Virtual Exchange as a Means of Providing Access to International Education for Community College Students: Challenges and Solutions

by DA Global | May 8, 2025 | Global Impact Exchange, Spring 2023

Authors:

• Melissa Whatley, PhD, SIT Graduate Institute

ABSTRACT:

Virtual exchange holds promise in providing international education access to marginalized student populations, including community college students. However, equitable access faces challenges related to technology, linguistic power dynamics, time zones, and faculty/administrator resistance. A study examined access patterns at two U.S. Southeast community colleges, revealing racial/ethnic and disciplinary disparities. Black students had lower participation, while white students and those in transfer-focused programs had higher involvement. Addressing these inequities is crucial for creating inclusive virtual exchange programs and challenging historic exclusion patterns in international education.

Virtual exchange has great potential to create access to international opportunities for various student populations, particularly those who are marginalized and less often included in more traditional international education experiences, such as study abroad. Community college students, who accounted for 40% of undergraduate enrollment in the United States in the 2020-21 academic year (Community College Research Center, 2023), stand to benefit greatly from the availability of international opportunities that do not require international travel, which can be both time-consuming and costly. This student population historically does not access opportunities like study abroad to the same extent as students enrolled at four-year institutions, although notably participation in study abroad is low across all institution types. For example, in the 2018–19 academic year, around 2% of U.S. students who studied abroad were classified as associate’s degree students (IIE, 2023). Lower access to study abroad among community college students is likely due to several factors, both institutional and societal, that complicate participation for this student population. For example, recent statistics indicate that 44% of community college students were older than 22 and 65% were enrolled part time (AACC, 2023). Students who are older and who enroll part time are more likely to have responsibilities related to parenting and other caregiving, and they also are more likely to hold full-time jobs. In the United States, these responsibilities often preclude long periods away from home, even if for educational purposes. As of 2015–16, around 72% of part-time community college students held full-time jobs, as did 62% of full-time students (AACC, 2023). Both family and work responsibilities can prevent students who are otherwise interested in international education from participating in study abroad due to the time commitment and cost of programs that are not designed with these students’ needs in mind. The opportunity to participate in virtual exchange can provide valuable international experience for many community college students. This article summarizes recent research on the extent to which virtual exchange programs are accessible to various demographic groups in the community college context.

Although virtual exchange has great potential to create access to international opportunities for marginalized student populations, such as those who often attend community colleges, improved access does not happen by default when these programs are established (e.g., Alami et al., 2022; Bali, 2014; Custer & Tuominen, 2017; Hinshaw et al., 2022; O’Dowd, 2013; Oviedo & Krimphove, 2021). Indeed, “the design and implementation of virtual exchange projects requires time, resources, experiences and support, and outcomes are not always predictable or always successful” (Helm, 2019, p. 140). Recent research indicates that equitable access to virtual exchange may be impeded by limited access to technology for both students and instructors, time zone differences between students in different geographic locations, linguistic power dynamics at play in virtual exchanges, particularly when English is the native language of some students and not others, and resistance to program implementation among key stakeholders such as faculty and college administrators (Bali, 2014; Custer & Tuominen, 2017; O’Dowd, 2013; Oviedo & Krimphove, 2021). Recent scholarly work highlights a gap in knowledge regarding whether and the extent to which virtual international exchange improves access to international opportunities (Bali et al., 2021; Barbosa & Ferreira-Lopes, 2021; Satar, 2021).

In response to this gap, one recent study explored questions around access to virtual exchange for specific demographic groups (Whatley et al., 2022). Two community colleges located in the U.S. Southeast, one smaller and more rural and another larger and more urban. The study included data from a total of 41,655 students representing entering cohorts between Fall 2016 and Spring 2021. In total, the dataset contained 1,039 virtual exchange participants. Regression results documented patterns that suggest inequitable access to virtual exchange among students, particularly along racial/ethnic and disciplinary lines. More specifically, students identifying as Black were less likely to participate in virtual exchange compared to the average student, while students identifying as white were more likely to participate. Students enrolled in transfer-focused degree programs, such as associate in arts and associate in science programs, were also more likely to participate in virtual exchange, as compared to students enrolled in career-focused associate degree programs.

Identification of these patterns is a first step in addressing these inequities so that virtual exchange program design and implementation can more intentionally address international education’s historic inequitable patterns of access and exclusion. These findings regarding racial/ethnic identity are especially troublesome, as they suggest that white dominance in international education is not confined to study abroad. Instead, these results speak to how deeply entrenched issues around race and racism are in international education. Messaging that indicates (whether real or perceived) that international education is only for white students (Brux & Fry, 2010; Thomas, 2013), a lack of programs that include interaction with students in Africa (Penn & Tanner, 2009), and a lack of administrative support for their participation (Williams, 2007) are issues that Black students encounter when considering study abroad. These issues may also apply to virtual exchange. An additional structural explanation for this finding regarding racial/ethnic identity relates to the degree program findings. Although sparse, prior research indicates that Black students often do not enroll in degree programs where study abroad is prominent (Hembroff & Rusz, 1993), a potential explanation for uneven participation in international mobility programs among racial/ethnic groups. A similar explanation possibly accounts for this study’s findings. That is, virtual exchange opportunities are often embedded in students’ coursework. If students are not distributed evenly along racial/ethnic lines among the degree programs where this coursework happens, then these patterns will also be reflected in virtual exchange participation.

Although these findings derive from data representing only two institutions, they have implications for international education practitioners and educators interested in implementing virtual exchange programs at both community colleges and other institutional types. First, these results indicate that the democratizing function that virtual exchange can potentially play in international education cannot be taken for granted. International education practitioners and other stakeholders need to interrogate their data to explore the extent to which virtual international opportunities are distributed among students with different demographic characteristics. Second, these findings highlight how patterns of inequality can be hidden in plain sight along disciplinary lines. That is, while students and educators alike may perceive that virtual exchange is available to anyone who wants to participate, the uneven distribution of these programs across classes, degree programs, and academic fields can hide patterns of inequitable access. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these findings highlight the extent to which historic inequities along racial lines are entrenched in international education. Unlike education abroad, students’ finances and ability to pay for participation are less a barrier to virtual exchange participation. As a field international education must confront the reality that many programs are simply not designed for students who do not come from the same backgrounds as those who historically participate in international education programming.

References:

Alami, N. H., Albuquerque, J., Ashton, L. S., Elwood, J. A., Ewoodzie, K., Hauck, M., Karam, J., Klimanova, L., Nasr, R., & Satar, M. (2022). Marginalization and underrepresentation in virtual exchange: Reasons and remedies. Journal of International Students, 12(S3), 57–76.

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (2023). Fast facts. https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-facts/?_gl=1*zq2ozc*_ga*MTY5NzE0MTY1NC4xNjc4OTg2MzA5*_up*MQ.

Bali, M. (2014). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? The challenges of web-based intercultural dialogue. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(2), 208–15.

Bali, M., Goes, P., Haug, E., & Patankar, A. (2021). COVID-19 impacts on virtual exchange around the world. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 4, 117–124.

Barbosa, M. W., & Ferreira-Lopes, L. (2021). Emerging trends in telecollaboration and virtual exchange: A bibliometric study. Educational Review, 1–29.

Brux, J., & Fry, B. (2010). Multicultural students in study abroad: Their interests, their issues, and their constraints. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(5), 508–527.

Community College Research Center. (2023). Community College FAQs. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/community-college-faqs.html#:~:text=Community%20College%20Enrollment%20and%20Completion,%2C%20representing%2041%25%20of%20undergraduates.

Custer, L., & Tuominen, A. (2017). Bringing “internationalization at home” opportunities to community colleges: Design and assessment of an online exchange activity between US and Japanese students. Teaching Sociology, 45(4), 347–357.

Helm, F. (2019). Languages and international virtual exchange: Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Language Policy, 11(2), 139–142.

Hembroff, L. A., & Rusz, D. (1993). Minorities and overseas studies programs: Correlates of differential participation. Occasional Papers on International Educational Exchange Research Series, 30. Council on International Educational Exchange.

Hinshaw, N., Gonzalez, S., & Engel, L. (2022). Internationalization of K-12 schooling through virtual exchange: Opportunities in a fractured context. Journal of International Students, 12(S3), 1–16.

Institute of International Education (IIE). (2023). Open Doors report – Student profile. https://opendoorsdata.org/data/us-study-abroad/student-profile/

O’Dowd, R. (2013). Telecollaboration and CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reindeers, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 123–141). Bloomsbury Academic.

Ovideo, L. E. Z., & Krimphove, J. (2021). Virtual exchange contributions to the development of intercultural competence: A Brazilian higher education institutions’ perspective. Revista Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 22(1), 1–23.

Penn, E. B., & Tanner, J. (2009). Black students and international education: An assessment. Journal of Black Studies, 40, 266–282.

Virtual Exchange: Practices for Engaging Diverse Students

by DA Global | May 8, 2025 | Global Impact Exchange, Spring 2023

Authors:

• Oumaima Elghazali, PhD, Adjunct Faculty, Mohammed V University – Morocco
• Melinda L. Cain, PhD, Managing Director, Real World Solutions, LLC – Colorado, USA

ABSTRACT:

This article examines practices for engaging diverse participants in a virtual exchange (VE) program. Facilitators underwent comprehensive cross-cultural training to lead VE sessions between Moroccan, Iraqi, and American students. The VE focused on United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and bi-national teams addressed local issues related to responsible consumption, climate action, and more. Cultural dimensions, power distance, language proficiency, and gender/age dynamics affected group dynamics. Inclusive practices included encouraging diverse voices, assigning leaders to facilitate discussions, and reaching out to absent participants. Creating alternative communication platforms helped maintain engagement. These practices foster inclusivity and empower students from diverse backgrounds to participate meaningfully in VE programs.

Identity

One of the well-known dimensions of Hofstede’s model of Cultural Dimensions (1980) is Identity. Hofstede conceptualizes identity to have two dichotomies, Individualism and Collectivism. In individualist cultures people value independence, self-reliance, and empowerment to make individual decisions. In collectivist cultures people prioritize attention to group and make decisions as part of an entity. In this VE, American students were regarded as individualist participants, while Iraqi and Moroccan students were seen as collectivists. Facilitators noticed that American students had a more ‘let’s get this done’ attitude than their other cultural counterparts. While their collectivist counterparts took much more time to make decisions that reflected group consensus

Power Distance

Power distance in this VE was observed in the way students approached their facilitators. Moroccan and Iraqi students tended to use titles like Mr. and Mrs. to address their facilitators, and it was hard for them when more informal ways of addressing them were suggested. Facilitators noticed that American students were open to discussing and exchanging thoughts with facilitators, unlike the Iraqi students, who seemed shy to request assistance from the opposite culture’s facilitators.

Gender and Age

In both Iraqi and Moroccan cultures facilitators noticed dominance of male voices over female voices, especially in breakout room discussions. The variable of age influenced bi-national team dynamics and participation. Some of the Moroccan and Iraqi students who participated in the VE were high school students, while the American students were in middle school. This difference in age, according to the facilitators, created a reluctance in American students to participate in decision making and in taking the lead for different parts of the project.

Language Proficiency

One of the reasons VE organizers selected high school students from Morocco and Iraq instead of middle schoolers was due to their English language proficiency. Though Moroccans and Iraqis were older in age, their English proficiency was adequate to handle project conversations with their younger American peers. The facilitators noticed that the American students did not use an empathic approach in their communication when they addressed Moroccan and Iraqi students, which would require a slow speaking pace and a careful articulation of words.

Connectivity

Internet connectivity remains a problem for most students in the MENA region. This caused an issue in keeping up with the online session and on other occasions not being able to join the weekly virtual session.

INCLUSIVE AND EQUITABLE PRACTICES

1. Encouraging diverse voices: To ensure students of different ages, genders, and language backgrounds were heard and could contribute to decision making, the facilitators intervened to encourage participation. The two practices they used were calling participants by their name and applauding their participation. Facilitators often prompted silent students by asking follow-up questions. In helping boost the self-confidence of students with lower language proficiency, the facilitators would occasionally have American students repeat or type what they said in the chat to ensure linguistic understanding. Also, when students from collectivist communities tended to take more time to decide on future actions, and their individualist counterparts would usually agree with what was suggested, the facilitators would navigate these dynamics by prompting decisions and asking follow-up questions to ensure everyone was heard and included in the decision making.
2. Assigning leaders to facilitate discussions: To encourage students from diverse backgrounds to take the lead in discussions, especially students from high power-distance cultures, the facilitators created a system of leadership to facilitate group discussions. Using this strategy students would take turns in facilitating group discussions and practicing inclusive practices. They also had to be mindful that everyone’s voice was included, and group ownership of decisions was necessary.
3. Reaching out to participants: There were instances where students would miss a session for different reasons. To ensure that everyone had ownership of the project development in every step of the decision making, facilitators reached out to the participants who did not attend and left them a message saying that they were missed during the session. This strategy boosted the self-confidence of students and made them feel that their voice mattered. It also worked effectively especially with students who doubted their English language proficiency.
4. Creating alternative communication platforms: To continue the participants’ discussions as a group, the facilitators encouraged the creation of WhatsApp groups. WhatsApp is accessible to everyone and does not need a strong internet connection to operate. This allowed students to continue the conversation around projects outside of their VE session times, and those who had internet connection issues managed to still engage with their group. This had one drawback, however; students were on different time zones, which hindered the reception of instant responses.

Conclusion

The shared practices in this article could be used by future VEs to foster inclusivity among diverse participants. The practices could be used with the same diversity variables this program had, or they could be extended to cater for other individual characteristics like disability identification, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity (Lopez-McGee, 2019). Encouraging diverse voices in a group discussion, for example, could be used to encourage students from marginalized groups to participate in decision making .

References:

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15–41.

Stevens Initiative. (2023). 2023 virtual exchange impact and learning report. https://www.stevensinitiative.org/resource/2023-virtual-exchange-impact-and-learning-report/

Cohen, E. (2021). The UN Sustainable Development Goals as a bridge between global learning and local action. Diversity Abroad. https://www.diversitynetwork.org/

Lopez-McGee, L. (2019). 2019 Survey of diversity & inclusion among international educators. Diversity Abroad. https://www.diversitynetwork.org/Diversity_Inclusion_InternationalEducators_Survey

Best Practices to Effectively Engage Diverse Participants in Virtual Exchange Programming

by DA Global | May 8, 2025 | Global Impact Exchange, Spring 2023

Authors:

• Nahid Ahmed, Director of the Connect Program, Soliya

ABSTRACT:

This article delves into best practices for effectively engaging diverse participants in virtual exchange programming. While global learning experiences are essential for student development, in-person exchanges often face barriers limiting access for underrepresented minority students. Virtual exchange programs present an opportunity to overcome these obstacles and offer inclusive learning experiences. Drawing from Soliya’s extensive 20-year experience in impactful program design, this article highlights strategies to expand access and foster inclusion for youth in underserved communities. Key insights include building partnerships with institutions serving diverse demographics, identifying champion educators, and supporting program implementation by addressing specific needs. Additionally, the article emphasizes the importance of inclusive program design, platform accessibility, and trained facilitators to create safe and equitable learning environments. By implementing these practices, virtual exchange programs can empower students from various backgrounds to access meaningful global learning experiences.

Global learning experiences equip students with a broad range of cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal skills (Sanger, 2017). While in-person exchanges have played an important role in this aspect, at peak, they only reached 1.7% of youth in the United States (Digest, 2018), and minority students have been historically underrepresented in these programs (Digest, 2018) due to a range of barriers to entry, including access to study abroad programs, financial constraints, and fears of not belonging or being accepted in their host communities (Norton, 2008).

Over Soliya’s 20 years of experience in designing and implementing impactful programs, we’ve found that virtual exchange programming has unparalleled power to expand access to global learning experiences for all students and address these barriers to create greater access for youth in underrepresented and underserved communities. We have engaged diverse participants at over 250 institutions for learning across 37 countries and 31 states in the United States, and below is a snapshot of the diversity of Soliya’s American participants, demonstrating the impact of our efforts.

Breakdown of U.S. students in Soliya’s programs compared to U.S. population by race in 2022

*(U.S. Census Bureau, 2022)

In feedback collected through post-exchange surveys from Soliya’s participants in the 2022-2023 academic year, we found that 87% of participants felt that they belonged in the program, 88% felt valued by the other young people in the program, and 89% felt included in all aspects of the program.

The recommendations below are drawn from institutional practices at Soliya that have resulted in the diversification of Soliya’s participants and their positive feelings of inclusion during their virtual exchange experience.

Engaging Partners and Institutional Champions

Engaging diverse participants begins at the planning and design phases. We recommend that you begin by building an understanding of the breadth of diversity factors that exist within the communities you seek to engage. You can then seek out partnerships with institutions that serve those hard-to-reach communities. For example, in the United States, Soliya aims to work with a cross section of youth, hence we forge partnerships with minority-serving institutions, public universities, and community colleges to engage a wide spectrum of youth in underserved communities.

We’ve found that focusing recruitment efforts on institutional partners—rather than individuals —allows us to have a better understanding of the broader opportunities and challenges in different communities. Institutional partners are also more effective in engaging larger, diverse groups of students by drawing upon existing networks to target individual student recruitment efforts, and they can provide critical support in addressing local infrastructural challenges and other obstacles that might affect program implementation.

Once you’ve identified the right partners, it is critical to identify a champion educator who will lead the partnership and the implementation of the program at the partner institution. These champions can be almost anyone at the institution: university administrators, professors, program coordinators, or, in some rare cases, highly motivated students. The common traits they share are a passion for bringing global exchange opportunities to their institution, an understanding of the diversity of the student body, a willingness and capacity to engage different stakeholders at the institution to secure buy-in for your program, and access to one or more groups of students to whom they will offer the program

Building Capacity and Supporting Educators

One of the crucial lessons we’ve learned is that aligning around initial programmatic goals and forging a partnership does not guarantee success. Different institutions and demographics have varied needs, challenges, and access to resources; students are juggling their studies with work and other competing priorities, educators need to make programs accessible to students who have physical or learning disabilities, and educators themselves may have limited resources or support within their institutions to implement new programs. As such, making time to understand the needs of each partner and co-designing effective systems for their participation is critical to successful recruitment and retention.

Here are 3 key ways we’ve supported educators across the globe in recruiting students, implementing our global programs, and engaging diverse participants:

1. Understand the needs of the educators and students, and engage educators around how your program can help meet their goals. Then, support them in building incentive structures that will help them engage their students and achieve your combined learning goals.
2. Develop customizable materials aimed at informing and orienting students around the program, with an emphasis on what they will gain and why it is important to their learning. Often students in underserved communities do not have adequate information about opportunities that exist. This will also help educators recruit and prepare students for your program.
3. Engage champions at one or more partners in building a community of practitioners, where educators can share their experiences, exchange best practices, and learn from each other.

Designing Inclusive Programming

Finally, you will need to ensure that your program content and delivery allow for participants of diverse backgrounds, access, and abilities to engage in your programming in safe, inclusive, and equitable learning environments.

Here are the 3 most important considerations in designing inclusive programming:

1. Use inclusive and adaptive technologies, and ensure that your platform accommodates different abilities and learning styles. Having tools such as automatic transcription built in or using platforms that are compatible with assistive devices greatly expands access to students who may otherwise not be able to engage in virtual programs. Since financial constraints often pose a significant challenge for students from underserved
2. In designing your curriculum, consider the needs of your target demographics and how you can create an inclusive space for students to express their identities and perspectives fully. Use these considerations to drive your decision making around which topics you choose to highlight and how you frame them. To bolster participants’ ability to explore diverse perspectives, consider including activities that iteratively build their capacity to be respectful and constructive in their engagement with each other, such as setting ground rules early in the process, and investing in icebreakers that build positive relationships amongst participants.
3. Have trained facilitators lead participants’ engagement in program activities and discussions. Facilitators can ensure all students have an opportunity to share their perspectives and be heard, they can type out short summaries for those who might be struggling with technical issues or poor language comprehension, and by paying attention to underlying power dynamics facilitators can support students’ ability to dig deeper into the dialogue and address those dynamics constructively.

After each program iteration, we collect feedback from partners and students on how our programs are meeting their needs, and what challenges they continue to face, in order to understand how we can continue to improve our programming and reach more young people in underserved communities. We invite you to do the same so that together, we can harness the power of virtual exchange and enable more students from diverse backgrounds to access meaningful global exchange experiences.

References

Farrugia, C., & Sanger, J. (2017). Gaining an employment edge: The impact of study abroad on 21st century skills & career prospects in the United States. Institute of International Education Center for Academic Mobility Research and Impact. https://www.iie.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Gaining-an-Employment-Edge-The-Imp act-of-Study-Abroad.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Digest of education statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/current_tables.asp

Norton, I. (2008). Changing the face of study abroad. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(5), B12. https://www.chronicle.com/article/changing-the-face-of-study-abroad/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222

Virtual Exchange for Adult Learners: Access and Design Considerations

by DA Global | May 8, 2025 | Global Impact Exchange, Spring 2023

Authors:

• Catherine Dunn Shiffman, PhD, Professor, Shenandoah University
• Vicky G. Spencer, PhD, Professor, Shenandoah University

ABSTRACT:

Adult learners bring years of experience—professional and personal—that influence how they learn and engage with others. Virtual exchanges hold potential for adult learners to challenge and reexamine their ways of knowing, and promote and expand the inclusion of diverse and underrepresented learners. Adults often navigate practical constraints to balance work, family, and other social commitments in addition to their education. Virtual exchanges offer adult learners access to intercultural engagement. However, it is critical to design exchanges that address the practical demands and learning dispositions that adults navigate. This article explores design considerations specific to adult learners including practical challenges compounded by scheduling flexibility, technology access, and skills. This article also examines intercultural dimensions of virtual exchanges specific to adult learners including negotiating power dynamics, engaging communication skills, and making intercultural connections.

Introduction

Adults aged 25 years and older account for a significant portion of higher education enrollment (OECD, 2022). As current and aspiring professionals, adult learners need access to learning and engaging with colleagues in different cultures, practicing intercultural communication skills, and examining the global, interconnected dimensions of their chosen fields. Adult learners—particularly those in graduate programs—are often in leadership roles where they can model global and intercultural awareness, diversity, knowledge, and skills for others.

Virtual exchanges offer an avenue for expanding adult learner access to global learning. These exchanges use technology to connect people in different parts of the world, and promote and expand the inclusion of diverse and underrepresented learners (e.g., Sabzalieva, et al., 2022). Minimal attention has focused on the unique needs and priorities of adult learners in order to fully participate in virtual exchanges (e.g., Stevens Initiative, 2020). In this article we review key principles of adult learning and learners, and offer design suggestions for virtual exchanges that maximize learning for this population and support diversity, equity, and inclusion goals. We draw on the virtual exchange literature and our experiences conducting Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) projects with graduate students in the United States, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Saudi Arabia.

Understanding Adult Learners

Virtual exchanges for adult learners should be designed with their learning preferences, priorities, and constraints in mind. These considerations will shape their experience and possibilities for activating deep learning. Adult learners are typically self-directed and goal-oriented (e.g., Jarvis, 2010; Knowles, et al., 2005; Merriam et al., 2007). They exercise greater autonomy over their learning and seek relevance to personal goals. Adults tend to possess a more fully developed sense of self. Their life experiences serve as reference points when encountering new ideas and experiences. As working professionals, adult learners may have spent extensive time training and working in their field that will inform how they engage with new knowledge, perspectives, and skills (Kolb & Kolb, 2017). Experiential learning is a powerful strategy to activate critical reflection. Virtual exchanges require adults to engage with diverse people and perspectives in ways that prompt reexamination of their lived experience and new understandings about people, ideas, cultures, their profession, and the world.

Unlike younger learners pursuing a higher education degree may be secondary to an adult’s work, family, and community responsibilities (e.g., Bergman, 2021). Study abroad can feel out of reach or not a priority. By removing the financial, logistical, and physical challenges of travel, virtual exchanges expand access to all adults including those from traditionally marginalized and underrepresented groups. For adults with little international travel experience, these virtual encounters with individuals from all over the world can provide a low-risk entry point for future in-person travel.

Design Considerations

These design considerations can broaden adult participation and incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion to optimize learning in the virtual exchange. While many are common to all virtual exchanges, these strategies specifically address adults’ practical realities and ways of knowing. Suggestions center on logistical and instructional supports for adults to communicate, collaborate, and learn in intercultural encounters.

Time Differences and Scheduling

Adults with inflexible work schedules and caretaking responsibilities often have an extremely difficult time navigating different time zones to participate in synchronous exchanges. In response, we limit synchronous whole-class meetings, schedule such meetings well in advance and record them, increase asynchronous communication, and delegate responsibility for determining when and how to communicate to the smaller intercultural learner teams. Team members then devise a communication plan that works best for them.

Technology

As the use of technology continues to expand, online collaborations and partnerships have led to making social connections, sharing experiences, and creating new knowledge with rapid dissemination (Scott, 2015). To facilitate full participation, we use communication platforms that can record and produce written transcripts. Recording meetings provides learners with the opportunity to review information and continue to participate in the project. This supports accessibility, language assistance, schedule conflicts, and internet connectivity challenges.

Learners have many options when choosing technologies for communicating and completing assignments. Adults who did not grow up in the digital era may need additional time and support to select and use appropriate technologies (Dimock, 2019). When designing and evaluating assignments and activities, we weigh priorities for intercultural relationship-building and idea exchange with the learning curve to use specific technologies.

Adult Learner Matching

Matching adult learners with international peers offers many possibilities for deepening professional knowledge, connecting on a personal level, and expanding collegial networks. We leverage adults’ specialized knowledge, training, and real-world experiences to explore common challenges and diverse solutions that can spark new insights about their profession and world. Adults can also connect on a personal level when they share multiple identities as learners, workers, caretakers, and community members. Relationships that begin in a virtual exchange create opportunities for continued communication and collaboration.

Intercultural Teamwork

The foundation of any successful international collaboration is understanding and addressing power dynamics. Uneven power can shape “the knowledge that is made relevant and the terms under which the exchanges are set out and implemented” (Helm & Guth, 2022, p. 275). Although present for all learners, for adults these power dynamics may include—but are not limited to—language, hierarchy, and professional roles. English is often the language used in international collaborations and may result in an unequal balance of power (Helm & Guth, 2022; Stevens Initiative, 2022). Every culture has expectations regarding roles and hierarchy related to positions of power that privilege some voices over others. Adults bring established conceptions regarding these power arrangements that may differ from those of their counterparts. Adults in positions of authority may need to renegotiate their ways of communicating to be collaborative, intercultural team members. These are opportunities to enhance communication and teambuilding skills. A few strategies to support intercultural teamwork for adult learners include:

• Prioritize class time for learners to safely debrief about their teams; discuss diversity, equity, and inclusion; explore cultural differences; reflect on their professional roles; and share team-building strategies. For example, doctoral students pooled their collective personal and professional knowledge and skills to strategize ways to reduce their privilege (i.e., age, leadership role, and language) to encourage participation from their international counterparts.
• Focus on the specific skills that each learner brings to the collaboration. For example, learners in a graduate course at a partnering university had acquired technology skills that the multigenerational teams relied on to develop the presentation.
• Create opportunities for adult learners to practice intercultural two-way communication skills. For example, graduate students introduced both languages as part of their presentations.

Conclusion

Virtual exchanges hold exciting possibilities for expanding adult access to global learning by removing obstacles to in-person travel. When designed to accommodate adult learner preferences, priorities, and constraints, virtual exchanges offer authentic opportunities for adults to step out of familiar roles to engage with new perspectives and practice intercultural collaboration. Virtual exchanges hold potential for professional growth and expanded collegial networks. Adult engagement with diverse perspectives and enhanced intercultural communication skills can also benefit their organizations and communities.

References:

Bergman, M. (2021). Adult learners in higher education. In T. S. Rocco, M. C. Smith, R. C. Mizzi, L. R. Merriweather & J. D. Hawley (Eds.), The handbook of adult and continuing education: 2020 edition (pp. 266–274). Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Deardorff, D. K., de Wit, H., Leask, B., & Charles, H. (Eds.). (2021). The handbook of International higher education (2nd ed., pp. 265–286). Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

Helm, F. & Guth, S. P. (2022). Internationalization at home through virtual exchange. In D.K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), The handbook of international higher education (2nd ed., pp. 265–286). Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Jarvis, P. (2010). Adult education and lifelong learning (4th ed.). Routledge

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th ed.). Elsevier.

Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2017). The experiential educator: Principles and practices of experiential learning. EBLS Press.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. John Wiley & Sons.

OECD. (2022). Education at a glance 2022: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2022_3197152b-en

Sabzalieva, E., Mutize, T., & Yerovi, C. (2022). Moving minds: Opportunities and challenges for virtual student mobility in a post-pandemic world. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-UNESCO: International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380988

Scott, C. L. (2015). The futures of learning 2: What kind of learning for the 21st century? (Education Research and Foresight Working Paper Series. No. 14). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000242996

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000242996 Stevens Initiative. (2020). 2020 annotated bibliography on virtual exchange research. The Aspen Institute. https://www.stevensinitiative.org/resource/2020-annotated-bibliography-on-virtual-exchange-research/

Stevens Initiative. (2022). 2022 survey of the virtual exchange field report. The Aspen Institute. https://www.stevensinitiative.org/resource/2022-survey-of-the-virtual-exchange-field-report/

Stevens Initiative. (2023, May). Diversity, equity, and inclusion resource roundup. https://www.stevensinitiative.org/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-resource-roundup/

Repositioning Students as Co-creators: A Reflective Case Study of the ‘Global Classroom for Democracy Innovation’

by DA Global | May 8, 2025 | Global Impact Exchange, Spring 2023

Authors:

• Matthew Michael Wingfield, Post-Doctoral Fellow. Stellenbosch University
• Marco Adamovic, Coordinator, Learning and Community, Hart House, University of Toronto
• Mukisa Mujulizi, Director, Cape Town Design Nerds
• Bettina von Lieres, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto Scarborough
• Laurence Piper, Professor, Political Studies at University West, Sweden and University of the Western Cape, South Africa
• Jesi Carson, Director, Vancouver Design Nerds

(Re)formulating inclusionary learning design 

Students are often framed as mere recipients of knowledge transfer (Freire, 1970), with staff and faculty at higher education institutions (HEIs) being solely responsible for conceptualizing and facilitating educational offerings (Boughey & McKenna, 2021). In virtual exchange environments, these existing exclusionary pedagogical and relational inequities can be further entrenched (Behari-Leak, 2020). While this pattern has a long history within HEIs across the world, the uni-directional nature of pedagogical formation and knowledge transfer has been pronounced with the burgeoning of such virtual offerings in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, as shown through a range of case studies engaged by Czerniewicz et al. (2020). 

In late 2020 the authors of this paper, from various international HEIs, hosted a virtual exchange offering which brought students from the University of Toronto Scarborough (Canada) and Stellenbosch University (South Africa) together to engage around the theme of food security. Spurred on by positive feedback from the participants, we hosted a follow-up collaborative online feedback session in which students and facilitators from each institution provided feedback on the offering. In this forum, students put forward a range of suggestions, spanning from questions around the length of engagement to the potential of collaborative work between students from these two locations; this feedback became the bedrock on which the Global Classroom for Democracy Innovation (GCDI) was developed.

The GCDI comprises an intensive five-week process where students are split into globally diverse teams in which they are guided through the framework of design thinking (Constanza-Chock, 2020) to produce a project under a common theme. The themes covered in subsequent iterations of the GCDI have been climate change, sustainability, and democracy. While expecting students to co-design projects throughout this course, as the organizers of the broader project, we have been continually engaged in a process of prototyping and reformulating the project’s parameters. 

In March 2021 we hosted our first cohort of students which, after engaging and being prompted by a guest speaker from the international non-governmental organization (NGO) 350.org, went through the ‘double diamond’ process of design thinking. Importantly, a student who joined as a participant in the initial pilot event was integrated into the coordinating team at this point. While their insights became essential in the development of the project as a whole, it also prompted the development of student facilitator roles, which would oversee and manage the progress made by each group over the duration of the project. 

Moving toward inclusive, co-created pedagogy

An inescapable element of internationally connected virtual exchanges is the prevalence of multiple layers of power dynamics. In the conceptualisation of the GCDI, we remained cognizant of the ubiquity of extractive virtual exchanges and international projects (Boughey & McKenna, 2021; Hoon et al., 2022; Behari-Leak, 2020). Students from the Global South are disproportionately affected by this. Nested within this entrenchment of international power dynamics is the positioning of students as solely recipients of knowledge transfer. 

The GCDI coordinating committee is accordingly composed of both academic staff and students from a range of international HEIs, along with critical pedagogy practitioners and partners from the Vancouver Design Nerds (VDN), a Vancouver-based organization working on design thinking in various forms and locales. The thematic framing of the various iterations of the GCDI has a strong connection with the curricular content taught at all partner institutions. However, critically reformulating the nature and expectations of knowledge transfer by including students in the formulation and implementation, in both the curricular and co-curricular spaces through the GCDI, we have aimed to intentionally reposition the role of students. 

Baran & Correia (2009), writing even before COVID-19 had significantly impacted the prevalence of online learning spaces, considered the possibility of utilizing student-led facilitation as a tool to overcome “instructor-dominated facilitation” (Baran & Correia, 2009, p. 340). We found, as Baran and Correia rightly note, that leveraging student-led facilitation can significantly alter the pedagogical milieu. During each five-week iteration, there would be a weekly engagement where all students would join a two-hour session hosted on Zoom. In these sessions general framing and a short presentation on a certain element of the design process were covered by a member of the coordinating committee, after which students split up into their groups, with a student-facilitator, to practically engage with content in relation to their own project. 

At the end of each five-week iteration, students were expected to prepare a short presentation on the project/intervention that they had developed. As a coordinating team, we remained hopeful that the students would have taken the prompts provided throughout the design process to creatively and critically develop a project. Coordinator and facilitator feedback sessions were largely underlined by overwhelming satisfaction in how students had first developed interesting and practical projects, and also by the positive impact that student facilitators had had on their peers’ work. In fact, by using student facilitators we illustrated that peer facilitation can be productively linked with the design thinking process, leading to critical and inclusive engagement between students (Baran & Correira, 2009). 

Popularizing inclusive and co-created pedagogy

While the feedback from the two iterations of the GCDI presented in 2022 has been overwhelmingly positive from both qualitative and quantitative data received from students, questions still remain. Firstly, we have concluded that inclusion in virtual exchanges cannot be superficially addressed. A range of power dynamics must be intentionally addressed through the design of the educational offering. In line with this, we have intentionally positioned our work around the concept of ‘design justice’ (Constanza-Chock, 2020), by ensuring that educational institution or degree program did not influence a student’s chance of being employed as a student facilitator. By having student facilitators from a range of backgrounds, we argue that the GCDI has initiated the process of developing an inclusive educational offering. 

Furthermore, a discernible shift has occurred in the field of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL), which critically focuses on the expectations and needs of students in the contemporary moment. By positioning students as co-creators of virtual exchanges, and thus democratizing the design process of both the larger offering as well as students’ projects (Manzini, 2015), a more engaging and inclusive offering can be developed; the parameters around what exactly this looks like, and the processes needed to bring it to fruition, remain contested. 

In conclusion, the various iterations of the GCDI indicate that virtual exchanges, especially those with global ties, are both sites of possibility for the entrenchment of power dynamics, as well as inclusive and engaging pedagogy. While we have become increasingly aware of this dynamic within the GCDI project, and in that more capable of being able to address and navigate these issues, forming an educational offering with these concerns in focus initiates more inclusive and engaging virtual exchanges. 

References

Baran, E., & Correira, E. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30(3), 339–361. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910903236510  

Behari-Leak, K. (2020). Towards a borderless, decolonized, socially just, and Inclusive Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 8(1), 4–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.2

Boughey, C. & McKenna, S. (2021). Interrogating the power dynamics in international projects. CriSTaL, 9(2), 64–82. https://dx.doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v9i2.448 

Constanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.  

Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N. Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M., de Villiers, M., Felxi, A., Cachago, D., Gokhale, C., Ivala, E., Kramm, N., Madiba, M., Mistri, G., Mgqwashu, E., Palitt, N., Prinsloo, P., Solomon, K., Strydom, S., Swanepoel, M., Waghid, F., & Wissing, G. (2020). A wake-up call: Equity, inequality and Covid-19 emergency remote teaching and learning. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 946–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00187-4 

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin. 

Hoon, C. H., Leibowitz, B., & Martensson, K. (2020). Leading change from different shores: The challenges of contextualizing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 8(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.3

Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. MIT Press.