Disentangling Virtual Exchange and Study Abroad Discourses in Equity and Inclusion

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

Authors:

• 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.

Why Virtual Exchanges Matter to Students in the Global South

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

Authors:

• 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

(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.

Global Learning: Virtual Exchange Between Malaysia and the US

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

Authors:

• 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

1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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

Christensen, A. & Kong, K (2022). Flipgrid classroom conversations: International virtual pen pal exchange. MinneTESOL Journal. https://minnetesoljournal.org/current-issue/peer-reviewed-article/flipgrid-classroom-conversations-international-virtual-pen-pal-exchange/

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).

Equity of International Access: Connecting First-Generation University Students to Globally Networked Learning

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

Authors:

• Erik Jon Byker, PhD, Professor, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
• Mahita Sadula, Honors Alum, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
• Benjamin Ade-Thurow, PhD, Associate Lecturer, Pädagogische Hochschule Ludwigsburg, Germany
• Florence Martin, PhD, Professor, North Carolina State University

ABSTRACT:

While many undergraduate students—like teacher candidates—would like to study abroad, the costs associated with study abroad programs can be a significant barrier. This can be especially true for first-generation university students who may not even consider studying abroad because of the high costs. International virtual exchange programs—like Globally Networked Learning (GNL)—provide affordable and equitable access to international experiences. In this article we described a GNL experience between students in Germany and the United States.

Introduction

Preparing undergraduate students as global citizens means addressing inequities, challenging ignorance, and providing opportunities for the development of global competencies through international experiences like study abroad. Study abroad has benefits including developing empathy, expanding intercultural awareness, and providing for immersive world language experiences (Byker & Mejia, 2022; Pilonieta et al., 2017). Not all undergraduate students, though, can afford to go on study abroad programs. While many undergraduate students—like teacher candidates—would like to study abroad, the associated costs are significant barriers (Byker & Putman, 2019). For example, Green and her colleagues (2015) explained how the high costs associated with study abroad limit the number of undergraduate students who participate, making study abroad usually exclusive to the already financially privileged. The Institute of International Education (IIE) publishes an annual report called Open Doors and found the average cost of a semester-long study abroad program to be around $18,000 (IIE, 2022). Such a hefty price tag makes study abroad almost impossible for many undergraduate students including first-generation university students who may not even consider studying abroad because of cost. We have found international virtual exchange—like Globally Networked Learning (GNL)—to be an affordable and equitable entry point for access to international experiences for undergraduate students.

Globally Networked Learning (GNL)

GNL is a collaborative approach to international virtual exchange that enables students and instructors from different locations around the world to participate in learning and the creation of knowledge. Equity is a goal of GNL. Equity addresses the unequal distribution of opportunities and resources through targeted practices and policies (Byker et al., 2021). Equity also connects with educational opportunities. Educational equity is the access to opportunities for all learners to develop academically and advance their well-being through education (Hancock, Allen, & Lewis, 2015). Because GNL projects are inclusive of all learners in a classroom setting, there is much greater access to the opportunities for international virtual exchange as well as access to the career benefits that come with such experiences. GNL often happens as a course-based curriculum that can go from 6 to 8 weeks in length. The curriculum usually includes an ice-breaker type of experience, a few synchronous webinar meetings (if the time zone differences permit), opportunities for students to further communicate via technologies like WhatsApp, and a project-based learning type of activity the students work on together. GNL allows students in the course access to international experiences, regardless of their background and previous international experiences. GNL is also affordable as it is usually integrated into an existing course and curricula. It provides students, including those unable to study abroad, an opportunity to engage with others from abroad in a virtual setting (Commander et al., 2022). Students are able to gain a deeper understanding and respect for new countries and cultures while developing global and international competency skills. GNL is a low-cost virtual exchange program, which means that students can gain a global perspective, interact with their international peers and faculty, and experience similar benefits to studying abroad without traveling to another location.

GNL Impact

We implemented a GNL project with 26 undergraduate students at Magnolia University (a pseudonym) in the United States in collaboration with 28 undergraduate students from Edelweiss University (a pseudonym) in Germany. Among the students at Magnolia University, about 35% of them identified as first-generation university students. In the pre-survey only four Magnolia University students (15%) had traveled outside of the United States and six students (23%) spoke a language other than English. Thus, one of the goals of our GNL project was to provide the students with the opportunity for extended intercultural communication through a collaborative, project-based learning assignment called the Global Competencies Virtual Odyssey (GVCO). The GCVO is a multimedia tool that learners created about a region of the world using shareable technology like Prezi or Google Slides.

The students worked together to create and present their GCVOs about regions in Germany and the United States. The large majority of students from both universities (87%) agreed or strongly agreed that GNL provided a unique international opportunity that would be a benefit to their future career. Here is what one of the students wrote about the GNL experience: “I appreciated this GNL opportunity. The whole GNL project provided the chance to make new friends and participate in an experience that I will apply to my future as a teacher to teach about global citizenship.” Overall, GNL not only enabled students to collaborate with international students, but GNL also equipped students with opportunities and skills for their future careers. GNL fosters equitable participation and engagement in international experiences regardless of geographic location, socio-economic background, or the educational levels of parents. By providing affordable access to international opportunities for undergraduate students to collaboratively participate in, GNL promotes equity in education.

References:

Byker, E. J., & Putman, S. M. (2019). Catalyzing cultural and global competencies: Engaging preservice teachers in study abroad to expand the agency of citizenship. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(1), 84–105.

Byker, E. J., Crawford, E., & Lee, H. D. (2021). Giving equity a voice: Supporting school administrators with global equitable practices. In R. Shankar-Brown (Ed.), Bending the Arc towards justice: Equity-focused practices for educational leaders. Information Age Press.

Byker, E. J. & Mejia, N. (2022). Language for the heart: Investigating the linguistic responsiveness of study abroad. In G. Barkhuizen (Ed.), Language teachers studying abroad: Identities, emotions and disruptions. Multilingual Matters Publications.

Boix-Mansilla, V., & Jackson, A. (2012). Educating for global competency. Asia Society.

Braveman, P. A. (2019). Swimming against the tide: Challenges in pursuing health equity today. Academic Medicine, 94(2), 170–171.

Commander, N. E., Schloer, W. F., & Cushing, S. T. (2022). Virtual exchange: A promising high-impact practice for developing intercultural effectiveness across disciplines. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 5, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.21827/jve.5.37329

Hancock, S., Allen, A., & Lewis, C. W. (Eds.). (2015). Autoethnography as a lighthouse: Illuminating race, research, and the politics of schooling. Information Age Publishing.

Institute of International Education (IIE). (2022). Open Doors report on international educational exchange. http://www.iie.org/opendoors

Pilonieta, P., Medina, A. L., & Hathaway, J. I. (2017). The impact of a study abroad experience on preservice teachers’ dispositions and plans for teaching English Language Learners. The Teacher Educator, 52(1), 22–38.

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.