration. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12459
Jin, L. (2013). Language development and scaffolding in a Sino-American telecollaborative project. Language Learning and Technology, 17(2), 193–219.
Kastler, K. & Lewis, H. (2021). Approaching virtual exchange from an equity lens. The Global Impact Exchange, 2, 17–19.
Kong, K. (2022). Chapter 5 “Zoom” in and speak out: Virtual exchange in language learning. In S. Hilliker (Ed.), Second Language Teaching and Learning through Virtual Exchange (pp. 97–114). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110727364-006
Lomicka, L. (2020). Creating and sustaining virtual language communities. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12456
O’Dowd, R. (2020). A transnational model of virtual exchange for global citizenship education. Language Teaching, 53(4), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000077
O’Rourke, B. (2007). Models of telecollaboration 1: eTandem. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), Online intercultural exchange (pp. 41–61). Multilingual Matters.
Stoszkowski, J., Hodgkinson, A., & Collins, D. (2021) Using Flipgrid to improve reflection: A collaborative online approach to coach development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1789575
Yeh, E., Choi, G. Y., & Friesem, Y. (2022). Connecting through Flipgrid: Examining social presence of English language learners in an online course during the pandemic. CALICO Journal, 39(1).
Title: Sustainability in Action: Integrating SDGs into International Education
Presenters:
Sean Reilly, AFS
Saskia Kaya, AFS
Description:
Integrating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into international education programs enhances their global impact. This session explores how SDG-focused curricula prepare students and educators for responsible and informed global citizenship..
Discuss how SDGs can be seamlessly integrated into curriculum and program design.
Highlight the value of aligning international education goals with global sustainability objectives.
Share examples of collaborative projects or community engagement initiatives tied to SDGs.
Explore the benefits of preparing students with sustainability-focused learning outcomes.
Title: Identity & Inclusion at the Crossroads: Involving Students in the Development of Practical Support Strategies in the European Context
Leadra Reeves, CASA Granada Spring ’24 Alum & Travel Grant Awardee
Dani Kaufman-Sedano, CASA Granada Spring ’23 Alum & Travel Grant Awardee
Description:
Join a seasoned study abroad director and two program alums as they share their stories, effective strategies, easy-to-implement practices, and the measurable outcomes that result from incorporating student voices in the development of inclusive support services onsite. In this deep-dive session, we invite you to engage in the exercise of validating the lived experiences of recent graduates whose identities span a range of both visible and invisible identities that we often encounter among our student cohorts, and of translating those experiences into concrete strategies. More specifically, based on both research findings and direct personal experiences, we will:
Come to a comprehensive understanding of inclusion, drawing from the different approaches utilized in Europe and the U.S., and the lived experiences of our students at this crossroads, and use it as the foundation for building inclusive programs and practices.
Explore the importance and the impact of inclusive approaches in academic and cultural adjustment support on students’ overall wellbeing and personal growth.
Identify specific challenges that students of varying identities face while studying abroad in Europe, with a particular focus on students of low-income backgrounds, Black students, LGBTQ+ students, and students of different religious backgrounds.
Discuss intentional support services/resources that study abroad programs can provide for diverse student populations in close collaboration with their host partners – institutions, host families, faculty, community organizations – and how to approach potential obstacles that may surface.
Engage with the process of developing, implementing and evaluating the success of inclusive initiatives, and measuring the direct impact on your students and the future of your program!
Title: From Abroad to Beyond: Turning European Experiences into Career Success
Presenters:
Nicola Sullivan, AIFS
Maya Edwards, AIFS
Description:
Global education experiences in Europe equip students with unique skills for careers in public and private sectors. This session highlights how these experiences translate into employability and career preparedness.
Explore how global education in Europe impacts students’ employability and career preparedness.
Identify transferable skills developed through international education and their alignment with workforce demands.
Discuss reverse culture shock and strategies to leverage the abroad experience professionally.
Showcase alumni success stories to inspire future students.
Concurrent Session Block 3
The Role of the Global University in Navigating Conflict, Dialogue, Transformation — How campuses cultivate dialogue, resilience, and civic readiness amid geopolitical tension while keeping learning and community at the center.
Partnerships that Drive Real Collaboration & Innovation — Models that move beyond finance-only deals to co-created programs, research, and talent pathways linking MENA and global institutions.
Concurrent Session Block 2
Making the Student Success Case for International Education to Campus Leadership — How to build deeper support for global learning among campus leadership by framing international education as a key driver to improving student success.
Inclusion in MENA: Narratives, Demographics & Opportunity — Public narratives about MENA are often formed at a distance. This session examines inclusion through societal trends and the policy frameworks that enable openness and stability.
The Value of International & Experiential Study Through the Lens of Global Employers — What employers say global and experiential learning uniquely delivers, from teamwork across cultures to problem-solving on real projects.
Concurrent Session Block 1
Preparing Today’s International Students for Tomorrow’s Workforce — How institutions align global and experiential learning along with employer partnerships so international students translate global study into career readiness and impact.
Unique Mental Health & Wellbeing Considerations for Study to & from MENA — Culturally grounded approaches that support student wellbeing across languages, faith, family expectations, and cross-border transitions.
Tech for Global Education: What’s Actually Working? — Practical, people-first uses of digital tools that expand reach, improve student support, and strengthen collaboration without turning staff into technologists.
