Academic Mobility Through the Lens of Language and Identity, Global Pandemics, and Distance Internationalization: Multidisciplinary Perspectives [1 ed.] 1032431792, 9781032431796

Citation preview

Academic Mobility through the Lens of Language and Identity, Global Pandemics, and Distance Internationalization

This book takes a critical perspective on international academic mobility and contextualizes this mobility through different key factors including global pan­ demics, identity construction, intercultural sensitivity, and cultural engagement. Using a multidisciplinary approach, the volume investigates the current trends of international mobility programs with consideration to the new normal through social, political, economic, and educational factors among mobility exchange actors. Contesting established approaches to international academic mobility in paradigmatic contexts, the volume investigates the effects and implications of distance internationalization as an emerging concept, juxtapos­ ing the traditional context of academic mobility with a newly emerging virtual one as a key catalyst for change. Offering a range of authentic studies, reviews, and cases to challenge inter­ national global education, this timely book will appeal to researchers, scholars, and postgraduate students in the fields of higher education research, interna­ tional and comparative education, and the sociology of education more broadly. Tamilla Mammadova is Assistant Professor in Humanities and Social Science, ADA University, Azerbaijan.

Routledge Research in International and Comparative Education

This is a series that offers a global platform to engage scholars in continuous academic debate on key challenges and the latest thinking on issues in the fast-growing field of International and Comparative Education. Titles in the series include: Rethinking Education in the Context of Post-Pandemic South Asia Challenges and Possibilities Edited by Uma Pradhan, Karen Valentin and Mohini Gupta Citizen Identity Formation of Domestic Students and Syrian Refugee Youth in Jordan Centering Student Voice and Arab-Islamic Ontologies Patricia K. Kubow Challenging the Internationalisation of Education A Critique of the Global Gaze Lucy Bailey Happiness Education Holistic Learning for Sustainable Well-Being Edited by Gerald W. Fry and Haelim Chun Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy in Central and Eastern European Countries Critical and Pragmatic Perspectives Edited by Katarzyna Żyminkowska and Katarzyna Ożańska-Ponikwia Academic Mobility through the Lens of Language and Identity, Global Pandemics, and Distance Internationalization Multidisciplinary Perspectives Edited by Tamilla Mammadova For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/Routledge-Research-in-International-and-Comparative-Education/book­ series/RRICE

Academic Mobility through the Lens of Language and Identity, Global Pandemics, and Distance Internationalization Multidisciplinary Perspectives Edited by Tamilla Mammadova

First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Tamilla Mammadova; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Tamilla Mammadova to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Mammadova, Tamilla, editor.

Title: Academic mobility through the lens of language and identity, global

pandemics, and distance internationalization : multidisciplinary perspectives /

edited by Tamilla Mammadova.

Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. |

Series: Routledge research in international and comparative education |

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2023025834 (print) | LCCN 2023025835 (ebook) |

ISBN 9781032431796 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032433578 (paperback) |

ISBN 9781003366942 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Transnational education. | Educational mobility. |

Education and globalization.

Classification: LCC LC1095 .A43 2024 (print) | LCC LC1095 (ebook) |

DDC 378.1/75--dc23/eng/20230720

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023025834

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023025835

ISBN: 978-1-032-43179-6 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-43357-8 (pbk)

ISBN: 978-1-003-36694-2 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942

Typeset in Sabon

by Taylor & Francis Books

Contents

List of illustrations List of contributors General Introduction

viii ix 1

TAMILLA MAMMADOVA

PART I

Language Development and Identity Construction within International Mobility 1 Shaping European Identity via Mobility Exchange Programs for CIS Country Students

7 9

TAMILLA MAMMADOVA

2 The Impact of Englishization of Higher Education on Exchange Students’ Attitudes Toward Local Languages

24

MAHMUT MERT, TUBA ALKANAT AKMAN AND DOGAN YUKSEL

3 (Inter)-national mobility in Swiss Higher Education: Bilingual Policies, Multilingual Students, and “Englishization”

37

ANNA BECKER

4 Language Attitudes and Identity Construction Through Minority Language Learning in a Host Country: A Case Study of Chinese in Catalonia

48

RUOCHEN NING

5 Study Abroad in Diverse Contexts: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Linguistic and Cultural Setting in Study Abroad Through the Erasmus Program VASILICA MOCANU

59

vi

Contents

6 Ground Realities of International Students in China: Identity, Social Network, Language and Literacy Socialization

71

WENDONG MARCO LI

7 “Not just English”: Identity and Positionality Among Japanese Bilingual Returnees

83

GAVIN FURUKAWA AND MITSUYO SAKAMOTO

8 In-between Varied Identities: Engagement of Indian Students as Partners in an Australian University

94

PREETI VAYADA

9 Intercultural Awareness and International Identities: Necessary Support and Preparation for Academic Staff

107

SEZEN ARSLAN

PART II

International Academic Mobility in the Light of Global Pandemics

119

10 Travel Policies and International Student Mobility in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A General Review of Cases in Australia and China

121

YINGXIN LIU AND AI TAM LE

11 Coordinating an Outbound Study Abroad Program During a Pandemic: A Case Study of Academic Staff Experiences in Japan

133

TODD J. ALLEN

12 Maintaining and Mobilizing Network Capital: Exchange Students’ Friendships During the COVID-19 Pandemic

145

SUVI JOKILA, KALYPSO FILIPPOU, ELLA SIRVA AND ANNE LAIHO

13 Assessing the Quality of International Student Mobility in Spain in the Time of COVID-19: A Study of International Students’ Reflections on their Cross-Cultural and Linguistic Competencies

156

MOSTAFA BOIEBLAN

14 Student Engagement Before and After the Global Pandemic: A Case of International Students in a Pre-Sessional English for Academic Purposes Programme (PEAP) HIEU KIEU

167

Contents 15 Internationalizing Nursing Education Programs with COIL: A Case Study of Pandemic Policy Analysis

vii 179

JANET H. DAVIS, GEMMA DELICADO PUERTO, KYLE RAUSCH, MEGAN CRIS­ AN SIJO JAMES, JANESSA MARIE ROJAS, JUAN MANUEL RODRÍGUEZ TELLO AND JESUS M. LAVADO-GARCIA

PART III

Emerging Distance Internationalization as a new paradigm of International Academic Mobility

191

16 Globalization of Higher Education: A Review of Emerging Distance Internationalization

193

MUHAMMAD MUFTAHU, WAN QUN AND WANG TING

17 On Technology-Based Mobility: Harnessing Intercultural Experiences during Virtual Student Mobility

205

YOVANA S. VEERASAMY

18 (Re)Imagined Communities and (Re)Invented Literacy Practices through Internalization at Home

218

MALIN RELJANOVIC GLIMÄNG, CECILIA MAGADÁN AND KATARZYNA RADKE

19 Virtual Student Mobility: The Case of an Action Research Project between Japan, China, and Spain

230

MARTIN PARSONS, MIKEL GARANT, MARIOLAÍA RUIZ RODRÍGUEZ AND BEATRIZ MARTÍN-GASCÓN

20 Developing Intercultural Sensitivity and Discomfort Through Collaborative Virtual Exchange

243

EMILIA ALONSO-MARKS AND SIPHOKAZI MAGADLA

21 Virtual Internationalization in Teacher Education: Experiences from Four Projects Conducted at German Higher Institutions

256

KATHRIN WILD, WIEBKE NIERSTE, KATRIN KAISER AND NINA DASOUQI

Conclusion

271

TAMILLA MAMMADOVA

Index

275

Illustrations

Figures 4.1 The participants’ attitudes alteration during the data collection process 5.1 Respondents’ demographic data 5.2 Pre-interview guiding questions 5.3 Transcription conventions 11.1 Overview of SA program pattern at the university 14.1 The student-centeredness inside the three psychological needs 19.1 Participants’ attitudes towards Chinese people

54 68 68 69 134 170 238

Tables 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2 6.1 6.2 10.1 10.2 14.1 14.2 21.1

Descriptive statistics Students’ cognitive perception of being a European Students’ personal perception of identity Association with Europe and EU New characteristics acquired on completion of a mobility program Duration of stay in respect to the belief that national identity never changes General Demographics of the participants Detailed information about each participant Participant Profile Data corpus and analytic methods Major events related to travel restrictions in Australia from January 2020 to July 2022 Major restrictions on international travel to China from March 2020 to August 2022 Example of a bubble’s K-W-L approach Four steps of the bubble practice Short and long-term virtual formats

15 17 21 21 21 22 33 34 80 81 123 126 174 175 266

Contributors

Ai Tam Le is Researcher Development Coordinator at the Graduate Research Academy, Deakin University, Australia. She holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, Australia. Currently, she coordinates learning resources to enhance skills and capabilities for researchers at all stages. Anna Becker is a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. She holds a PhD from the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, where she teaches seminars and conducts research on language, identity, power, well-being, and professional development. Anne Laiho is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Education/Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning and Education (CELE) at the University of Turku, Finland. Her research interests include higher education, especially academic work, gender, and education. Among others, Laiho lectures in the Sociology of Education. Beatriz Martín-Gascón is Assistant Professor at Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. She holds a PhD from Universidad de Córdoba, Spain. Currently, she teaches courses in Linguistics at the Department of Spanish language and Literature theories. Cecilia Magadán is a Linguistics professor at Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina. With an MS in Linguistics (Georgetown University – Fulbright Scholar), and an EdM and PhD in Language, Literacies, and Technologies (Teachers College, Columbia University), her research focuses on multimodal literacies, particularly in language teaching contexts. Dogan Yuksel is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Faculty of Well-being, Education & Language Studies at The Open University, UK. Previously, he worked as an Associate Professor of TEFL at Kocaeli University, Turkey. Areas of interest include Classroom Discourse and English-Medium Instruction. Ella Sirva has a Master’s in Educational Sciences from the University of Turku, Department of Education. She has also completed studies at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, and Denison University, US.

x

List of contributors

Emilia Alonso-Marks is Professor Emerita of Spanish and Latin American Studies at Ohio University, USA. She holds a PhD from Universidad de Sevilla, Spain. Since 2013, she has directed the Institute for the Empirical Study of Language, collaborating with faculty and students from the USA, South Africa, India, Mexico, Spain, and Portugal. Gavin Furukawa is an Associate Professor at Sophia University, Japan. He holds a PhD in Second Language Studies from the University of Hawai’i at Ma-noa, USA. Currently, he teaches undergraduate courses for the Depart­ ment of English Studies and graduate courses for the Graduate School of Languages and Linguistics. Gemma Delicado Puerto holds a PhD in Humanities from the University of Chicago. She is an Associate Professor for the English Department at the University of Extremadura, Spain. In 2017, Gemma was awarded the Teaching Excellence in the Humanities. In 2019, she was appointed Director for International Affairs and Mobility. Hieu Kieu, PhD, is an EAP tutor at Teesside University International Study Centre. She works as a Subject Matter Expert in building pre-PhD curricu­ lum content and mentors teaching staff for the Study Group network, a global foundational education provider in partnership with universities in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and North America. Janessa Marie Rojas earned her BSN from Purdue University Northwest College of Nursing. Janet H. Davis is an Associate Professor in the College of Nursing at Purdue University Northwest. She has held faculty and administrative leadership positions at several universities in the Midwest. Her scholarship, teaching, and service focus on nursing leadership development to impact healthcare disparities globally. Over her career, she has been awarded approximately $500,000 in research project funding. Her 60 publications include research, teaching, and public service articles. Dr Davis is a peer consultant/evaluator for the Higher Learning Commission. Jesús M. Lavado García holds a PhD in Nursing from the University of Extremadura, Spain. He is an associate professor at the Nursing Depart­ ment. In 2014, he was appointed Dean of the Nursing and Occupational Therapy School. He is also the Vice president of the National Conference of Deans of Nursing. Juan Manuel Rodríguez Tello has a degree in Nursing from the University of Extremadura (2021) and a Master's Degree in Emergencies from the Alfonso X “El Sabio” University (2022). He develops his professional practice activity in different emergency units in other regions of Spain (Community of Madrid and Extremadura).

List of contributors

xi

Kalypso Filippou is a University Lecturer at the UTUPEDA – Centre for University Pedagogy and Research in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Turku, Finland. She holds a PhD from the same university and teaches courses on university pedagogy, academic writing, and multicultural education. Katarzyna Radke is an internationalization coordinator and senior lecturer of English at the Foreign Language Teaching Center of Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan´, Poland. Her interests lie in using online tools and English as a lingua franca for intercultural collaboration through a virtual exchange in higher education. Kathrin Wild is a coordinator for internationalization in teacher education at Europa-Universität Flensburg, Germany, where she gained a PhD in German as a foreign language. She conducted postdoctoral research at Bielefeld University, Germany. Her research focuses on simultaneous foreign language learning, individual multilingualism, multilingual didactics, pronunciation learning processes, and didactics. Katrin Kaiser, Magister Artium, is deputy head of the “International Mobility” department at the University of Cologne. She is in charge of the inter­ nationalization of teacher education: coordinator of the third-party funded project UNITE Cologne (University Network for Internationalization of Teacher Education) and the worldwide practical training network “internships@schoolsabroad”. Kyle Rausch is the Executive Director of the Study Abroad Office at the University of Illinois Chicago. He holds a Doctor of Education from Arizona State University. His research focuses on increasing access to education abroad by underrepresented students. Kyle serves on the Forum on Education Abroad Council and advisory boards for several education-abroad organizations. Mahmut Mert is an expert in charge of Erasmus exchange programs at Kocaeli University’s International Relations Unit. He is also a master’s student in Lifelong Education at the same university. His research interests include Erasmus mobility, lifelong learning, and adult education. Malin Reljanovic Glimäng is a teacher educator and PhD candidate in the Department of Education at Malmö University, Sweden. Her research interests involve virtual exchange and internationalization of teacher education, focusing on language, critical interculturality, and global citizenship education. Mariolaía Ruiz Rodríguez is Assistant Professor at University of Córdoba (Spain). She is a PhD candidate in the field of English Queer Gothic Literature. Mariolaía has been a visiting researcher at the Royal Holloway University (London, UK) and University College Cork (Cork, Ireland). Martin Parsons is a professor in the Faculty of Business at Hannan University in Osaka, Japan, teaching English and digital production. His research

xii

List of contributors interests include interculturality, English language education in Japan, multimodality, and the intersection between digital literacy and foreign language learning.

Megan Cris-an Sijo James earned her BSN from Purdue University Northwest College of Nursing. Mikel Garant is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Beijing Institute of Technology, Zhuhai, China. He holds a PhD from the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. He has been a Japanese National Scholar and a visiting professor at leading institutions worldwide. Mitsuyo Sakamoto is Professor at Sophia University in Tokyo, Japan. She received her PhD from the University of Toronto/Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE/UT), Canada, in 2000. Currently, she teaches in the Department of English Studies and Graduate School of Languages and Linguistics. Mostafa Boieblan holds a PhD from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Currently, he is a lecturer at the Department of Linguistics Applied to Sci­ ence and Technology at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain. His research and teaching interests focus on cross-cultural communication and cognitive linguistics. Muhammad Muftahu is currently a Senior Lecturer, Acting Director, Deputy Director, and Coordinator of the Global Higher Education Network (GHEN) at the National Higher Education Research Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). His research interest and expertise are Higher Education and Qualitative Methodology. Nina Dasouqi coordinates the International Networking for Virtually Improved Teacher Education (INVITE) project at Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany. The project aims to support the development of intercultural and digital skills among teacher-training students and foster partnership networks. Besides, Nina is an academic staff at the Faculty of Educational Sciences and lectures in multilingualism. Preeti Vayada is a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland, Australia. Her research interests include enhancing inclusivity in teaching and learning in higher education. Ruochen Ning is a PhD candidate in the Grael research group, Department of Translation and Language Science of Pompeu Fabra University. Her research interests include L2 motivation, language attitudes and identity, language learning practice, and strategies. Her current research project focuses on the Catalan-learning practices of Chinese students in Catalonia. Sezen Arslan is an assistant professor of English Language Teaching at Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University in Türkiye. She holds a PhD in English Language

List of contributors

xiii

Teaching from Hacettepe University, Türkiye. Her main research interests are the professional development of language teachers, assessment, and intercultural awareness in language classrooms. Siphokazi Magadla is an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Political and International Studies at Rhodes University, South Africa. She is the author of the book ‘Guerrillas and Combative Mothers: Women and the Armed Struggle in South Africa’ (UKZN Press, 2023). Suvi Jokila is a postdoctoral researcher (Academy of Finland) at the University of Turku (Department of Education), Finland. Her research projects include international student mobility during the pandemic and educational intrana­ tional mobility in Finland. Tamilla Mammadova, PhD is an Assistant Professor in Humanities and Social Science at ADA University, Azerbaijan. She holds a PhD from the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, where she is a member of the SPERTUS research group. Dr Mammadova has gained broad international experience. After completing her MA at the Azerbaijan University of Languages, she headed to France to complete pre-doctoral studies. Later, she moved to Spain to do another MA course and pursue a PhD degree. In 2019, Dr Mamma­ dova completed her post-doctoral research at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. She is a writer of numerous academic books and papers. Todd J. Allen is an Associate Professor at Kansai University, Japan. He holds a PhD from the University of Queensland, Australia. He teaches English academic writing and general language courses, intercultural communication, and sociolinguistics. His research interests include Japanese/English sociopragmatics, intercultural communication education, and stakeholder experiences studying abroad. Tuba Alkanat Akman is a senior expert in charge of Erasmus Exchange programs at Kocaeli University's International Relation Unit. She obtained her master’s degree in Public Administration from the same university. Her research interests include Erasmus mobility, English as a Lingua Franca, and bilateral agreement. Vasilica Mocanu is an early-stage career researcher in Applied Linguistics and an assistant professor at the University of Salamanca. In 2019, she received her doctoral degree from the Universitat de Lleida, Spain. Vasilica has been a visit­ ing research fellow at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada (2017) and the Institute of Multilingualism – University of Fribourg, Switzerland (2018). Wan Qun is a PhD candidate at National Higher Education Research Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). She works as a Lecturer and Deputy Director of the International Department of the College of Chinese & ASEAN Arts, China, after receiving her MA in teaching Chinese to speakers of other languages from Sichuan University, China, in 2011.

xiv

List of contributors

Wang Ting, born in China, is a PhD candidate at National Higher Education Research Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia. She is a lecturer and director of the International Student Affairs Office at the School of International Edu­ cation, Jiangsu Maritime Institute, China. In 2012, she obtained her MA from the University of Bayreuth, Germany. Wendong Marco Li is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Education, University of Macau. His research interests include language policy and planning, language socialization, and Chinese as an additional language education. Wiebke Nierste currently works as Coordinator for the Internationalisation of Teacher Education at Justus Liebig University Giessen. She holds a PhD from Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany, in Classical Philology. Yingxin Liu is a lecturer at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CUHK-Shenzhen), China. She obtained her PhD from the Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong, China, specializing in research agenda-setting, academic mobility, graduate employment, and higher education policies. Yovana S. Veerasamy is a US-based Independent Scholar. She holds a PhD from the University of Toledo, OH, USA. She currently researches and publishes in the field of Internationalization policy and serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Intercultural Connector, World Council on Intercultural & Global Competence.

General Introduction Tamilla Mammadova

Every book is a product of its time that fairly depicts some events taking place in a particular location or beyond. The current volume is an attempt to demonstrate the changing scapes of international academic mobility (IAM) in the light of the recently experienced new normal with respect to social, political, economic, edu­ cational, and human factors. Considering that this book project launched early in 2021, it is at the intersection of pre-, within-, and post-pandemic times that car­ dinally shaped present-day academic mobility all over the globe. When talking about different time frames of international academic mobility, a paper by Rahul Choudaha (2017) on “three waves of international student mobility” comes to my mind. Choudaha analyses how external events have influenced the choices and preferences of globally mobile students, roughly dividing the time frame in accor­ dance with three major historical events: (1) the terroristic attacks of 2001 in the USA; (2) the global financial recession in 2008 that prompted many US universities to become proactive in recruiting international students; and, (3) the wake of Brexit and the American presidential election back in 2016. Already in 2021, Choudaha suggests the fourth wave that is tightly linked with the global pandemic that erupted as a result of COVID-19. Considering the recent fast-paced events, mainly pandemics, wars, natural disasters, economic instability, rapid technological progression, natural hazards, and other frequently-occurring accidents, it is hard to talk about any specific period or wave of academic mobility. Notably, newly appeared forms of mobility as a part of internationalization, i.e., internationalization abroad, internalization at home, and internationalization at a distance, make us think of its various forms and affecting factors. What is evident is that within the last two decades, international academic mobility has become one of the fast-growing and dynamic phenomena in higher education. Millions of students dream about crossing geo­ graphical borders to see life from different perspectives, find new friends, and gain international experience that includes the expansion of core and soft skills and other benefits. Likewise, numerous educational stakeholders, including faculty and administration, see academic mobility as an opportunity to broaden their professional and personal horizons. In responding to the growing need to improve Higher Education policy around the globe, the core objectives of inter­ national academic mobility concentrate on having benefitted the stakeholders DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-1

2

General Introduction

educationally, linguistically, and culturally; promoting cooperation between institutions; and contributing to the development of a pool of well-qualified, open-minded and internationally experienced present and future professionals (European Commission, 2008). However, practice shows that the present-day objectives of IAM go far beyond those already existing, and this, in turn, sets the ground for new investigations and research in this direction. Hence, considering all the features and aspects of academic mobility, the demand for books that reveal the lived experiences of international academic mobility would be main­ tained for a considerably long time. In contrast, this book is just a small project of an extensive study to enhance international global education. Considering the aftermath, we could not get past the cases of academic mobility in a time of global pandemics that cardinally reshaped the image of international mobility. In turn, this gave rise to the study of distance inter­ nationalization, not a new term, but relatively popular in the light of recent changes. Thus, the current volume aims to understand how mobility looks in different contexts with respect to its key concepts—identity construction and multilingualism, intercultural sensitivity, and cultural engagement. The critical asset of the present book is that it offers a range of authentic studies, reviews, and cases; approaches the content in the global sense; demonstrates the experi­ ences of international mobility actors inside and outside Anglo-European countries; investigates the IAM in the understanding of external and internal factors; and juxtaposes traditional mobility with a new virtual one. Finally, the current multidisciplinary book does not only discuss the students but other parties in the educational process. The volume is divided into three parts. Consisting of nine chapters, Part One, Language Development and Identity Construction within International Mobility, concentrates on traditional issues during academic mobility, mainly the degree of students’ language development, cultural awareness of the host countries, and identity construction. In the first chapter, Tamilla Mammadova investigates the impact of international mobility programs on fostering European identity among students of CIS countries. The author tries to identify the degree to which students relate themselves to the European community upon completion of a 3–18 months’ exchange program with respect to their linguistic and cultural competencies. Recently, it has been suggested that the dominance of the English language as an ELF within mobility exchange programs impedes the learning of local languages, which will be examined in the following two chapters. In their chapter on the Englishization of higher education on exchange students’ attitudes toward local languages, Mahmut Mert, Tuba Alkanat, and Dogan Yuksel examine the attitudes of Turkish students participating in Erasmus exchange programs towards learning the local languages and culture. Anna Becker aims to understand further the role of Englishization in promoting international education to Swiss national students with various linguistic backgrounds. Having juxtaposed the linguistic experiences of national and international students in a single location, the author tries to demonstrate the challenges that national students experience due to expected national language skills compared to global peers. A case study by Ruochen Ning

General Introduction 3 examines the attitudes and identity construction of Chinese students in Catalonia. The author reveals the predominant factors in building new identities and linguistics repertoires. In her comparative analysis of the role of the linguistic and cultural settings, Vasilica Mocanu argues that language learning, as a part of a study abroad, is affected by several sociolinguistic factors, among which the host context plays a crucial role. Adopting a cross-national approach, the author com­ pares and contrasts students’ sojourns in Northern, Eastern, and Southern Eur­ opean contexts. In contrast, Wendong Marco Li reviews the findings of a longitudinal research project that investigates the mobility and socialization of international students in China, emphasizing their identity construction, social network transformation, and language and literacy socialization. Gavin Furukawa and Mitsuyo Sakamoto address the issue of language and identity construction from the point of view of Japanese returnees. The authors show how these stu­ dents construct themselves as English users in a country known for its lack of citizens with strong English skills, their position in society, and the challenges they face due to changing identities. Meantime, Preeti Vayada argues that students’ strong national and international identity traits may stimulate the educational stakeholders to involve students in student partnership programs. The author suggests that many universities in Australia have adopted the student-partnership approach as a quality imperative to enhance teaching and learning. In turn, this creates further opportunities for new forms of exchange partnerships among uni­ versities. The book’s first part terminates with Sezen Arslan’s chapter which sug­ gests that student mobility programs are believed to empower students’ intercultural awareness. However, sometimes students’ mobility experiences may end up with something other than intercultural understanding, reinforcing stereo­ types about this or that country. The author suggests supporting academic staff who teach in international higher education settings. Being aware of students’ dif­ ferent identities will help to encourage diversity. As a result, culturally sustaining pedagogy is said to guide the staff towards effective management of international mobility programs. Part Two, entitled International Academic Mobility in the Light of Global Pandemics, investigates the ups and downs of academic mobility in the context of travel policies, program coordination, network capital, as well as cross-cultural and linguistic perceptions in times of uncertainty. The chapters examine the gen­ eral challenges most students and stakeholders in various disciplines faced at the time when governments imposed regulated and restrictive lockdowns. Yingxin Liu and Ai Tam Le review the general travel policy restrictions and their impacts on international student mobility during COVID-19 in Australia and China, the countries with the most exchange students. The authors contend that despite some proactive steps to minimize the damage from the lockdowns, the pace of tradi­ tional mobility recovery is fairly slow, which echoes the current state of mobility programs. Considering the similar travel restrictions in other countries, Todd J. Allen explores the coordinators’ experiences managing study abroad programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter provides a snapshot of the experi­ ences of the Japanese university and its academic staff facilitating the study abroad

4

General Introduction

program and explores solutions that would facilitate the work of stakeholders during uncertain times. Additionally, the authors Suvi Jokila, Kalypso Filippou, Ella Sirva, and Anne Laiho argue that international students in Finland were unable to gain network capital in a similar way as before the pandemic due to the closure of university facilities and limited possibilities to socialize. Neither could they gain friends and establish contacts, which is important for future academic collaborations, i.e., one of the key goals of international academic mobility, according to the European Commission (2018). Besides, cross-cultural and lin­ guistic competencies widely discussed in the first part of the current volume are no longer enhanced as a result of isolation and border closure. Thereby, Mostafa Boieblan’s inductive thematic analysis is a vehicle for understanding the develop­ ment of students’ linguistic and cross-cultural competencies in Spain during COVID-19. To minimize the potential decrease in students’ academic involvement, Hieu Kieu makes useful suggestions on promoting active learning to international students using student engagement and a student-centered approach to ESL stu­ dents coming to the after-COVID universities in the UK. The author contends that one way to engage students is by creating a pedagogical space for students to conceptualize their prior language knowledge, academic convention, and practices. In turn, this could be applied to any discipline and study field. Authors Janet H. Davis, Gemma Delicado Puerto, Kyle Rausch, Megan Cris-an Sijo James, Janessa Marie Rojas, Juan Manuel Rodríguez Tello, and Jesus M. Lavado-Garcia end the second part of the book. Having revived the virtual exchange, mainly collaborative online international learning, COIL, as an alternative way for medical students to collaborate during COVID-19, the authors demonstrate international partner col­ laboration to offer place-bound students a global experience. The chapter is an excellent liaison to Part Three, which promotes Emerging Distance Inter­ nationalization as a new paradigm of International Academic Mobility in a new era of international academic mobility, i.e., a post-pandemic one. Five chapters of the third part promote technology-based mobility as a supplementary form of traditional mobility exchange programs and as a new form of international aca­ demic mobility. While some authors review the distance internationalization in the sense of globalization of higher education, others prepare the stakeholders for lit­ eracy practices, intercultural sensitivity, and virtual peer support. It should be mentioned that distance learning, and to some extent, distance mobility, is not a new concept. However, we see it as reviving in light of the strong necessity to maintain education, collaboration, and mobility exchange during uncertain times and beyond. In this vein, Muhammad Muftahu, Wan Qun, and Wang Ting review the perplexing terms related to virtual mobility and distance internationalization. The chapter discusses the connotation and characteristics of distance inter­ nationalization, the third type of higher education internationalization after for­ eign internationalization and domestic internationalization. Yovana Veerasamy sees distance internationalization as a part of virtual mobility, or a virtual exchange. The author uses qualitative research to share participants’ input on developing intercultural competence during virtual collaborations. Moreover, the author emphasizes the role of internationalization at a distance within the

General Introduction 5 international students’ mobility program as a means to enhance learners’ aware­ ness of new cultures, languages, and environments before physical mobility. Malin Reljanovic Glimäng, Cecilia Magadán, and Katarzyna Radke focus on an inter­ national virtual exchange between university student groups in Argentina, Poland, and Sweden. The authors suggest that online collaboration anchored in real-world issues provides a dynamic space for constructing and reassessing knowledge from glocal perspectives and reflecting critically on the use of digital tools and how to make meaning in online cross-cultural dialogue beyond verbal language. In turn, the virtual exchange is supported by Martin Parsons, Mikel Garant, Mariolaía Ruiz Rodríguez, and Beatriz Martín-Gascón. Their chapter presents the develop­ ment of an action research project, focusing on a transnational video-exchange project between students in Japan, China, and Spain. The project described in this chapter attempts to find a way to provide EFL students with extracurricular lan­ guage activities through a virtual exchange of student-produced videos focused on students’ own culture. Emilia Alonso-Marks and Siphokazi Magadla analyze the development of intercultural sensitivity during a collaborative online international learning-COIL project between the USA and South African students. The project is based on the pedagogies of discomfort that can be used in virtual exchange to develop sensitivity and individual and social transformation. Finally, the third part is concluded by Kathrin Wild, Wiebke Nierste, Katrin Kaiser, and Nina Dasouqi who present the initiatives of four German projects funded by the DAAD that aim at enhancing student mobility as a part of teacher education faculty. A variety of short- and long-term virtual projects are said to be paramount in fostering a cli­ mate conducive to further collaborations both online and in real dimensions. Overall, the current collection aims to understand the present-day challenges, achievements, and failures of international student mobility from different per­ spectives. The authors tend to reveal the main gaps in the issue and suggest possible solutions to be treated by the agents. This will help to introduce necessary modifications to the image of international mobility that would cater to the realities of the current era. In this respect, the book does not aim to focus on a particular mobility program but rather treats international mobility as a unified concept in its broad sense. Of course, there are many more voices to hear and many more studies to conduct with respect to academic mobility in various locations and fields. So, I believe further publications will continue the tradition and present IAM from other diverse perspectives.

References European Commission. (2008). Common European principles for teacher competencies and qualifications. http://www.seeeducoop.net/education_in/pdf/01-en_principles_en.pdf. European Commission. (2018). Standard Eurobarometer 89, European citizenship. http://ec. europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/ 83538. Rahul, Choudaha (2017) Three waves of international student mobility (1999–2020). Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 825–832, doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1293872.

Part I

Language Development and Identity Construction within International Mobility The first part of the volume, Language Development and Identity Construction within International Mobility, studies the degree of students’ language development, their cultural awareness of the host countries, and identity construction. Considering the critical goals of international mobility programs, mainly the Westernization and Europeanization of education, the chapters seek to understand the tendencies of changing identities and newly instilled values and beliefs. Some chapters appraise the role of minor (local) languages in identity formation, yet, most of the local languages are said to be oppressed by more significant languages, which impede the natural identity construction of host students. The scholars also discuss the impact of Englishization on exchange students’ attitudes toward other languages, both within national and interna­ tional mobility. Intercultural awareness is another asset to promote adequate academic mobility. While some chapters adopt a cross-national approach to examine the expectations from the sojourn in various geographic contexts, others demonstrate the cultural and linguistic impact of mobility exchange programs on students’ self-positioning on their return home. The current part ends with some practical chapters that promote stakeholders’ cross-cultural partnerships where students are said to be knowledge holders. A culturally sustaining pedagogy is a relatively new approach to foster awareness of aca­ demic staff and all other stakeholders towards different cultures and linguistic backgrounds to create a climate conducive to effective academic mobility in a global sense.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-2

1

Shaping European Identity via Mobility Exchange Programs for CIS Country Students Tamilla Mammadova

Introduction It has become quite common to write about education in the countries of the former Soviet Union, while very few would term most of them CIS countries or the Commonwealth of Independent States formed as a response to the Soviet Union collapse back in 1991. Of course, not all countries of the former Soviet Union rushed to join the CIS, yet it currently includes nine countries, including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Interestingly, due to a shared history, one country can be considered an epitome of another (Mammadova, 2020, p. 32); in many senses, education is no exception. In line with a shared desire to manage the Soviet breakup and preserve many of the pre-existing economic, political, and military ties among the former Soviet republics, a general understanding of the importance of transforming the educational system as a necessary prerequisite for societal changes was widespread from the beginning (Kubicek, 2009). An adequate evaluation of the ways and methods to imple­ ment Western education projects in countries of those regions was vital, and one of the ways to quickly integrate into those projects was participation in mobility programs measured as a tool to develop internalization. Today, many students participate in various EU mobility programs, with Erasmus Mundus and Erasmus Plus1 being the most popular. These programs have injected new life into the educational process and have become a mainstream motivation for many students. On the other hand, the idea of mobility program participation currently goes far beyond its initial state. Very few would notice (Kinginger, 2015; Oborune, 2015; Baker, 2016; Llurda et al., 2016, etc.) that the programs have also some­ times been referred to as the most potent tools of European integration. While the topic of European integration and European identity has become an issue of intense debate, especially in the new EU member-states (Oborune, 2015), this chapter seeks to investigate the impact of international mobility programs on fostering European identity among students of the CIS countries, Azerbaijan being under the current study.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-3

10

Tamilla Mammadova

European Identity through the lens of Europeans Europe is a cultural reality that spreads well beyond the boundaries of the European Union. Europe is commonly identified with the European Union (Guibernau, 2011), born out of preventing further wars in Europe (European Commission, 2018). Guibernau (2011) mentions that when people refer to “European integration”, “European citizenship and laws”, “European institu­ tion” or the generation of “European identity”, they usually employ the term “European” to refer to the process of consolidation and greater lead by the European Union (EU). While Cuyvers (2017) provides a general overview of the EU formation from the very first days up to the present, Wellings and Power (2015, p. 26) term the EU a place where Europeans can enjoy a unique diversity of culture, ideas, and traditions in a Union covering four million square kilo­ meters. Pryke (2020, p. 95) contends that the founders of the EU aimed to establish institutions and laws to integrate European nation-states. In their effort to find some commonalities shared by those who call themselves “Europeans”, many scholars and politicians have turned to defend the idea that what unites Europeans is the sharing of specific cultures and values which dif­ ferentiate them from other peoples, more crucially, from Eastern peoples (Gui­ bernau, 2011, p. 32). Today the EU considers its “linguistic and cultural diversity part and parcel of the European identity, as it is at once shared heritage, a wealth, a challenge and an asset for Europe” (Cenoz et al., 2011, p. 84). A large body of literature defines those characteristics that would make Europe stand out from other formations. Burgess (1997) identifies a different way of life between East and West, while Guibernau (2011) emphasizes Europe’s specific cultural, traditional, and political heritage. It is also known for the impact of Christianity and a solid system of values (Faltin & Wright, 2007). In turn, McCormick (2010, p. 17) identifies the following characteristics and values: cosmopolitanism, com­ munitarianism, collective societies, welfarism, sustainable development, a refined family, working to live, criminal rights, secularism, and perpetual peace. Though the idea of a European identity emerged long before intending to overcome divisions between and stereotypes towards different countries within Europe, Hebermas, back in 2011, suggested building a strong European identity that would stand for a sense of shared identity and common belong­ ing. Identity formation is one of the most important developmental tasks throughout the lifespan (Jugert et al., 2019). Barret (2007) highlights the importance of fostering European identity among adolescents, explaining that this is a decisive period for developing group identities as a context-related pattern of identity development becomes more pronounced in this period of life. In support, Savvides (2006) suggests that one can create a European identity only by teaching it to pupils. The author argues that knowl­ edge of certain school curriculum subjects would contribute most to developing pupils’ sense of European identity. This is generally achieved by teaching His­ tory, Geography, Languages, Economics, Arts, and Physical education, the first three disciplines being stressed. Guibernau (2011, p. 40) claims that European

Shaping European Identity via Mobility

11

identity relies on the shared consciousness of belonging to an economic and political space by capitalism, social welfare, liberal democracy, respect for human rights, freedom, and the rule of law, prosperity, and progress. Overall, the chapter will keep to a general definition of a European identity which relies on the shared consciousness of belonging to an economic and political space by capitalism, social welfare, liberal democracy, respect for human rights, freedom, and the rule of law, prosperity, and progress (Guibernau, 2011, p. 40), where people can enjoy a diversity of culture, ideas, and traditions (Wellings & Power, 2015) in a Union with a new type of political entity and with a different kind of legitimation (Pryke, 2020).

Study Abroad Programs and a European Identity Student mobility has come to occupy an increasingly prominent position in higher education (Baker, 2016, p. 438) and can be perceived as the most pro­ found and inspiring event in a young person’s life (Himelfarb & Shamil, 2011). Participation in a mobility program has become a dream of many students who apply to various student exchange programs where Europe is a frequent desti­ nation. A large body of literature investigates the role of mobility program implementation2 among university students pointing to various aims and objectives. However, as time changes, objectives also change. In the year 1996, the European Commission allocated three explicit objectives to the experience of spending a few months studying in another European country: to benefit students educationally, linguistically, and culturally; to promote cooperation between institutions; to contribute to the development of a pool of well-quali­ fied, open-minded and internationally experienced future professionals. Already in 2008, mobility programs aimed to promote lifelong learning, encourage access to education for everybody, and help people acquire recognized qualifi­ cations and skills (European Commission, 2008). In 2014 the European Com­ mission delineated new aims that included building international networks, active participation in society, and the development of a sense of citizenship and European identity. Papatsiba (2006) contends that since the start of the Erasmus program in 1987, one of the main rationales of European student exchange programs in higher education has been to promote a sense of European identity and citizenship among its participants. This objective is still included in the newly established Erasmus Plus program (2014–2020), besides other aims such as fostering intercultural competencies or boosting the employability of parti­ cipating students (Van Mol, 2018, p. 449). This idea is also supported by Gon­ zales et al. (2011, p. 414), who believe that student mobility is a prime mechanism to foster a sense of a European identity and citizenship. Having addressed the Erasmus Mundus program, mentioned in nearly all research papers on students’ mobility, West and Barham (2009) suggest that the program has been considerably developed and encourages outgoing mobility of European students and scholars towards third countries and vice versa. Today, there is a large number of non-EU mobility students who temporarily attend European

12

Tamilla Mammadova

universities. That complicates the definition of a European identity in the sense of the origins of Europe (Llurda et al., 2016, p. 324), making it possible to approach it from a different perspective where European identity would be understood as a socially constructed feeling of belonging to the European community based on shared interests and experiences (Oborune, 2015, p. 78). The approach to fostering European identity among mobility students is sampled in various ways. In their paper which studies how languages affect the formation of identities, Cubillos and Ilvento (2018, p. 252) suggest that inter­ cultural contact involves the type of personal encounters that affect our identi­ fication with the L1 and L2 communities. These encounters have the power to shape how we view ourselves and the value we assign to our own culture in relation to the culture of the L2 community. Some scholars simply believe that exchange students become more European throughout their exchange (Mitchell, 2012; Ambrosi, 2013; as cited in Van Mol, 2018). Choudaha (2017, p. 831) contends that while interest in gaining global educational experience remains strong, the needs and profile of students continue to change. Van Mol (2018) expects that by traveling abroad, exchange students might experience more directly the influence of Europe on their daily life through, for example, the right of freedom of movement and the possibility of paying with a single coin in different EU member-states. That could work well for European students who acknowledge a single currency and a common political institution (Guibernau, 2011). To foster a European identity among non-EU exchange students is also possible, yet it would acquire a new connotation. It is not enough to get the students to a foreign country or to add a few peripheral cultural enhancements as supplements to regular academic courses. The study abroad curriculum must truly become the focus of meaningful cross-cultural explorations: the kind of transformational learning that is likely to fundamentally reshape how partici­ pants view themselves (Cubillos & Ilvento, 2018, p. 262) and whether they desire to integrate into European society. Language may also be a key barrier to acquiring a new identity. Without sufficient proficiency in the language, students may be unable to construct and express their desired identity (Kinginger, 2015). Sometimes, misusing linguistic particles (Mammadova, 2021) may cause embar­ rassment and alienate the speaker from communication. Therefore, the chapter aims to understand the underlying conditions to foster European identity among non-EU students, focusing on students from CIS countries. Drawing on the literature earlier reviewed, we may think of four hypotheses on the relationship between CIS student exchange and the formation of Eur­ opean identity. First, we may expect some students to refrain from identifying with local “host” communities as this would differ significantly from their own communities (Baker, 2016). In addition, students’ constant interaction with members from their home community on-site, and with members from their social network back home through social media, may significantly reduce the amount and quality of interaction with local people (Cubillos & Ilvento, 2018), which would prevent integration into the European community. Second, we may expect that as a result of diverse political, economic, cultural, and social

Shaping European Identity via Mobility

13

life, national and European identity would be less associated in countries with a communist past (Jugert et al., 2019). Third, study abroad programs can highlight students’ identity, and when some students encounter perplexing differences, their reaction is to recoil into a sense of national superiority (Kinginger, 2015, p. 8). Finally, we may expect exchange students to increase their identification with Europe over the longer duration of their exchange experience (Jugert et al., 2019). This differentiation is based on the distinction between long-term (one year and above) and short-term (less than six months) programs. Hence the current chapter tends to find answers to the following questions: 1 2 3

How do CIS mobility exchange students perceive a European identity? To what extent has the identity perception of CIS mobility students chan­ ged towards a European identity after participating in a program? What is the impact of mobility exchange programs on shaping a European identity among CIS country students?

Discussion of Methodological Approach The current chapter highlights a part of a larger project investigating the impact of mobility exchange programs on shaping a “new” European identity among CIS country exchange students. We focus on developing an enhanced European iden­ tity and awareness of the concept of European citizenship through preliminary focus group discussion and a survey. In recent years, a large body of research focused on fostering a European identity among the students of EU memberstates. These studies were mainly conducted among Catalan, German, Spanish, Swiss, and Polish students (Oborune, 2015; Llurda et al., 2016; Cubillos & Ilvento, 2018; Rodriguez-Izquierdo, 2018; Van Mol, 2018; etc.) with the focus on students’ linguistic competences, labor market, cross-cultural communication, university education, post-university career, identity, etc. However, none of these studies has yet explored how CIS country students who participated in mobility exchange programs experienced aspects of the notion of European identity and whether the specific notion of European identity develops after a stay in Europe. The chapter is based on two waves of a focus group discussion among undergraduate students who study in Azerbaijan and apply to mobility exchange programs and an online survey administered by the author to those stu­ dents who returned from one of the mobility exchange programs held in a Eur­ opean country within the last nine months prior to the survey (2019–2020). The data collected at first stage was mainly used to design some specific questions for the survey, and will not be treated in the results section. International mobility is realized within the frames of the Erasmus Plus project for CIS countries and sev­ eral university-wide exchange programs based on university partnerships. According to the Erasmus Plus annual report (2019), the number of outbound students traveling from EU countries to partner EU countries is reasonably lower than the inbound student mobility from partner countries (CIS) to the

14

Tamilla Mammadova

program countries (EU): e.g., a) 4,668 EU students to EU countries vs. 5,347 CIS students to EU countries. To illustrate the movement of students from EU countries to CIS countries and in opposite direction, here is an example from Euro Commission 2018: E.g. b) ratio = 21.8 outbound CIS mobility vs. = 2.2 inbound CIS mobility. Each year the number of university partnership programs in Azerbaijan augments, and today it reaches up to 51 programs in 24 countries, with Erasmus Plus standing as a separate scholarship program with a list of EU countries for CIS students. The duration of each program ranges from three months up to 18 months. To ensure clarity in the sense of European geographic boundaries (Guibernau, 2011, p. 32), the project focuses only on member-state countries of the EU. This means that we will treat the data collected from 82 (out of 110) undergraduate students who visited the EU member-state countries, and will ignore the data collected from students who spent time in Turkey (n=8), Russia (n=5), the UK (n=4), and the US (n=3) and 13 students who are not the residents of one of the CIS countries. Overall, we will consider 82 students who are local Azerbaijani students/residents and other CIS country students who currently reside in Azerbaijan to obtain a complete bachelor’s degree. Our undergraduate students from Azerbaijan (n=59), Belarus (n=3), Kazakhstan (n=5), Kyrgyzstan (n=4), Moldova (n=3), Russia (n=4), Tajikistan (n=2), and Uzbekistan (n=2) have recently returned from a mobility exchange program in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, and Spain. In the first round, the students were invited to participate in a focus group discussion where each student had to name up to five significant expectations on visiting a European country. The answers were recorded, and an average mean for each option was calculated. The survey was administered to students within the last nine months after their return to their home country. Students were reached via email by the senior administrator from the department of Global Outreach and Partnership. As all students participating in mobility exchange programs must have a minimum B2 level of English language competence, the survey was designed in English only and submitted by students within 12 days. The survey questions were sourced from the study conducted by Llurda et al. (2016), and included students’ responses provided in the focus group discussion. Three variables that have been indicated to correlate with European identity are included as control variables in the regression analyses. First, a general component of students’ cognitive perception of being a European is measured by a continuous variable (Van Mol, 2018), as non-EU students find Europe a better place to live in terms of political, economic, and social well-being. Second, a variable indicating the cultural component of students’ cognitive identification (Van Mol, 2018). Finally, these two were compared to the dura­ tion of students’ stay in one of the EU countries since the development of a national and/or a European identity is a long-term process (Jugert et al., 2019). To analyze the data with respect to a mean, standard deviation, and p-value, we used SPSS software (V.23.0). To compare the respondents’ answers, the

Shaping European Identity via Mobility

15

software for statistical analysis that highlighted the similarities and differ­ ences in the respondents’ answers was used. Thus, we could calculate the χ2 (chi-square) and the p-value3 of the results, significant proportion indicators, and statistical differences upon the necessity. A qualitative analysis of the open questions was also carried out.

Discussion of the Findings Table 1.1 provides descriptive statistics of the respondents’ age, verbal behavior, and self-awareness during their stay abroad. The English language is reported to be a language of everyday communication in 93.9% and a language of academic instruction in 98.8%, which indicates students have no or little input with respect to the state language of the EU member-state. The ambiguity of the results related to the social interaction of the respondents justifies a substantial use of English as a medium of instruction and communication since most of the interaction is fulfilled with EU exchange students (46.3%), less with non-EU exchange students (25.6%) and students from home country (18.3%), and only 7.3% interaction with local citizens. This is in line with Cubillos and Ilvento (2018, p. 251) and proves the first hypothesis on students’ persistent interaction with members from their home community on-site and with members from their social network back home through social media, which significantly reduces the amount and quality of interaction with the target community. Most respondents explain the minimum interaction with the local citizens by several factors. This includes a language barrier, adaptation problems, home­ sickness, being accepted as a stranger, unawareness of the respondent’s country of origin by locals, and hospitality issues. Consistent with Baker (2016, p. 444), the results prove that there is a tendency to view communities and cultures in terms of students’ home culture and the host culture, where only 34.1% of the respondents admit feeling completely home during their stay abroad. Table 1.1 terminates with respondents’ average age rate scoring at 24.5. Table 1.1 Descriptive statistics Categories

%

English as a language of everyday communication English as a language of academic instruction Social interaction with local citizens

93.9 98.8 7.3

Min

Max

n

1 1

9 3

77 81 6

Social interaction with non-EU exchange students

25.6

21

Social interaction with EU exchange students

46.3

38

Social interaction with students from home

18.3

15

Felling completely home during a mobility period-country Age Mean 24.5

34.1 17 s Min 3.5 20

37 Max 35

28 n 82

16

Tamilla Mammadova

General Perception of a European Identity To understand the respondents’ general perception of European identity, key identity-defining features were generated (see Table 1.2). Language being perceived as the key feature of cultural identity (Cenoz et al., 2011, p. 85), the significance of multilingualism as an integral component of a European identity has been sup­ ported by 70.7% of the respondents. On the calculation of the p-value, we observe a statistically significant difference in respondents’ opinions, as 29.3% of the respondents do not consider multilingualism a critical feature of a European iden­ tity. We observe similar results regarding the statement suggesting Europeans having a clearly defined identity (72%). To further investigate those similarities, respondents indicated the features that would best unify Europeans. Having cal­ culated the mean that scores higher than 37.85, the results suggest that most Eur­ opeans share the same values (68.3%), visions (53.7%), and beliefs (46.3%). Additionally, the calculation of the mean, which is significant at 43.9, suggests that to be a European means to be independent (80.5%), open-minded (78%), free and democratic (72%), tolerant to others (56.1%), adaptive to new environments (48.8%) and self-confident. To some extent, these characteristics may not fit the general understanding of being a European suggested by western scholars, yet, Kinginger (2015, p. 17) anticipated “students who go abroad to discover their own image in the eyes of their hosts, and sometimes this image is in various ways out­ rageous”. In contrast, European identity, known as a supranational identity, is associated with greater trust and tolerance (Jugert et al., 2019). Finally, considering the mean number higher than 25.9, six characteristics of Europe are suggested in the order that follows: social welfare (33.5); mobility (32); democratic values (29), cultural level (28); economic power (28); and common views (27.5). That exactly matches the findings of Guibernau (2011) and Cuyvers (2017), who define the EU as a dynamic political institution, which since its inception has experienced a dra­ matic expansion and growth in terms of territory and citizen number coupled with increasing wealth, stability, productivity, influence, and international presence. Having pulled all these characteristics together, we may consider a provisional definition of a European identity given by the CIS citizens: A European Identity relates to the individual defined as an independent, open-minded, adaptive, self-confident, and tolerant human being, ordinarily multilingual, that positions themselves [singular] toward a culture or group of people who share similar visions, values, and beliefs. Students’ Cognitive Identification On the individual level, national identity could have been better related to a European identity, with only 7.3% of the respondents having reshaped their mindset toward Western civilization. Most students (62.2%) admit that they identify with their own nationality, and more than a quarter (26.8%) of the respondents position themselves as global citizens. To spot the statistically

Shaping European Identity via Mobility

17

Table 1.2 Students’ cognitive perception of being a European χ2

Categories

%

p-value

Significance of multilingualism

agree disagree

70.7 29.3

P< 0.0001

4.8293

Clearly defined European identity

agree disagree Categories all

72 28 Mean 37.85

P< 0.0001

3.5185

%

n

culture

32.9

27

values

68.3

56

beliefs

46.3

38

religion

26.8

22

visions

53.7

44

Categories all

Mean 43.9

Min 12

People in Europe share the same…

To be a European means… Significant at 43.9

%

n

to be tolerant to others

56.1

46

to be independent

80.5

66

to be self-confident

45.1

37

to be adaptive to new environments to be open-minded

48.8

40

78

64

72

59

Mean

Min

to be free and democratic Characteristics of Europe

Mean > 25.9 II III

Min 17

Categories

Max 68

Max 81

Max

Mobility

32

2

30

Democratic values

29

0

30

I

Social welfare

33.5

1

39

IV

Cultural level

28

1

24

IV

Economic power

28

0

34

Multilingualism

V

22

0

24

Traditions

16.5

2

12

Beliefs

16.5

8

14

Views

27.5

3

33

18

Tamilla Mammadova

significant differences across the options, we calculated the p-value of the two responses compared to the national identification. The results demonstrate that statistically significant differences occur between the national identification and the identification with Europe (p=0.0001) and the national identity versus global citi­ zenship (p = 0.0001). Having justified the second hypothesis, this goes in line with the research conducted by Jugert et al. (2019), where the scholars compare German and Czech respondents towards their association with European identity. We identified that the nations that share the communist past are less likely to acknowledge their identification with Europe. Similarly, some students may iden­ tify themselves with a range of local (national), European, and/or globally oriented identities, or they may equally pertain to any of these (Baker, 2016). In contrast, Kinginger (2015) revealed that study abroad often highlights students’ own identity and that when some students encounter perplexing differences, their reaction is to recoil into a sense of national superiority. Consequently, the respondents’ sense of belonging to the national identity showcased in 62.2% does not falsify the third hypothesis (see Table 1.3 in the Appendix). Although the previous analysis shows a slight correlation between the respon­ dents with the European identity, one-fourth still consider themselves a part of the EU. Table 1.4 (see Appendix) demonstrates respondents’ associations with the EU in terms of language, culture, politics, traditions, and mental belonging. To obtain the most common component that would associate with the EU, we have calcu­ lated the mean for each option and extracted the average point equal to 16.5. The results demonstrate that since identity is always present within a language (Baker, 2016, p. 443), those students who associate themselves with Europe often resort to their linguistic competence (21.5) and mental belonging (27). Traditional values remain the least associative with a European identity. In this respect, emphasizing the role of languages in Europe, Llurda et al. (2016) contend that Europe emerges as a linguistically and culturally diverse space where knowing English is helpful but recognized as not enough (see Table 1.4 in the Appendix). Interestingly, the majority of students admit to being well-informed about the EU. The correlation between well-informed and poorly-informed respondents is significantly different (p=0.0001) and stipulates the respondents’ awareness of EU processes. Finally, considering identity development a lengthy process (Jugert et al., 2019), yet acknowledging the partial impact of mobility programs on students’ identity transformations (Byram, 2008; Llurda et al., 2016; Cubillos & Ilvento, 2018), three options are identified: students who feel more European on comple­ tion of the mobility program (29.4%); students who feel a bit European (51.2%); and those students who believe that nothing changed. This matches the literature advocating for a gradual transformation that accumulates with time. Impact of Student Mobility Programs on Identity Transformation The data analysis demonstrates that on rejecting the possibility of acquiring a new identity (63.4%), most of the respondents believe in gaining the following characteristics upon completing a mobility program. As seen from Table 1.5 (in

Shaping European Identity via Mobility

19

the Appendix), being more independent and aware of new cultures are scoring the highest, which fits with students’ individual approaches to identity issues. To test the hypothesis based on the distinction between long-term and shortterm “stay” effect, the respondents’ opinion on the impossibility of identity to change is correlated with the duration of their stay abroad in frames of a mobility exchange program (see Table 1.6 in the Appendix). The correlation between 82.9% of those who stayed abroad less than six months with the idea that national identity never changes is statistically insignificant at p=0.020961. Similarly, the correlation between the duration of stay longer than six months with the idea that national identity is capable of changing is equally insignificant at p=0.006309. The results confirm the fourth hypothesis based on a strong correlation between the duration of stay and identity-changing tendencies. It suggests that the longer the stay is, the more probable the identity-changing tendency is. In addition, some respondents pointed out the most typical identity features that would change/ evolve due to students’ participation in mobility exchange programs. Interaction with Europeans means you will be affected by other peoples’ opinions with respect to their beliefs and values. Providing that you make many European friends and travel along the EU countries during the mobility period, you may experience the EU values, gradually shifting your identity towards the EU. Mobility programs help you experience the world from a different perspective. Overall consideration of the answers to the open-ended question concentrate on the following concept: Due to the fact that most of us happen to see life from different perspectives, i.e., acknowledging new cultures, different lifestyles, and different approaches to the environment, our identities are capable of changing in many ways. The longer you stay, the more you change. But this applies just to those who want to change and evolve. Otherwise, you are devoted to your core values, visions, and beliefs. On the other hand, culture never changes.

Conclusion The chapter has explored how CIS students who participated in the mobility exchange program experienced aspects of European identity. We revealed that the perception of a new “European identity” is linked to factors such as duration of stay, students’ perception of citizenship, their interaction with European people, and awareness of the EU. Overall, we intended to answer three research questions. The first research question focused on how CIS students perceive a European identity. The chapter showcases that due to different political, economic, and cultural

20

Tamilla Mammadova

lifestyles, the perception of a European Identity by CIS students differs from that suggested by European scholars who build their studies on the data collected from the European participants. This can be mainly observed with respect to a definition of a European identity generated from the respondents’ answers that at first sight looks somewhat exaggerated and even surrealistic for any state or a union, and would ideally describe “the grass is greener” position. Oborune (2015) explains that such an approach proves that identity can be understood differently in different countries, and the country of origin has a crucial impact on the case of European identity. The second research question focused on the extent to which the identity perception of CIS mobility students changed towards a European identity after they participated in a program. We have shown that the development of national and/or European identity is a long-term process (Jugert et al., 2019), and those students who stayed abroad for a relatively short time are less likely to acknowledge the perception of a new identity, though, most of the respondents admitted having their views and visions changed as a result of interaction with European people and experiencing their lifestyle. Moreover, concerning students’ perception of citizenship, their parti­ cipation in the program does seem to strengthen their feelings of belonging to Europe. However, this seldom constitutes an explicit awareness of European identity at the end of their stay abroad (Llurda et al., 2016, p. 327). Finally, the third research question focuses on the impact of mobility exchange programs on shaping a Eur­ opean identity among CIS country students. Opposing Van Mol (2018), who claims that there is no relationship between participation in student exchanges and changes in identification with Europe as a European and as a European citizen, we revealed that European identity may not appear to compete with national identity, but it is an additional identity (Byram, 2008). Moreover, we have witnessed that those students who stayed in the EU longer and interacted more with local citizens and EU exchange students demonstrated higher scores on European self-perception. Providing that the growing evidence that the cultural effects of short-term study abroad programs are not spontaneous and that they vary significantly across subjects and programs (Cubillos & Ilvento, 2018, p. 250), we align with Byram and his study conducted in 2009. It proposes a framework of education for intercultural citizenship to prepare younger generations for globalization and help them acquire a sense of belonging to international communities but with ties to their country of origin. Overall, the results point to an unprecedented role of mobility exchange programs in shaping students’ general identities that gradually would lead to Europeanization. The chapter also has several limitations. First, since the international mobility programs are relatively young projects for the CIS countries, the number of research participants is also small. Secondly, since this is the first research in its nature that investigates students’ attitudes towards a European identity, we focused only on those CIS students who currently reside in Azerbaijan. Finally, due to a small number of inbound mobility exchange students, the research fails to investigate the perception of a new identity by EU students in the CIS countries. Considering all these limitations, there is a strong motivation to pursue this subject and conduct new research much broader in scope. In the next chapters, we will opt to identify the newly-perceived identities by the students residing in some other countries.

Shaping European Identity via Mobility

21

Notes 1 Throughout this book we will be using Erasmus Plus and Erasmus + interchangeably. 2 Despite a large number of international mobility programs, Erasmus Mundus remains one of the most popular. 3 A p-value less than 0.05 (typically ≤ 0.05) would be considered statistically significant.

Appendix Table 1.3 Students’ personal perception of identity Categories

Identification with Europe

Identification with nationality

Identification with a global citizenship

% p-value χ2

7.3 (n=6) < 0.0001 4.96234

62.2 (n=51)

26.8 (n=22) 6 months

17

b

Agree

Disagree

Correlation

63.4

36.6

a. p = 0.020961 b. p = 0.006309

References Ambrosi, G. (2013). The Influence of the ERASMUS Programme on Strengthening a European Identity: Case Studies of Spanish and British Exchange Students. In Feyen, B. & Krzaklewska, E., The ERASMUS Phenomenon – Symbol of a New Generation? (pp. 143–162). Peter Lang. Baker, W. (2016). English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: student mobility in the transcultural university. Language and Intercultural Commu­ nication, 16(3), 437–451. Barrett, M. (2007). Children’s knowledge, beliefs and feelings about nations and national groups. Routledge. Burgess, A. (1997). Divided Europe. Pluto. Byram, M. (2008) From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship. Essays and reflections. Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., Gorter, D., & Heugh, K. (2011). Linguistic Diversity. In Knotter S., De Lobel R., Tsipouri L., & Stenius V. (Eds.) Diversity Research and Policy: A Multi­ disciplinary Exploration (pp. 83–98). Amsterdam University Press. Choudaha, R. (2017). Three waves of international student mobility (1999–2020). Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 825–832. Cubillos, J., & Ilvento, T. (2018). Intercultural Contact in Short-Term Study Abroad Programs. Hispania, 101(2), 249–266. Cuyvers, A. (2017). The Road to European Integration. In Cuyvers, A. et al. (Eds.) East African Community Law: Institutional, Substantive and Comparative EU Aspects (pp. 22–42). Brill. European Commission. (2008). Common European principles for teacher competencies and qualifications. http://www.seeeducoop.net/education_in/pdf/01- en_principles_en.pdf. European Commission. (2018). Standard Eurobarometer 89, European citizenship. http:// ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/Docum entKy/83538. Faltin, L., & Wright, M.J. (2007). The religious roots of contemporary European iden­ tity. Continuum. González, C. R., Mesanza, R. B., & Mariel, P. (2011). The determinants of international student mobility flows: An empirical study on the Erasmus programme. Higher Edu­ cation, 62(4), 413–430. Guibernau, M. (2011). Prospects for a European Identity. International Journal of Poli­ tics, Culture, and Society, 24(1/2), 31–43. Himelfarb, S., & Shamil, I. (2011). Exchange 2.0. Institute of Peace. Jugert, P., Šerek, J., & Stollberg, J. (2019). Contextual moderators of the link between national and European identity among European youth, Journal of Youth Studies, 22 (4), 436–456.

Shaping European Identity via Mobility

23

Kinginger, C. (2015). Student mobility and identity-related language learning. Inter­ cultural Education, 26(1), 6–15. Kubicek, P. (2009). The Commonwealth of Independent States: An Example of Failed Regionalism? Review of International Studies, 35, 237–256. Llurda, E., Gallego-Balsà, L., Barahona, C., & Martin-Rubió, X. (2016). Erasmus stu­ dent mobility and the construction of European citizenship. The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 323–346. Mammadova, T. (2021). Cultural Diversity in Cross-Cultural Settings: A Global Approach. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mammadova, T. (2020). Exploring English language teaching in post-soviet era coun­ tries: perspectives from Azerbaijan. Routledge. McCormick, J. (2010). Europeanism. Oxford University Press. Messer, D., & Wolter, S. C. (2007). Are Student Exchange Programs Worth It? Higher Education, 54(5), 647–663. Mitchell, K. (2012). Student Mobility and European Identity: Erasmus Study as a Civic Experience? Journal of Contemporary European Research, 8, 490–518. Oborune, K. (2015). Becoming More European or European after Erasmus? Politeja, 37, 75–94. Papatsiba, V. (2006). Making Higher Education More European through Student Mobility? Revisiting EU Initiatives in the Context of the Bologna Process. Comparative Education 42(1), 93–111. Pryke, S. (2020). National and European identity, National Identities, 22(1), 91–105. Rodríguez-Izquierdo, R. M. (2018). Intercultural sensitivity among university students: measurement of the construct and its relationship with international mobility pro­ grammes. Cultura y Educación, 30(1), 177–204. Savvides, N. (2006) Developing a European Identity: A case study of the European School at Culham. Comparative Education, 42(1), 113–129. Van Mol, C. (2018). Becoming Europeans: the relationship between student exchanges in higher education, European citizenship and a sense of European identity, Innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31(4), 449–463. Wellings, B., & Power, B. (2015). Euro-myth: Nationalism, war and the legitimacy of the European Union. National Identities, 18(2), 157–177. West, A., & Barham, E. (2009). Student mobility, qualifications, and academic recogni­ tion in the EU. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 25–37.

2

The Impact of Englishization of Higher Education on Exchange Students’ Attitudes Toward Local Languages Mahmut Mert, Tuba Alkanat Akman and Dogan Yuksel

Introduction The chapter focuses on the attitudes of Erasmus Plus students toward learning the local languages during Erasmus+ studies. It also examines the impact of Englishization (i.e., the dominance of English as a Lingua Franca – ELF and English as a medium of instruction) in higher education on Erasmus Plus exchange students’ attitudes and practices regarding the learning of the local languages. The dominance of English and the Englishization of higher education in many parts of the world, especially in Europe (Wilkinson & Gabriëls, 2021), is seen as an obstacle to learning local languages. The spread of English also causes a decrease in learning other foreign languages across Europe (Lanvers, 2014). From a global perspective, formal education is an integral part of the development of knowledge society and economy. In the European context, European Union (EU) gives particular importance to collaboration in the fields of education and labor by setting strategies regarding education and training policies at the European higher education level. In Turkey, we have witnessed exponential growth in the number of students attending Erasmus Plus pro­ grams since its inclusion in 2004, and Erasmus mobility is a significant part of Turkish higher education’s internationalization agenda (Toprak Yıldız, 2022). Previous research from the Turkish context examined the beliefs of exchange students towards Erasmus+ mobility (Ogul, 2018), the Erasmus Plus pro­ gram’s impact on teacher education (Gürel & Aslan, 2022), intercultural competence development of Turkish Erasmus Plus students (Aksay Akgezer et al., 2022) among others. This chapter aims to examine the attitudes and practices of Erasmus exchange students towards learning the local language during their study abroad programs, and explore the impact of Englishization on higher education institutions. Englishization of Higher Education Recent trends of Internationalization and Englishization have influenced higher education institutions (e.g., Toprak, 2019; Galloway et al., 2020; Soler & Rozenvalde, 2021). Internationalization of higher education entails DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-4

The Impact of Englishization on Local Languages

25

an explicit policy adopted by a university, whereby there is an increase in the number of alliances and agreements with universities based in different nation-states around the world and an increase in staff and student-mobility programs such as Erasmus. (Block, 2021, p. 2) Englishization is usually an accompanying factor of the Internationalization process. Englishization of higher education refers to “the introduction of English as the mediator of communication in a range of administrative, curricular and research-related activities” (Block, 2021, p. 2). The following reasons have been suggested for both the Internationalization and Englishization of higher education institutions all over the world (e.g., Hultgren, 2014; Dafouz, 2018): a b c d

the need to attract more domestic and international students; a shift in the aims of universities; competition between public and private sectors; university rankings.

Englishization, in practice, entails using English, mainly at the higher education level, in non-English speaking countries such as Spain, Italy, and Poland, among others. These countries also attract a good number of international students. Erasmus Plus student mobility The Erasmus Plus Program has three overarching action plans based on the Erasmus Plus Program Guide. These are: Key Action 1: Mobility of Individuals Key Action 2: Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices Key Action 3: Support for Policy Reforms The focus of the mobility discussed in this chapter will be on Key Action 1, which includes the mobility of staff and students for learning, training, teaching, and internship opportunities. According to the data from UNESCO (2017), more than 5.3 million students participate in international mobility annually. The report also lists various applications and the impact of mobility in every country. Based on the same report, 47,628 students from Turkey benefitted from the mobility to study abroad, whereas Turkish higher education institutions hosted 154,505 students from many different countries (Vural Yılmaz, 2018). Most of these mobilities took place under the Erasmus Plus program. As mentioned in the previous chapter, when international mobility is examined, Europe emerges as a desirable destination for many students, with a share of around 45% of the internationally mobile student population. This population was expected to grow to 7 million by 2020 (Altay, 2016). A significant part of European mobility takes place under the Erasmus Plus program. In 1987, when it

26

Mahmut Mert et al.

first started, only 3,200 students participated in the Erasmus mobility program. After more than 30 years, more than 300,000 students benefit yearly from Erasmus Plus (Breznik & Skrbinjek, 2020). The 2012 Bucharest Communiqué succinctly summarizes the main principles of Erasmus mobility by underlining the key aspects: Erasmus mobility is vital (a) “to ensure the quality of higher education, (b) to enhance student employability, and (c) to expand cross-border collaboration within the EHEA and beyond” (Ministerial Conference Bucharest, 2012, p. 3). Impact of Erasmus Plus on Language Development The impact of Erasmus Plus on the development of mobility students’ language proficiency is a popular topic (e.g., Simonova & Kostolanyova, 2020). The language component of the Erasmus mobility is an important aspect, and recent trends of Englishization and Internationalization of European universities have also impacted the popularity of the Erasmus programs (e.g., Soler & Rozen­ valde, 2021). Even though an English-dominant view of the European higher education system is more visible in practice, the Council of Europe recognized values to create the norms of common language education policies in Europe to support the notion of Plurilingualism (Altay, 2016). Some of the recent research that focused on the language development of study-abroad-students adopted social network theory (e.g., Dewey et al., 2013) with the assumption that the growth of a second language in a study-abroad program is closely related to the nature of the network the students are engaged in. According to Tullock and Ortega’s (2017) review, study-abroad students in extensive and intensive programs demonstrate a significantly higher development of second language writing and speaking than those in country classroom learning environments. Findings confirming the positive impact of SA on oral fluency have consistently been reported (Pérez-Vidal & Llanes, 2021). In one of these studies, Köylü (2016) conducted a cross-group comparison of Turkish students studying English as a second/foreign language for one semester either in their home countries (i.e., Turkey), in the UK (classic study abroad), or attending English-taught studies in Germany, Poland, or Spain (mostly during Erasmus Plus studies). Their results revealed that both study abroad students in the UK and those in the English-taught programs demonstrated gains in oral fluency and speech rate. However, students in their home countries performed significantly better in written fluency. In another study that compared different groups, Geoghegan and Pérez-Vidal (2019) examined the impact of ELF on Spanish/Catalan learners studying abroad in Germany and France. Their results showed that English was both a facilitative tool and a barrier to learning German and French. As the review of literature might reveal, most of the studies that examined Erasmus students’ proficiency development focused on the development of English (English as a lingua franca) skills, and not many studies, to the best of our knowledge, examined the impact of English on learning local languages (a notable exception is Geoghegan & Pérez-Vidal, 2019). Motivated by this gap in the literature, this chapter focuses on the beliefs of Erasmus exchange students

The Impact of Englishization on Local Languages

27

while learning the local languages in their study abroad programs. The following research questions guided us: 1 2 3

What were the attitudes of our participants towards the target language and culture during the study abroad semester? What were the opportunities for learning the local language during the study abroad semester? What was the impact of the dominance of English on learning local languages during the study abroad semester?

Discussion of Methodological Approach The chapter focuses on the students’ perspectives and opinions about learning the local language in various contexts during their Erasmus Plus studies on their return to the major Turkish public university. It also examines the impact of English on learning the local languages. Interviews were collected from students who recently attended Erasmus Plus programs as a part of their undergraduate education. Social sciences, engineering, arts, and medical students were recrui­ ted for the project. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the partici­ pant’s first language, i.e., Turkish. The interview protocol was designed in two sections. The first section included some demographic information about the participants. The second section included four sub-sections: (a) attitudes of students in the pre-departure, (b) attitudes of students during Erasmus studies, (c) attitudes of students after Erasmus studies, and (d) overall impact of the Erasmus program (see Appendix 1). The data were coded in a deductive manner according to the research questions (i.e., place of local language and culture and impact of English on the local language). The categories are elaborated on in the results section. In the initial data collection process, we chose 40 students randomly from a pool of 2,000 outgoing students who participated in Erasmus programs in the last ten years. Thirty-four of 40 students volunteered to participate in the project and signed the consent form. In selecting the participants, we focused on choosing students from different programs. Erasmus Plus mobility country was another criterion. Of these 34 participants: � � � � �

We had an equal proportion of males and females (17 and 17); The participants’ age range was between 19 and 29 (M=22.3); All participants took part in the Erasmus mobility program and had completed it at the time of data collection; The exchange countries included Spain (n=6), Germany (n=5), Italy (n=5), Poland (n=11), Portugal (n=3), and Slovakia (n=3) during the Erasmus mobility; Participants were from Engineering (n=19), Medicine (n=2), Arts (n=2), and Social Sciences programs.

28

Mahmut Mert et al.

Detailed information, including Online Linguistic Support (OLS) pre- and postdeparture language test, students’ academic divisions, and the country of exchange study, are provided in Table 2.1, Appendix 2.

What Have We Found? Students’ Attitudes Toward the Local Language and Culture At first, we needed to understand whether our participants had any initial preparations in terms of local language learning before they headed to the Erasmus Plus exchange country. Fifteen participants stated that they did not make any preparation, while 19 participants stated they were eager to learn the local language and mentioned some preparation before starting their stu­ dies in a follow-up question. Of these 19 participants, six took language courses in the local language (i.e., the language of the Erasmus Plus mobility country), and 12 participants benefitted from online resources to learn the local language. One participant took language courses and used online resources. The local institutions provided some language courses (e.g., German), and the receiving Erasmus Plus university offered others (e.g., Slovak language). Participants also used online resources, including YouTube (n=6), to reach out practical sentences, expressions, and words in the local languages from different websites. When I learned that I was going to Erasmus+, I immediately immersed myself in learning Spanish. I was interested in it before, but the Erasmus+ placement increased my motivation. I used YouTube videos to learn more about the daily conversation. (Participant 15, Spain, Medicine) I registered for an Italian course two months before leaving for Italy. It helped me learn the basics of Italian and was very useful in my first weeks in Italy. (Participant 6, Italy, Social Sciences) The distribution of positive and negative answers was interesting in the Erasmus+ mobility destinations of our participants. Most of the participants visiting Poland (six out of eight), Slovakia (three out of five), and Portugal (four out of 5five stated that they did not try to learn the local language of the country prior to their Erasmus Plus mobility. On the other hand, all of the participants visiting Spain (n=6) and Germany (n=5) and most of the partici­ pants visiting Italy (three out of five) had started learning the local language of the country where they were going to stay. This tendency might imply the relationship between the dominance of the language, its popularity, and the availability of the resources to learn these languages. German is one of the official foreign languages in the Turkish national education system (Yag˘ mur,

The Impact of Englishization on Local Languages

29

2001), and Italian and Spanish are in the top three of the most popular foreign languages (other than English), according to König (2006). Opportunities and previous experiences of the students might have motivated our participants to learn German, Spanish, and Italian but not Polish, Portuguese, or Slovak. As to learning the country’s local culture during study abroad, seven participants stated that they did not make any extra preparation for learning the target culture. These participants attended the Erasmus+ mobility program in Spain (n=2), Germany (n=2), Italy (n=1), Poland (n=1), and Portugal (n=1). In a follow-up question, when asked to elaborate on their reasons, the participants mainly stated that they had the necessary information about the target cultures (n=5) or were not interested in learning about the host country’s culture (n=2). On the other hand, 27 participants were interested in learning more about the target culture via watching YouTube videos, benefitting from social media, reading blogs, and so on. In contrast, two participants mentioned using the internet and meeting with students who attended Erasmus programs to learn about the target country’s culture. Intercultural development, widely discussed in chapter nine, is one of the main aims of the study abroad programs in general, and the Erasmus+ program specifically (Çiftçi et al., 2020), and the participants’ responses mostly supported this notion. Opportunities for Learning the Local Language We also focused on participants’ opportunities to learn the local language during their Erasmus+ stay. Ten participants stated that they did not have any chance to learn the local language due to either (a) English being enough for them for their daily communication (n=6) or they wanted to use and learn the local language but did not have enough opportunities for it (n=4). The lack of opportunities stemmed from the accommodation condi­ tions because Erasmus+ mobility students were living with other interna­ tional students who were not proficient in the local language. Another reason was the pandemic which hindered the participants from interacting much with the local people.1 However, 24 others benefitted from the resources available during their Erasmus Plus visits. Ten participants stated that they attended language courses offered by their host universities. Eight participants further stated that these courses helped them learn the local language better. Fourteen students stated that they met with local people and tried to use the target language as much as possible to increase their local language proficiency. The following quote exemplifies how a participant socialized to learn the local language. I was looking for opportunities to talk with people every day. In the shopping mall, bus station, and student cafeterias. I usually initiated the talk in the local language and pushed myself to understand what others said. (Participant 1, Spain, Social Sciences)

30

Mahmut Mert et al.

Overall, local language courses attended by some of the respondents have boosted their language level to some extent. When asked about the medium of instruction in the courses they had during Erasmus Plus visits, 15 students stated that they picked their content courses in the local language. Alternatively, English was the medium of instruction for nineteen participants. The partici­ pants who took courses in the local language mainly stated that these courses helped them improve their proficiency in the local language. However, at the same time, they felt that they did not thoroughly learn the content of the courses. On the other hand, the participants who took courses in English did not report significant obstacles in learning the content of the courses. Moreover, our participants mostly favored English-taught courses in countries where Eng­ lish was not the official language. This might be an implication of the English­ ization of higher education in many European countries due to the increased number of international and mobility students (Dafouz, 2018). Impact of the Dominance of English on the Learning of Local Languages Based on the results that report 55% of students to have English as a medium of instruction during the Erasmus Plus stay, we can argue that English can be regarded as the dominant language of Erasmus in most countries. However, 20% of students stated that the knowledge of English hindered the opportunity to learn the local language. Participant 12 (Germany, Social Sciences) stated that the knowledge of English helped them learn the local language as they found similarities in words and grammatical structures. Despite all, the interviews demonstrate that their English proficiency level boosted significantly. This was partially reflected in the OLS test scores of the students. Twenty-two students took OLS tests in English, and 18 of them increased their English levels after Erasmus Plus studies (82%). Two had already achieved the C1 (CEFR, 2001) level before starting their study abroad programs and did not take the OLS final exam (9%). Two partici­ pants showed no English language proficiency development based on their OLS scores (9%). Twelve students took OLS tests in the local languages: five in Italian, four in German, and three in Spanish. Three out of five Ita­ lian learners, three out of four German learners, and one out of three Spanish learners improved their local language. Nevertheless, the ratio of the participants, who stated that their local language proficiency improved, was lower (56%), and a similar result was observed in the OLS test results (see Table 2.2 in Appendix 2). Overall, English language proficiency development was their biggest gain from the exchange program. The following quotes by our participants exemplify this phenomenon. I think my English has significantly improved thanks to the friendships I gained from Erasmus and especially my German friends. (Participant 5, Engineering, Germany)

The Impact of Englishization on Local Languages

31

It was hugely effective. I overcame all my reservations in terms of speaking. I am more confident in English now. (Participant 16, Engineering, Portugal) Gains in the English language were one of the most striking themes of the interviews, and our participants intensely reported their development in Eng­ lish. These self-reports provide further evidence to the well-established research agenda, which mainly argues that study abroad programs help the development of English language proficiency (e.g., Simonova & Kostolanyova, 2020). It also boosts students’ confidence (Martin-Rubió & Cots, 2018), as highlighted by most of our interview participants.

Conclusion This chapter aimed to explore mobile students’ attitudes and beliefs toward learning the local language in their Erasmus Plus programs. The qualitative analysis of the semi-structured interviews also aimed to unravel the impact of the dominance of English on learning local languages. We revealed that most participants were willing to learn the local language before starting their study abroad programs. While some of our participants took language courses in the local language (i.e., the language of the Erasmus Plus mobility country), others used online resources to learn the host country’s language. The analysis also disclosed that most of our participants were eager to learn more about the host country’s culture and mainly used online resources. We also examined the opportunities to learn local languages during the Erasmus Plus stay. Most of the respondents profited from the language learning resources present during their Erasmus Plus visits by either attending language courses offered by their host universities, socializing with local people, or practicing the host language with one another. Last but not least, we examined the impact of English on learning the local language. Most of our participants stated that English did not prevent them from learning the local language. Considering the popularity of the Erasmus Plus mobility programs, research examining mobility’s impact on learning the local language and culture is limited. Our chapter provided some implications about the opportunities for mobility students to boost their language and cul­ ture learning experiences. Via the analysis of the interviews, we portrayed what our participants thought about the local language and culture and how they became familiar with them. We also elaborated on the reasons for indifference towards local language and culture. Despite the pessimistic view about the impact of the Englishization of the European higher education system, our findings revealed that more than half of our participants were willing to learn more about the local language and culture during their Erasmus Plus mobility programs. However, accommodation opportunities might be a barrier to del­ ving into the local culture for Erasmus Plus mobility students. Universities can consider this obstacle in the planning of their Erasmus Plus programs.

32 Mahmut Mert et al. University administrators can also enrich the social and academic programs provided to the mobility students and grant chances to the new-coming Erasmus Plus students to interact with the local students and culture. The next chapter will demonstrate the attitudes of the participants toward local languages and English as a Lingua Franca in the sense of national mobility within one and the same country.

Note 1 The coronavirus pandemic of 2020 is implied.

Appendix 1: Semi Structured Interview Protocol Demographic Questions 1 2 3 4 5

Your Name and Surname: Program of study: What grade are you in? Which country and the university did you attend during Erasmus? Which year?

Pre-departure 1

2

3

Did you do anything to learn the local language in the country you are going to before starting your Erasmus Plus mobility? If yes, please explain what you did. Before starting your Erasmus Plus mobility, did you do anything to learn about the local culture in the country you are going to? If yes, please explain what you did. Did you do anything to improve your English before starting your Erasmus studies? If yes, please explain what you did.

During Erasmus Plus mobility 1

2 3

4

During your Erasmus Plus mobility, was it necessary to learn the language of the host country for daily communication (e.g., shopping, transportation, socialization)? If your answer is no, in which language did you mostly provide daily communication? During your Erasmus Plus mobility, did you have the opportunity to learn about the culture of the country you were in? If yes, please explain what you did. Did you do anything to learn the local language in the host country during your Erasmus Plus mobility? If yes, please explain what you did.

The Impact of Englishization on Local Languages 5 6 7

33

In the courses you took during your Erasmus Plus mobility, was the local language more prominent, or was it mostly English dominant? Was your level of English an obstacle to learning the local language spoken in the country you are visiting? Do you think knowing and speaking English was an obstacle for you in learning the local language?

Post-Erasmus Mobility 1 2 3

When you think about your Erasmus+ mobility, do you say “I wish I did this” about your academic life? If yes, please specify. When you think about your Erasmus+ mobility, do you say “I wish I did this” about your language learning experiences? If yes, please specify. When you think about your Erasmus Plus mobility, do you say, “I wish I had done this,” about your experiences of learning the local culture? If yes, please specify.

Benefiting from Erasmus 1 2 3 4 5

How would you evaluate your Erasmus Plus mobility experience in general (daily life, social life, etc.)? How would you evaluate your Erasmus Plus mobility experience in terms of the improvement of your English? How would you evaluate your Erasmus Plus mobility experience in terms of the development of your field knowledge? How would you evaluate your Erasmus Plus mobility experience in terms of learning the local language? How would you evaluate your Erasmus Plus mobility experience in terms of learning the local culture?

Other 1

Is there anything else you would like to say about the topics we have discussed so far?

Appendix 2 Table 2.1 General Demographics of the participants Gender

Country

Departments

M

F

Spain

Germany

Italy

Poland

Portugal

Slovakia

Eng

Med

Arts

SS

17

17

6

5

5

8

5

5

14

5

5

10

34

Mahmut Mert et al.

Table 2.2 Detailed information about each participant

Participants

OLS Language

OLS Predeparture level (CEFR)

OLS final level (CEFR)

Division

Destination

Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant

English German Spanish Spanish German English English Spanish English English German English English Italian Italian English English English English English English German Italian English English Italian English English English English Italian English English English

B1 B1 A1 A1 A1 B2 B1 A1 B1 B1 B1 A2 B1 A1 B1 B1 B1 B1 A2 C1 B2 B2 A1 B1 B1 A1 B1 B1 B1 C1 B1 A2 B1 B1

B2 B1 A1 A1 B1 B2 B1 A2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 A1 B2 B2 B2 B1 B1 C1 C1 C1 A1 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 C1 B2 B1 B2 B2

Social Sciences Engineering Social Sciences Social Sciences Engineering Social Sciences Engineering Social Sciences Social Sciences Social Sciences Engineering Social Sciences Social Sciences Social Sciences Medicine Engineering Medicine Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering Medicine Medicine Engineering Engineering Engineering Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Engineering Engineering Medicine

Spain Germany Spain Spain Germany Italy Poland Spain Poland Poland Germany Germany Poland Italy Spain Portugal Portugal Portugal Poland Poland Poland Germany Italy Portugal Spain Italy Portugal Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia Italy Slovakia Slovakia Poland

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

The Impact of Englishization on Local Languages

35

References Aksay Aksezer, E., Yag˘ mur, K., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2022). Informal learning experiences of Turkish sojourners in Europe: An exploration of their intercultural competence within the Erasmus student exchange scheme. International Review of Education, 68(1), 33–54. Altay, A. (2016). Influence of the Erasmus Student Mobility Program on competence development of students (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Akdeniz University, Antalya Block, D. (2021). Emergent STEM lecturer identities: The shaping effects of EMI in action in an internationalized and Englishised HE context. Language Teaching, 54(3), 388–406. Breznik, K., & Skrbinjek, V. (2020). Erasmus student mobility flows. European Journal of Education, 55(1), 105–117. Çiftçi, E. Y., Karaman, A. C., & Dalog˘ lu, A. (2020). No one is superior to another: tracing intercultural development in a year-long study abroad program. The Language Learning Journal, 1–13. Cots, J. M., & Mancho-Barés, G. (2013). Teaching staff’s views about the Internationalization of higher education: The case of two bilingual communities in Spain. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 32(6), 751–778. Dafouz, D. (2018). English-medium instruction and teacher education programs in higher education: ideological forces and imagined identities at work. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 540–552. Dewey, D. P., Belnap, R. K., & Hillstrom, R. (2013). Social network development, lan­ guage use, and language acquisition during study abroad: Arabic language learners’ perspectives. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 22(1), 84–110. Galloway, N., Numajiri, T., & Rees, N. (2020). The ‘Internationalization’, or ‘English­ isation’, of higher education in East Asia. Higher Education, 80(3), 395–414. Geoghegan, L., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2019). English as a lingua franca: Motivation and identity in study abroad. Study Abroad, Second Language Acquisition and Interculturality, 103–135. Gürel, E., & Aslan, B. (2022). Internationalizing teacher education: What is the Erasmus exchange program’s contribution in Turkey? Higher Education Studies, 12(1), 1–24. Hultgren, A. K. (2014). English language use at the internationalized universities of Northern Europe: Is there a correlation between Englishisation and world rank? Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 33(3–4), 389–411. König, G. (2006). Orientation, motivation and attitudes of Turkish university stu­ dents learning a second foreign language. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremd­ sprachenunterricht 11(1). Köylü, Z. (2016).The influence of context on L2 development: the case of Turkish under­ graduates at home and abroad. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of South Florida. Lanvers, U. (2014). On the predicaments of the English L1 language learner: a conceptual article. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 147–167. Lanvers, U., & Hultgren, A. K. (2018). The Englishisation of European education: foreword. European Journal of Language Policy, 10(1), 1–11. Martin-Rubió, X., & Cots, J. M. (2018). Self-confidence amongst study abroad students in an “English as a lingua Franca” university. Language Awareness, 27(1–2), 96–112.

36

Mahmut Mert et al.

Ministerial Conference Bucharest (2012). Beyond the Bologna process: creating and con­ necting national, regional and global higher education areas (Statement of the Third Bologna Policy Forum), EHEA Ministerial Conference Bucharest, April 26–27, 2012, http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/%281%29/Bucharest%20BPF%20Statement.pdf. Ogul, V. G. (2018). What Do the University Students Think about Erasmus Program in Turkey? The Educational Review, USA, 2(5), 296–308. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Llanes, À. (2021). Linguistic effects of international student mobility in the European perspective. In Language, Mobility, and Study Abroad in the Contemporary European Context (pp. 22–33). Routledge. Simonova, I., & Kostolanyova, K. (2020, August). English Language Development via Erasmus+: Students’ Feedback. In 2020 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) (pp. 133–137). IEEE. Soler, J., & Rozenvalde, K. (2021). The Englishisation of higher education in Estonia and Latvia: Actors, positionings and linguistic tensions. In The Englishisation of higher education in Europe. Amsterdam University Press. Toprak, T. E. (2019). Internationalization, mobility, and Englishisation in higher education across OECD countries. Üniversite Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi [University Research Journal], 2(1), 12–17. Toprak Yıldız, T. E. (2022). Internationalization, Mobility and English-Medium Instruction in the Context of Turkish Higher Education. In English as the Medium of Instruction in Turkish Higher Education (pp. 69–85). Springer. Tullock, B., & Ortega, L. (2017). Fluency and multilingualism in study abroad: Lessons from a scoping review. System, 71, 7–21. UNESCO (2019). Outbound Internationally Mobile Students by Host Region. UNESCAO, Geneva. http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=172. Užpalienė, D., & Vaicˇ iunienė, V. (2012). Erasmus students’ experiences in linguistic diversity and multicultural communication. Verbum, 3, 101–113. Vural Yılmaz, D. (2018). Studying abroad: experiences of international students in a Turkish university. Yüksekög˘ retim Dergisi [Higher Education Journal], 8(1), 23–32. Wilkinson, R., & Gabriëls, R. (2021). The Englishisation of higher education in Europe. Amsterdam University Press. Yag˘ ci, Y. (2010). A different view of the Bologna process: The case of Turkey. European Journal of Education, 45(4), 588–600. Yag˘ mur, K. (2001). Languages in Turkey. In The other languages of Europe. Demographic, sociolinguistic, and educational perspectives (pp. 407–426). Multilingual Matters.

3 (Inter)-national Mobility in Swiss Higher Education Bilingual Policies, Multilingual Students, and “Englishization” Anna Becker Introduction For most students, studying at university is a very enriching yet challenging experience. Choosing the right study program, moving out of the family home, and making new friends can be overwhelming. Accomplishing these tasks in another language than one’s first language (L1) and/or in a different country is complicated at a whole different level. This is the scenario with which Italian-speaking Swiss, as well as international students wanting to enrol in university, are faced. Despite its multilingual society and four national languages, Switzerland has, for the longest time, offered tertiary education in French and German only. Historically, universities have existed in the German-speaking part since the 15th century and in the French-speaking part since the 16th century. Ticino, the only officially monolingual Italian-speaking canton, founded the Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI) in 1995. To this day, the USI only offers six study programs. This implies that Italian-speaking students are forced to choose either not to study at all, choose a study program out of the limited offer, or move to Italy or to a different linguistic region in Switzerland to study in either French or German. As Metzger (2010) pointed out, most Ticinese students have traditionally moved to German- or French-speaking Switzerland to study. Zimmermann (2018) found that USI was unpopular among local students because it served an exclusive clientele of wealthy Italians. The French- and German-bilingual University of Fribourg (UNIFR) is the university attracting the most Italian-speaking students. According to UNIFR (UNIFR, 2022a), approximately 10% of its students are Italian-speaking, either from the canton of Ticino, the Italian-speaking part of Grisons, or Italy. Although Italian is the L1 of the third largest language group of speakers after French (39%) and German (36%) and is a national language, there are no official language policies or offers to support Italian at the university. The university language policy explicitly states that 1

French and German are the languages used in teaching and administration. DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-5

38 Anna Becker 2 3

The faculties may permit other languages of instruction. The University favors and promotes understanding between persons from different linguistic and cultural areas; in particular, it encourages bilingual studies in French and German (University law, Art. 6).

Instead, the strict emphasis on the two official languages can be seen to reinforce ideological language choices and creates exclusion not only for Italian-speaking students but also for any international students who do not speak French or German. The present chapter investigates the lived experiences of language and the resulting challenges of Italian-speaking and international students at UNIFR by asking: 1 2 3

What are students’ language practices and perspectives on the university’s language policies? What challenges do they face when starting university in a different linguistic region and/or national context? To what extent does English contribute to or impede language and identity development?

We aim at raising awareness of hegemonic practices through linguistic homogenization and monolingual language policies when multilingual diversity is the social and university reality. A particular focus is put on the global phenomenon of “Englishization” in the context of higher education, describing the spread and common use of English as a medium of instruction without any official status as a national language in the local linguascape (Lanvers, 2018) which has been attested to be the case also in Switzerland (Studer & Siddiqa, 2021). In fact, in their study on English in Swiss higher education, Studer and Siddiqa (2021, p. 137) conclude that the Swiss pragmatic way lack[s] a comprehensive and overarching commitment to national languages and national multilingualism as an expression of the nation’s culture and identity. English…is not only used as a welcome and efficient tool for communication but may, locally, be elevated to rank side-by-side with national languages. That said, the authors also suggest that tolerance of English as a language of instruction…is embedded in the promotion of national languages and national bilingualism. The bilingual University of Fribourg emerges as the most consistent and vocal example in this context, serving as a model for other universities. (Studer & Siddiqa, 2021, p. 135)

(Inter)-national Mobility in Swiss Higher Education

39

Drawing on their conclusion, the present chapter critically analyzes individual UNIFR student practices and their perspectives on Englishization, national languages, and their own language repertoires. To do so, it adopts a multiperspectival approach to social justice, multilingualism, and economic aspects of language. This is considered crucial for a better understanding of the “social spaces where cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power” (Pratt, 1991, p. 34) influenced by (forced) mobility and language choices.

Linguistic Hegemony, Symbolic Power, and Heteroglossia Gramsci’s linguistic hegemony Gramsci’s concept of hegemony—the formation of consent through coercion and adoption of the dominant group’s world views—is incorporated into an ideology that materializes in (automatized, obfuscated) daily institutional practices. These practices superficially appear commonsensical and habitual, while ideologies and specific values are transmitted through formalized language. Language itself is inextricably intertwined with culture and history, yet always in flux and changing in relation to other languages, cultures, and spheres of contact. Such external influences impact not only the language’s structure, vocabulary, or grammar but also people’s perceptions and habits and, ultimately, the local linguistic landscape (Gramsci, 1971). In this chapter, the way Italian-speaking students adhere to monolingual French- or German-language policies, abandon their linguistic heritage (which de jure is on the same level with French and German as a national language), and incorporate new linguistic forms, illustrates Gramsci’s point very well. Further, as argued by Phillipson (2018), “English as the lingua nullius of global hegemony” obfuscates underlying power relations based on a meritocratic understanding of English as the incorporation of high linguistic capital while it simultaneously causes linguistic capital dispossession in local national languages as they are replaced in important sectors such as education. Bourdieu’s Linguistic Capital and Symbolic Power Similarly, Bourdieu has argued that linguistic capital divides society into two groups: the dominant group providing sociolinguistic norms while gaining linguistic capital by prescribing standard speech, and the dominated groups experiencing censorship due to their inappropriate way of speaking. Consequently, there is an ongoing struggle between identity expression and development and advantageous linguistic and social behavior, especially in multilingual contexts (Becker, 2022). Language in this sense is used to “impose the legitimate definition of the division of the social world and, thereby, to make and unmake groups” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 221; emphasis in original), which implies that language cannot be neutral although especially English is seen to incorporate certain neutrality as

40

Anna Becker

lingua franca (Phillipson, 2018). Further, language also contains different non-linguistic cues, such as wealth, authority, or imperialism, primarily associated with English (Phillipson, 2018). These are detected as uncritically reproduced, contributing to the valorization and seeming necessity of English and the devalorization of minority languages. Therefore, certain languages (arbitrarily) are attributed prestige and obtain a favorable position within the “linguistic market” and distribute economic profit to (proficient/native) speakers of those languages (Heller & Duchêne, 2012). Again, English is typically considered a prestigious language which has an impact on how its speakers are viewed as individuals in society. Italian, however, is neither seen as prestigious in the study’s context nor does it qualify as a legitimate medium of instruction for tertiary education, more generally. Bakhtin’s Heteroglossia Heteroglossia refers to different speech registers within a language, i.e., its “internal stratification” of dialectal, professional, or generational differences (Bakhtin, 1981), focusing on sociolinguistic variation. Heteroglossia promotes intralingual variation resulting from individual speakers’ varying socioeconomic positions and origins. Simultaneous use of language variation within one speaker mirrors external sociopolitical tensions and conflicts expressed through language. Similar to Gramsci’s linguistic hegemony, a significant source of conflict is the tension between standardization (centripetal forces) and indivi­ dualization (centrifugal forces). According to Bakhtin (1981), these forces are shaped and controlled by the heteroglossic space they inhabit, which is neces­ sarily comprised of multiple voices but forcibly turned into a monolingual one. He argues for the integration of multiple voices, dialects, and ways of speaking to create an authentic and equitable space to increase the recognition and legitimacy of all varieties regardless of their social status.

Discussion of Methodological Approach The current chapter is embedded in a qualitative research design and draws on the ethnography of multilingualism (Heller, 2008). Recently, critical approaches have been adopted to investigate institutional power structures to which this chapter will contribute by analyzing the space in which students meet every day and create experiences that positively and/or negatively shape their lived experiences of language. According to Heller (2008), multilingualism must be understood as a social practice in which languages and their speakers cannot be subsumed under one closed entity or neatly separated from each other but rather one in which the speakers actively negotiate and reproduce themselves and the social order. The focus then expands from multilingual people and the improvement of their language skills to critically examining practices and their interwovenness within institutions and other historical or socio-political con­ texts (Pennycook, 2010). Ethnography of multilingualism investigates linguistic

(Inter)-national Mobility in Swiss Higher Education

41

practices, language hierarchies, inclusion and exclusion mechanisms, and other power relations transmitted through language (Blackledge & Creese, 2010). The participant observations and interviews were conducted from 2020–2022 in three BA classes and a Diploma of Advanced Study (DAS) program and included 14 students (four BA and ten DAS). Students gave explicit consent to participate in the project and to have their data disseminated in academic publications. All stu­ dents, except for one, followed a French-German bilingual program. Among the participants, ten were Swiss by nationality, two were Germans, one Moroccan, and one American. For ten of them the L1 was Italian, for two of them it was German, and for one of them the L1 was English, and the one has two L1s which are Arabic and Berber. The names of the participants are pseudonyms. The data for the chapter comprises field notes, informal conversations, and semi-structured interviews. The interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes, were conducted in Italian, French, or German, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. The field notes and transcripts were analyzed in MaxQDA using a qualitative, ethnographic codebook (LeCompte & Schensul, 2013), resulting in the following themes, which will be presented in the following section: � � �

Challenges when starting university in a non-L1 and/or international context Multilingual repertoires in mono-/bilingual instructional contexts Advantages and disadvantages of the Englishization at UNIFR

Discussion of the Findings Within the project, we revealed that international students encounter fewer challenges than their Italian-speaking Swiss counterparts regarding classroom contexts and social integration. Often, this was linked to the international stu­ dents’ proficiency in and reliance on English, whereas the Italian-speaking stu­ dents reported (having to) use German or French in both situations. Importantly, it was primarily their perceived “duty” as Swiss nationals and having learned German and French for a long time in school—and English to a lesser extent—that determined their language choice. This demonstrates that particularly national languages contribute to participants’ identity development, which is inextricably linked to the French-German bilingual space to which they moved to start university. On the other hand, English exerts less influence on their identity development but more so on their language development. Their multilingual repertoires are expanded through university language policies but also individual instructors’ ways of implementing those while creating hier­ archies among different institutionally recognized and excluded languages. Challenges when Starting University in a Non-L1 and/or International Context For all of the Ticinese students, studying at UNIFR implied moving to the canton of Fribourg, with many of them living with French- or German-speaking room­ mates. Prior to this, they had been surrounded by Italian almost exclusively and

42

Anna Becker

exposed to French and/or German solely in school. As Laura put it, “it’s French everywhere all of a sudden. Even when I get home, I have to constantly think and speak French, at university, at home, it is really hard sometimes.” Further, dealing with administrative obstacles, talking to university staff, or simply ordering at the cafeteria were challenges mentioned by most of the participants. As Stella puts it, “we didn’t learn how to do this in school. A lot of focus is on grammar, but not really talking”. Similarly, as Ricarda pointed out, “people here just speak French, and sometimes when you can’t respond, they just look at you. Then, I sometimes try in English, but they continue in French. The expectation is just there that everybody must speak French”. What complicates matters further is that many Ticinese students enroll in one of the bilingual programs since they are still deter­ mining where they can find suitable employment afterward. To maintain multiple possibilities in the different language regions, many Italian-speaking students believe they have to be fluent and study in French and German. For Enzo, this is a burden: “I find it unfair…because we can’t study in Italian and we don’t already know what we will do later. Students in Zurich…don’t have to study French because they will, of course, find a job in German.” Importantly, as Stefano added, “the DAS program is only available in German or French. To me, both of them are foreign languages and I would prefer it if I could study in English. So it would also be a foreign language for everyone”. Interestingly, the two German-speaking international students reported similar challenges despite having one of the official languages as their L1. Specifically, while Alex had almost no knowledge of French, Elena had advanced French skills, which helped her to find an apartment. Alex, on the other hand, relied entirely on people who could translate for him and on English, although, as he said, the general attitude toward English was rather negative: “I am from Germany and people there use English a lot to communicate when you don’t share the same language. Here, French is much stronger and you stand out if you don’t speak it. I thought I could do my studies in German and get by in English here…” Conversely, Peter, who speaks English as his L1, experienced a strong affinity for English and could barely practice French or German with his peers. That said, he emphasized how hard it was to navigate university websites, services, and general information since it was almost exclusively provided in French and German. Also, alluding to the diglossic situation of Swiss German and German, he said, “when I came to Switzerland, I thought the majority spoke German. Actually, here, not only do they speak French mostly, but I also don’t understand German really well either”. Only Aliou, whose L1s are Arabic and Berber, did not find the linguistic situation challenging, although it needs to be pointed out that he did not have any contact with (Swiss) German speakers, nor did he want to learn German, nor was his French very advanced. According to him, however, he is “extremely proud and happy to be here. So is my family. I don’t have any problems because my French is quite good”. Some of the participants reported that to overcome the challenges and frustration, they tried to make friends sharing the same L1. This, in turn, limited their exposure to the local languages, which Stella summarized succinctly:

(Inter)-national Mobility in Swiss Higher Education

43

When I first moved to Fribourg, I really missed Italian. I called my friends from Ticino every night, so I could speak it. Now I have friends here with whom I speak Italian all the time. Sometimes I feel like I’m in Ticino…I couldn’t do it otherwise. I think I would have quit my studies, because…I HAVE to speak French or German. But outside, I can be a bit free, although…then my French doesn’t get better. It generally seems that the challenges the participants faced are linked to their perceived lacking knowledge of the dominant local language—French—since it is required for daily life inside and outside the university and social integration. English is mainly considered inappropriate in non-institutional settings, although it would qualify as a more neutral language, especially for non-native speakers of French or German. Monolingual Instruction, Bilingual Programs, and Multilingual Learners Although only one of the participants indicated having two L1s, the only student not enrolled in a bilingual program, all are speakers of multiple languages and engage in multilingual practices almost daily. These practices are primarily embedded in German- or French-medium classes, peer interaction, and official university communication. That said, especially classes and peer interaction are monolingual in either French or German and the participants indicated adjusting their practices to the requirements. Further, it was stated that French-German code-mixing was perceived as disturbing and inappropriate, especially by peers not enrolled in the bilingual program. Elena, on the other hand, said she was “very happy to do the DAS in French and German, and not English. Everybody learns English, but here in Fribourg, I think it’s important that we have the two languages and learn them at such a high level”. Interestingly, Alex reported that the fact that the university offers a bilingual option puts pressure on students. According to him, many become overwhelmed and experience their studies as much harder. As Alex puts it critically, “at the end of the day, it also depends on what you study. Why would you need to know French when you study German literature? It’s just something people do because they think it looks better, but many underestimate that in the French-speaking classes, there are only French speakers”. For the Italian-speaking students and speakers of other languages, such as Aliou, being enrolled in German- and/or French-speaking classes meant they rarely got to use their L1s. The strong emphasis on promoting the local lan­ guage(s), which was even more vital in bilingual programs, excluded other languages from institutional settings. Further, lacking scaffolding techniques or accommodation to support students who are learning new content and a new (academic) language can have detrimental consequences on students’ linguistic security. This was put forth by Laura: When I have to do a presentation in German, I prepare it in Italian. I can only read the texts in Italian, and then I translate…Then when I do the

44

Anna Becker presentation, I read my text. I can’t present the way I would in Italian because I have to focus on my pronunciation, and I get so nervous. It’s one of the worst things about my studies.

Englishization at UNIFR In contrast to excluding students’ different L1s, English was actively included in their teaching by instructors and appreciated by many students. English was con­ sidered “great” (Lena), “very important” (Stefano), or “essential” (Simone) due to its relevance in academic contexts and its perceived high prestige. Stella reported that “it is actually a pity that [we] don’t speak more English at university. I didn’t learn so much English in school, but I will need it later…I think it would be more interesting to learn really good English”. Peter further talked about his experiences as an L1-English speaker and said his instructors were generally very open regarding English. He was usually allowed to present and write seminar papers in English, while speakers of other languages did not (always) have the same privi­ lege. Aliou said English was useful “to obtain jobs anywhere in the world”. As he explained, “there is no question about English. That’s just a given. If you graduate from university without speaking English, then you have a problem”. That said, many other students were concerned about the expected high level of academic English, which they reported they did not possess. Maria, for instance, said that “the texts [we] have to read for the class are way too com­ plicated. It takes me so much more time to read them than in Italian. I have to look up so many words, and then I still don’t understand the sentence”. Simi­ larly, Beata believed their secondary education did not prepare them to engage with English academic literature when starting university. Ostensibly, this was a specific problem for Ticinese students since, as she explained, “I know that other students in Switzerland have more English classes in high school simply because we have to learn Italian, French, AND German, AND English”. Therefore, Beata perceived her English level to be less advanced compared to her French- and German-speaking peers. Almost all were in favor when asked whether the students would consider additional academic English classes valid. That said, Stella mentioned that “these classes would have to be a mandatory part of the program. It’s already so complicated to fit the classes into our schedule”. Enzo also criticized that it was “unfair that we have to learn such high-level English. I understand that we need English for communication…but doing a presentation in English is different. I’m not sure it’s something I will need in the future so why take additional classes?” Generally, in students’ observed language practices, there was a significant difference in English levels, which also raises the question of how much of the assigned reading in English is understood. After providing the opportunity to practice speaking and presenting in English during the semester and targeted feedback on academic language, students started feeling more at ease. Finally, as Lena commented intriguingly,

(Inter)-national Mobility in Swiss Higher Education

45

I wasn’t even aware of the impact different languages would have on my learning or future… It’s also cool to do it. I can tell my relatives that I moved to Fribourg to speak French, German, AND English. For them, English is further away and doesn’t belong to Switzerland. But it’s something I am now proud of, also after what we’ve talked about, and also in class…

Some Reflections We have revealed that the linguistic barriers to language and identity development are higher for national students than for international ones. More specifically, the Italian-speaking students struggled to adjust, integrate, feel at ease, advance academically, or make local non-Italian-speaking friends more than the international students who had non-national languages as their L1s. First, Italian-speaking students were under more pressure since they often felt obliged to enroll in the French-German bilingual program to increase future pro­ fessional opportunities, whereas other students might opt for monolingual study programs. Second, expectations of more successful social integration or less otherness (Riaño & Wastl-Walter, 2006) are expected from Swiss nationals who “only” move from a different canton to the canton of Fribourg than those crossing international borders. However, this chapter as well as some previous studies focusing on cognitive and mental borders (Becker & Magno, 2022) have demon­ strated that linguistic borders can be perceived as much higher than actual geo­ graphical ones. What is more, students moving intra-nationally typically receive less emotional support, additional academic guidance, or linguistic scaffolding than international students due to lacking infrastructure and awareness despite (some) empirical evidence (cf. Zimmermann, 2018). That said, as Riaño et al. (2018) advocated, more research is still needed on national education and migra­ tion policies, content and structure of study programs, and (international) student experiences to better understand current and future needs and contribute to their academic and professional success. As argued before, there continues to be a gap for those students who move within Switzerland and face challenges because of the complex linguistic landscape and the discrepancies within Swiss secondary educa­ tion with which they are confronted when starting university. Third, drawing on Gramsci’s linguistic hegemony, Italian-speaking students often simply do not have a choice not to study in French and/or German and, consequently, are exposed to more linguistic insecurity and pressure. Despite the linguistic capital they gain throughout their studies at UNIFR, they often felt disadvantaged due to restrictive mono- or bilingual policies excluding Italian (and other L1s) from the institutional setting. Additionally, extra pressure and workload, as well as the lacking institutional accommodation and recognition compared to English speakers, for instance, can lead to externally induced isolation and homogenization of Italian-only student groups. As Stella put it poignantly, “now I have friends here with whom I speak Italian all the time. Sometimes I feel like I’m in Ticino; we have a really cool group. I couldn’t do it otherwise”. Without understanding the underlying hegemonic processes determining opportunities based on one’s L1,

46

Anna Becker

Italian-speaking students need the exposure to identify as a legitimate member of a group away from home on the one hand but would also benefit from more heteroglossic spaces in which they can establish their L1 as an equally legit­ imate language on the other. Such spaces are needed in informal contexts out­ side the university as much as inside in response to the increasing mobility and influx of international, migrant, or non-local students equipped with a plethora of different dialectal, regional, or standard varieties of languages.

Conclusion This chapter has emphasized that in line with the academic mobility between the countries, in-country mobility does exist. Given Switzerland’s self-attributed identity as Willensnation (nation united by the will of the people), a nation not founded on one ethnicity or language compared to its neighboring countries, but on multi­ culturalism and multilingualism, including (at least) all three national languages seems to be the more equitable solution, as we argue in this chapter. On the other hand, English is included as a lingua franca adopting a semi-official status through readings, classroom activities, presentations, and language policy, promoting its necessity in academic settings. As advertised on its website, “some study programs are even [offered] entirely in English” (UNIFR, 2022b). This corresponds with most of the participants’ perspectives on English, too. It is often uncritically recognized as the only acceptable academic language, which is “[legitimized]…through merito­ cratic rhetoric” (Carlucci, 2017, p. 134). Problematically, the uncritical adoption of English as an academic language not only obfuscates underlying power relations mobilized through language (Heller & Duchêne, 2012) but also contributes to the dispossession of individuals’ L1 linguistic capital. English proficiency in academia is beneficial; it improves intercultural communication, enables cooperation and research projects, and increases academic/professional opportunities globally. Van Parijs (2021, p. 355) sharply asks, “is the Englishization of Europe’s higher education a problem?” This chapter has argued that it would only be problematic if English were to hegemonize the local linguistic landscape and impede identity and language development in students’ L1s and Switzerland’s local languages. Establishing English as an additional language while being critical of underlying power relations, lan­ guage hierarchies, and commodification processes of languages but also higher edu­ cation more generally can be a resource for students and faculty members. As Van Parijs (2021, p. 366) summarized, multilingual local or international students can be “go-betweens, …bridge builders between the irreversibly internationalized and Eng­ lishized academic community and our stubbornly distinctive local communities”.

References Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the Novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.) The Dialogic Imagination (pp. 259–422). University of Texas Press.

(Inter)-national Mobility in Swiss Higher Education

47

Becker, A. (2022). “I’m also trying to figure out the identity of my students.” – Teachers’ multilingual identity negotiation in the heritage language classroom. International Journal of Multilingualism. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2022.2078328. Becker, A., & Magno, C. (2022). Cognitive migration through language: Capturing linguis­ tic movement and barriers in language portraits. In C. Magno, J. Lew, & S. Rodriguez (Eds.) (Re)Mapping migration and education (pp. 134–157). Brill. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. Continuum. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Polity Press. Carlucci, A. (2017). Language, education and European unification: Perceptions and reality of global English in Italy. In N. Pizzolato & J. D. Holst (Eds.) Antonio Gramsci: A pedagogy to change the world (pp. 127–148). Springer. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers. Heller, M. (2008). Doing Ethnography. In L. Wei & M. G. Moyer (Eds.) The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism (pp. 249–262). Wiley. Heller, M., & Duchêne, A. (2012). Pride and Profit: Changing Discourses of Language, Capital, and Nation-State. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller (Eds.) Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit (pp. 1–21). Routledge. Lanvers, U. (2018). Public debates of the Englishization of education in Germany: A critical discourse analysis. European Journal of Language Policy 10(1), 37–75. LeCompte, M., & Schensul, J. J. (2013). Analysis & interpretation of ethnographic data: A mixed methods approach. Altamira Press. Metzger, F. (2010). Religion, Geschichte, Nation. Katholische Geschichtsschreibung in der Schweiz im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert – kommunikationstheoretische Perspektiven. Kohlhammer Verlag. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. Routledge. Phillipson, R. (2018). English, the Lingua Nullius of Global Hegemony. In P. A. Kraus, & F. Grin (Eds.), The Politics of Multilingualism: Europeanisation, Globalisation and Linguistic Governance (pp. 275–303). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33–40 Riaño, Y., & Wastl-Walter, D. (2006). Immigration policies, state discourses on foreigners, and the politics of identity in Switzerland. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 38(9), 1693–1713. Riaño, Y., Van Mol, C., & Raghuram, P. (2018). New directions in studying policies of international student mobility and migration. Globalization, Societies and Education 16(3), 283–294. Studer, P., & Siddiqa, A. (2021). English in Swiss higher education: The pragmatic way. In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.) The Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 121–141). Amsterdam University Press. UNIFR (University of Fribourg) (2022a). Zahlen & Statistiken. https://www.unifr.ch/uni/ de/portrait/statistiken.html. UNIFR (University of Fribourg) (2022b). Studiensprachen. https://www.unifr.ch/studies/ de/studienorganisation/studienbeginn/studiensprachen.html. Van Parijs, P. (2021). Englishization as trap and lifeline. In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), The Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 355–368). Amsterdam University Press. Zimmermann, M. (2018). Intra-national student mobility: Ticinese students and their challenges and coping strategies when studying in German-speaking Switzerland. Babylonia 1, 76–79.

4

Language Attitudes and Identity Construction Through Minority Language Learning in a Host Country A Case Study of Chinese in Catalonia Ruochen Ning

Introduction Catalonia, a bilingual society with Catalan and Castilian as official languages, has been considered a critical site when exploring the power struggle between majority and minority languages because of its sociolinguistic particularity and relatively successful language policy (Soler-Carbonell et al., 2016). As a suc­ cessful example of language reversing, Catalonia and the Catalan case have since provoked extensive interest among sociolinguistic researchers as a rich field to explore social and individual bilingualism and multilingualism and interactions between language attitudes and identity. With its rich economic, academic, and touristic resources, Catalonia has attracted visitors from all over the world. After arriving in Catalonia, these visitors find themselves in a bilingual society where they inevitably have contact with the Catalan language, and some of them might be motivated to take up learning this language. Ros i Solé (2007) argued that newcomers who learn the local language of the host society might develop new roles and perspectives to negotiate their identity and construct new identity markers, and language atti­ tudes are an essential factor that shapes it. For a minoritized language like Catalan, we should pay special attention to new speakers’ language attitudes and identity issues. A considerable number of studies have been conducted among autochthonous immigrants of Catalonia. However, most literature concentrated on permanent residents, leaving international students an uncared-for community in socio­ linguistic research. This chapter focuses on a large international student com­ munity, graduate students of Chinese origin, for two reasons. First, there is an increasing number of Chinese studying in Catalonia (1,515 on June 20211) and their linguistic needs should be appropriately addressed. The second reason is that more attention needs to be paid to this group of new speakers, considering that their language and culture are significantly remote and distinct from those of Catalonia. In order to better accommodate this group of students, we need to understand their attitudes and identity standing.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-6

Language Attitudes and Identity Construction

49

Understanding Language Attitudes Language attitudes have long been recognized as one of the essential variables in people’s language learning/using behavior and the general development of a lan­ guage (González Riaño et al., 2019), as well as the primary tool to assess multi­ lingual and multicultural development. As Baker (1992, p. 9) pointed out, a survey of attitudes could provide “an indicator of current community thoughts and beliefs, preferences and desires”, which constitutes an important measure of policy implementation success. In Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model, attitude was posited as the precursor of behavior. Ianos et al. (2019) further suggested that language attitudes determined language use and thus affected language competence and proficiency. In Catalonia, the coexistence and conflict between the two languages have always been a hot issue for sociolinguistic research. Researchers have paid parti­ cular attention to Catalan residents’ attitudinal change, especially teenagers and young people who are different in age, gender, origin, home languages, etc. If we focus on studies dedicated to examining the language attitudes of immigrants from a specific origin that reported similar results, Ianos et al. (2019) used quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the attitudes towards Spanish, Catalan, and Romanian youth in Catalonia. The most positive attitudes were given to Spanish, followed by Romanian, their heritage language, while their attitudes towards Catalan were the most negative among these three. Fukuda (2017) surveyed Japanese residents in Catalonia for labor, family, or academic purposes, both permanent and temporal residents. The results showed that all the participants prioritized learning Spanish, while Catalan was considered a regional language with limited use and only learned by permanent residents in Catalonia. Different from other studies that categorized language attitudes into positive, neutral, and negative, Trenchs-Parera and Newman (2009) detected three types of language attitudes in Catalonia, from the most extreme (supportive of mono­ lingualism) to the softest (preference for bilingualism): linguistic parochialism, mixed and linguistic cosmopolitanism. The formation and change of language attitudes are subject to various socio-demographic and affective variables. Huguet and González Riaño (2004) proposed three key elements for language attitudes modeling: personal needs, social group, and accessible information. Thus, rather than being innate, lan­ guage attitudes are learned and characterized by their dynamism, meaning they may change with circumstances and personal experiences (Baker, 1992), similar to identity, which is dynamic and can be negotiated. Norton (1997) defined identity as “how people understand their relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how people understand their possibilities for the future”. She argued that an investment in an L2 was also an investment in the learner’s social identity, which might change over time and space. Empirical studies also proved this theory through questionnaires and interviews. Bucholtz and Hall (2004, p. 383) argued that identity was created through language and other semiotic systems.

50

Ruochen Ning

Migrants, who faced the most urgent challenge of learning a new language, would experience new changes and redefinitions of identity during the learn­ ing process. In addition, the sense of identification of people who switch between several languages could be more varied and multidimensional (Ros i Solé, 2007). Amireault (2019) proposed that the intercultural contacts experi­ enced by newcomers in their host society are likely to guide these individuals toward a redefinition of identity. Furthermore, according to Cortés-Colomé et al. (2016), migrants can identify with the new society without abandoning their original identity. As for the Chinese community in Spain, Robles-Llana (2018) examined the identity of generation 1.5 Chinese immigrants in Spain, and he observed that some participants still felt unequivocally Chinese instead of cultivating a Spanish iden­ tity, as hypothesized. Stoessel (2002, p. 98) argued that immigrants were sensitive to their L2 use inadequacy and, thus, did not feel like members of their new group, which made them long for their own group in which they could function appro­ priately both linguistically and culturally. This phenomenon constitutes one of the most important factors that impede immigrants from integrating into the host society. Therefore, language attitudes, identity, and other related issues must be fully considered before pertinent policy implementation.

Discussion of Methodological Approach We involved participants who met two inclusion criteria: (1) they had to be adults of Chinese origin carrying out graduate study in Catalonia; (2) they had experiences learning Catalan. We focus on two participants chosen from the 25 participants involved in a larger project, who are representative because of their clearly marked attitudinal change during the data collection period. The two participants, Lucas and Nestor (pseudonyms), were both male PhD students who completed their master’s degree in July 2018 and then enrolled in a PhD program in October 2018 at the University of Catalonia. Both had learned some Catalan before their arrival in Catalonia and had a relatively rich Catalan-learning experience. The project for the current chapter was fulfilled in three stages between October 2018 and February 2020. These three stages consisted of field observations, the first interview with each participant, and follow-up interviews. In the first stage (October to December 2018), the author, who was a Chinese graduate student learning Catalan, closely observed Chinese graduate students’ Catalan learning practices in the language class. From the classroom observations, it could be seen that Chinese graduate students’ attitudes to Catalan might vary during the learning process and that the language learning experience might also impact their attitudes and identity. During this time, field notes were taken, and questions were designed for subsequent semi-structured interviews. In the second stage (January–July 2019), preliminary interviews were conducted individually with each partici­ pant to obtain information about their motivation to learn Catalan, current learning situation, and perceptions about Catalan learning. In the third stage

Language Attitudes and Identity Construction

51

(August 2019–February 2020), follow-up interviews (with a six-month interval from the initial interview) were conducted with both participants to see whether their Catalan learning circumstances had undergone any changes (e.g., they had discontinued their Catalan classes, obtained a certificate, moved on to a higher level, or were voluntarily engaging in a new learning experience), on the assump­ tion that any change in learning status might also represent an alteration in their attitudes and identity. All interviews were conducted in Mandarin Chinese, recor­ ded, and subsequently transcribed. The author translated the interview transcripts into English, which was later revised by a professional Chinese-English translator. The chapter was guided by the following research questions: 1 2 3

What attitudes do Chinese learners of Catalan have towards the Catalan language? How do Chinese students change their identities during their educational/ mobility stay in bilingual Catalonia? What are the main factors that influence their language attitudes and identity?

Discussion of the Two Cases Case 1: Lucas Before going to Barcelona, Lucas learned Catalan at home on an online learning platform called Parla.cat. His motivation to learn Catalan was that he would study in Barcelona, so he had to learn the local language. At that time, he held a neutral attitude since he had not contacted the Catalan society and learned the language merely for instrumental purposes. Having arrived in Barcelona, he received more information about this language, such as being a minority lan­ guage, which would make him more competitive in the job market and help him integrate better into Catalan society. At this stage, he had a positive atti­ tude towards Catalan and learning it. After earning his MA, he pursued his PhD at the same university. He defined his supervisor as a radical advocate of Catalan independence, and she never spoke Castilian. Once they went to an international conference together, his supervisor asked the organizer to cross out “Spain” from her name tag because she did not want to be identified as Spanish. Below is what Lucas (L) shared with researcher (R) during the interview: L: My

supervisor is an advocate of Catalan independence, and she never speaks Castilian. R: Yeah, she is famous for that. L: And she asked the organizing committee to cross out “Spain” from her name tag when we attended an international conference together. R: Because she did not identify herself as “Spanish”? L: Yep, she is Catalan, you know. R: So she wanted to put “Catalonia” on the name tag?

52 Ruochen Ning Maybe. I think that is what she wanted. Catalonia has yet to be a sovereign state. How can the conference organizer do that? That’s not reasonable. L: That’s her. She always acts like that drama queen. Well, you have your identity, that’s OK. But requiring people to do something beyond their capacity is another thing. L:

R: But

Lucas felt embarrassed by this drama because he believed that his supervisor should not have made that unreasonable request, which was an inappropriate way to defend her identity. This experience made him change his attitudes again; he then held somewhat negative attitudes towards Catalan and Catalan speakers. However, he was still learning Catalan in the language school and talked about his reason for doing that: The teacher is very responsible, and my classmates are very friendly. We have many interesting activities in the class to practice Catalan. For example, once we did a role-play activity. The topic was purchasing or renting apartments, and we could choose to play the part of the real estate agency or the client. I chose the role of an agent who sold apartments. First, we designed our apartment, the conditions, the loca­ tion, its advantages and disadvantages, etc. You needed to highlight the advantages, explain the disadvantages, and persuade the clients to buy this apartment. It was excellent cooperation, and this kind of activity helped me significantly improve my Catalan proficiency. I enjoy the class, so I continue taking it. At this stage, Lucas had divided attitudes towards Catalan speakers and the Catalan class. He did not like Catalan speakers, but he enjoyed learning Catalan at the language school. Later his attitude changed again when he finished the aforementioned learning phase. He described the new learning experience: That was the second phase of B1, and after that, there was no available class for the third phase in that center. I had to go to another center a little far from my home. I had to take the subway to go to class, but that was OK. The problem was that the teacher was super irresponsible. She barely gave us any attention. The teacher of the second phase always came to listen to our group discussion to see if she could help with anything, while this teacher just sat there having a rest without paying attention to the students. Another thing I can’t bear is that there were very few listening comprehension and oral expression activities. I took the class mainly to improve my listening and speaking skills. As for grammar, I can easily master it by myself. And when we did listening comprehension exercises, I could hardly hear anything because the classroom had no air-conditioning and we had to leave the windows open, so it was super noisy. My

Language Attitudes and Identity Construction

53

classmates were cold and unfriendly. They only talked to each other during the group discussion and said nothing to me. I was excluded from the group. His experience in the third phase class was unsatisfactory in four aspects: 1) the teacher was not responsible; 2) listening comprehension and oral expression practices were not as many as expected; 3) the classroom was poorly equipped, which made it hard to carry out pedagogic activities; and 4) the classmates were unfriendly and excluded him from the group. The unpleasant experience in this phase made Lucas’s attitude toward Cata­ lan learning become completely negative. He stopped learning Catalan imme­ diately after the third phase and defined learning Catalan as “useless” in the last interview, which sharply contrasted with his previous attitudes. As for his identity, he reported a pure Chinese identity throughout and always identified himself as an “outsider” saying: I only position myself as Chinese because I come from China, I speak Chinese, my research has something to do with Chinese, etc. And I think other people also identify me as Chinese because of my physical appear­ ance. With an Asian face, no one will recognize you as ‘Catalan’. People will never speak Catalan to you. They even assume that you don’t speak Castilian either, so they only speak English with you. Catalans usually stick to their Catalan identity and only speak Catalan. I learn Catalan, so I can better communicate with them, because some Catalans, such as my super­ visor, refuse to speak Castilian, but I’m still a foreigner. And my Catalan proficiency is not enough to communicate fluently, so most of the time, we still talk in English. His words reveal two critical factors in the identity-constructing process during his stay in Catalonia: the physical appearance and the language. Physical appearance is vital in defining a migrant group (Bodomo & Teixeira-E-Silva, 2012) and usually determines the first impression. In the case of Lucas, an immigrant of different ethnicity from members of the host society perceived a robust differentiation because of his physical appearance and thus failed to identify with the Catalan community. Language is another decisive factor in the identity construction process. Lucas positioned himself as a “Catalan learner” instead of a “Catalan speaker”. He learned Catalan to communicate with Catalans, especially those who refused to speak Castilian, but because of his low proficiency, he still chose to speak English when talking with them. The language use also con­ tributed to his positioning as a “foreigner” in Catalonia. The two aforementioned factors altogether led to his positioning as an “outsider” in Catalonia, holding Chinese identity during his three-year stay in this region. At the end of the data collection period, he reported his preference to pursue his academic career in other European countries, which could be interpreted as the result of his negative attitudes towards Catalan and Catalan speakers. The attitudinal changes are shown in Figure 4.1.

54

Ruochen Ning

A: Lucas’ attitudes alteration during the data collection process Neutral (Academic preparation)

Positive (Advantage in future career)

Negative (unpleasant experience in the language class)

Somewhat negative (Experiencing linguistic parochialism)

B: Nestor’s attitudes alteration during the data collection process Neutral (Academic preparation)

Positive (Linguistic parochialism)

Positive (Linguistic cosmopolitanism)

Figure 4.1 The participants’ attitudes alteration during the data collection process

Case 2: Nestor Before arriving in Catalonia, Nestor held a neutral attitude towards Catalan from a lack of knowledge of Catalonia and its language. Like Lucas, he also started learning Catalan immediately after being admitted to the master’s pro­ gram as academic preparation. During his master’s study, his attitude turned positive. Here is how he explains this change: Before reaching here, I had already learned some Catalan because I was admitted to a master’s program at UB. It was pretty difficult because there were very few Catalan materials in China. I bought a textbook on Taobao and learned Catalan by myself. After arriving in Barcelona, I gradually fell in love with this city. I have a great feeling of affiliation; I have many Catalan friends, and we speak Catalan to each other; I like the Catalan language and am interested in learning it. I enrolled in a Catalan course, but it was too slow, and I could barely learn anything in the class. Then I learned Catalan by myself. I did exercises, read newspapers, and watched TV programs. I spent, on average, 4 hours, more or less, each day learning Catalan. Similar to Lucas, Nestor also started learning Catalan before arriving in Barce­ lona to adapt himself better to the MA study and the host society environment. By the end of the project, he had attained C1 proficiency in Catalan after only three years in Catalonia. He attributed this achievement to two factors: his interest in learning this language and the involvement of a large number of Catalan speakers in his social networks. The first factor led to a considerable investment in learning Catalan; he reported an average learning time of four hours daily. The second factor gave him abundant opportunities to

Language Attitudes and Identity Construction

55

communicate in Catalan as well as a strong sense of belonging towards Cata­ lonia and Catalan speakers. His proficiency in Catalan and his feeling of affiliation were also reflected in his language use. Nestor (N) shared some of his thoughts with the researcher (R): N: I

always use Catalan in every domain. I write my dissertation and academic works in Catalan, present in seminars, and speak Catalan with people. R: With friends or strangers? N: Both friends and strangers. My friends and I always speak Catalan. When I meet someone, or I have to ask for help, I also speak Catalan. R: So you speak Catalan to everyone? N: Yes. R: But not everyone can speak Catalan. N: Yeah, some people don’t know Catalan, or just prefer speaking Castilian. R: So why do you keep speaking Catalan to everyone? N: Here is Catalonia, and we should speak Catalan, isn’t it? At this point, Nestor held a relatively “parochial” language attitude. His affinity with the region made him write his dissertation and all the other aca­ demic works in Catalan and speak Catalan to everyone, even when people may prefer speaking Castilian for the reason that ‘in Catalonia, we should speak Catalan’. However, his attitude changed in the subsequent follow-up interview: You are still speaking Catalan to everyone? I won’t say “everyone”, but I speak Catalan whenever possible. R: Last time, you said that you spoke Catalan to everyone. Why do you change your mind? N: Well, now I realize that people are different. Catalans do not necessarily prefer speaking Catalan, and many people in Catalonia, especially in Bar­ celona, do not know Catalan at all. R: That’s true. Barcelona is quite international. There are immigrants, visitors, tourists… N: In other parts of Catalonia, people were surprised when I spoke Catalan. They said: “Un xines parla català!” (A Chinese speaks Catalan!) That feels great. But in Barcelona, things are different. Once I was in a subway station and I asked a security staff for directions in Catalan. He said: “¿Hablas español?” (Do you speak Spanish?) and I responded: “Parlo català i què?” (I speak Catalan, what’s wrong?) R: He didn’t speak Catalan, or he just preferred speaking Castilian? N: I don’t know. Maybe he could not speak Catalan. This is just an example. Now I have changed my mind and won’t insist on speaking Catalan. If people prefer speaking Castilian, then I speak Castilian too. R:

N:

The interview shows Nestor’s attitudinal change toward language use. In this phase, Nestor realized that people might not be able to speak Catalan or prefer

56

Ruochen Ning

speaking Castilian. Although he still used Catalan whenever possible, he would no longer oblige anyone to speak Catalan. This change can be considered a transformation from linguistic parochialism to linguistic cosmopolitanism. Nes­ tor’s positive attitude also had an impact on his identity. He explained it like this: I think I’m Catalan. I have a Catalan identity because I have a great feeling of affiliation with Catalonia. This is not contradictory to my Chinese identity. Of course, I am still Chinese. But I also consider myself a member of the Catalan society. I watch Catalan news every day and I also partici­ pated in the independence demonstrations. Nestor reported both Chinese and Catalan identities because of his origin and his feeling of affiliation to Catalonia. He mentioned his participation in the Catalonia independence campaign as an identity marker to accentuate his identification as a member of the Catalan community. At the end of the project, Nestor expressed his expectation of working and residing in Catalonia after his PhD study, which can be partially interpreted as the result of his positive attitude towards Catalonia.

Some Reflections on the Two Cases With neutral attitudes and pure Chinese identity, the two participants began learning Catalan before going to Catalonia for instrumental reasons. However, following their arrival in Catalonia, Lucas and Nestor’s data show a clear division: both held positive attitudes towards the host society and the language during their first year, and from the second year on, Lucas’ attitude gradually turned negative, while Nestor’s remained highly positive. As to the research questions posed for this chapter, for RQ1, the participants’ attitudes changed substantially during the project. Lucas’ attitudinal change route was neutral—positive—somewhat negative—negative. Nestor’s attitudes were neutral—positive (linguistic parochialism) —positive (linguistic cosmopolitism). As for RQ2, Lucas only had a Chinese identity, whereas Nestor identified himself as both Chinese and Catalan. As a result of their personal experiences in the host society, including language learning, interaction with local people, and participa­ tion in social movements, their identities were constructed and shaped. Regarding RQ3, we highlighted the role of personal experiences in shaping language attitudes and identities. Personality, communicative skills, and an ability to adapt to the new environment are also important and influential factors during this process. Isabelli-García (2006) finds that learners with positive attitudes and high motivation successfully create social networks in the host society, which facilitate their language acquisition. This can be observed when comparing the two parti­ cipants of the project. Nestor, compared with Lucas, created extensive social networks in Catalonia, from which he obtained opportunities to practice the language and achieved high proficiency. Hamilton and Serrano (2015) found that Catalan learners of advanced levels had high integrativeness through L2 contact, positive attitudes, and ideal L2 self-concepts related to settling in Catalonia.

Language Attitudes and Identity Construction

57

Conclusion As a great host for immigrants and international students, Catalonia’s bilingu­ alism affects its autochthonous population and permanent residents and pro­ vokes interesting sociolinguistic effects in these potential immigrants. This chapter analyzed the attitudinal change and identity issues of Chinese graduate students in Catalonia through a longitudinal case study project. It focuses on language learning, attitudes, identity, and language use. As Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern (2002) suggested, attitudinal changes are related to the quantity and quality of social exchanges. Taking Lucas and Nestor as representatives, positive experiences during interactions with the local community and contact with the local language contribute significantly to language proficiency, more positive attitudes, and identity construction. When the individual holds a highly positive attitude, a significant and long-lasting investment in learning the lan­ guage can be expected, and when sufficient proficiency is achieved, the indivi­ dual will use it whenever possible. Negative attitudes, on the other hand, tend to inhibit further learning investment, especially when the instrumental value is insufficient. Attitudes towards the host society and identity issues may also impact an individual’s mobility and a future development decision. This finding also coincides with Gardner’s (1985) conclusion that language attitudes are related to behavior, at least to some degree. Language landscape and language policy in a region not only affect its autochthonous population but also strongly influence its visitors. The atti­ tudes and identity of students in mobility provide a new perspective to understanding the sociolinguistic effect of bilingualism and the struggle between majority and minority languages. Moreover, as potential future immigrants, their attitudes and identity also help us to reflect on the linguistic and social dynamics that affect immigrant integration and adaptation. Finally, since the project involved two participants, it is our aim to leave space for more similar research in the future, especially large-scale surveys involving more students in mobility in bilingual societies. By monitoring their attitudinal and identity changes over a more extended period, we can better understand the sociolinguistic effect of bilingualism. This will help the international mobility actors reconsider the linguistic priorities, and promote equal opportunities to learn the language selected by the academic mobility participant.

Note 1 http://extranjeros.inclusion.gob.es/es/Estadisticas/operaciones/con-autorizacion/index.html.

References Amireault, V. (2019). Integration Process and Identity Redefinition of Chinese Adult Learners of French as a Second Language in Quebec. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 19(6), 365–378. Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and Language. Multilingual Matters.

58

Ruochen Ning

Bodomo, A., & Teixeira-E-Silva, R. (2012). Language Matters: The Role of Linguistic Identity in the Establishment of the Lusophone African Community in Macau. Afri­ can Studies, 71(1), 71–90. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and Identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.) A Compa­ nion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 369–394). Blackwell. Cortès-Colomé, M., Barrieras, M., & Comellas, P. (2016). Changes in immigrant indi­ viduals' language attitudes through contact with Catalan: the mirror effect. Language Awareness, 25(4), 272–289. Fukuda, M. (2017). Double gateway to the host society? Knowledge and perceptions of Japanese people living in Catalonia regarding language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(1), 19–34. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. Edward Arnold. González-Riaño, X. A., Fernández-Costales, A., Lapresta-Rey, C., & Huguet, N. (2019). Language attitudes towards Spanish and Catalan in autochthonous and immigrant families in Catalonia: analysing the correlation between student attitudes and their parents’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(6), 754–767. Hamilton, C., & Serrano, R. (2015). Contact, attitude and motivation in the learning of Catalan at advanced levels. International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(3), 241–258. Huguet, Á., & González Riaño, X. A. (2004). Actitudes Lingüísticas, Lengua Familiar y Enseñanza de la Lengua Minoritaria. Horsori. Ianos, M., Caballé, E., Petreñas, C., & Huguet, Á. (2019). Language attitudes of young Romanians in Catalonia (Spain): The role of heritage language maintenance pro­ grams. Multilingua, 38(3), 335–355. Ianos, M. A., Sansó, C., Huguet, N., & Petreñas, C. (2018). Language attitudes, use, and competences of students of immigrant origin in Catalan secondary education: a mod­ erated mediation model. Language and Education, 33(3), 244–262. Isabelli-García, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In E. Churchill & M. DuFon (Eds.) Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 231–258). Multilingual Matters. Norton, B. (1997). Language, Identity, and the Ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429. Robles-Llana, P. (2018). Cultural Identities of Children of Chinese Migrants in Spain: A Critical Evaluation of the Category 1.5 Generation. Identity, 18(2), 124–140. Ros i Solé, C. (2007). Language Learners’ Sociocultural Positions in the L2: A Narrative Approach. Language and Intercultural Communication, 7(3), 203–216. Soler-Carbonell, J., Gallego-Balsà, L., & Corona, V. (2016). Language and education issues in global Catalonia. Questions and debates across scales of time and space. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(1), 1–5. Spencer-Rodgers, J., & McGovern, T. (2002). Attitudes toward the culturally different: the role of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual ste­ reotypes, and perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(6), 609–631. Stoessel, S. (2002). Investigating the role of social networks in language maintenance and shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2002(153), 93–131. Trenchs-Parera, M., & Newman, M. (2009). Diversity of language ideologies in Spanish-speaking youth of different origins in Catalonia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(6), 509–524.

5

Study Abroad in Diverse Contexts A Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Linguistic and Cultural Setting in Study Abroad Through the Erasmus Program Vasilica Mocanu

Introduction This chapter aims to answer the following research question: how does a Northern, Eastern, and Southern European host context influence students’ sojourns abroad and their respective linguistic and cultural learning processes? In accordance with the research question, the present chapter focuses on linguistic and cultural gains in study abroad (henceforth SA). It is based on the premise that “study-abroad outcomes should be conceptualized as the development of intercultural communicative competence and analyzed in conjunction with linguistic development” (Taguchi & Collentine, 2018, pp. 557–558). In order to examine how the contexts of SA shape the students’ experiences of cultural and linguistic learning, the three levels of language learning iden­ tified by the Douglas Fir Group—the micro level of social activity, the meso level of sociocultural institutions and communities, and the macro level of ideological structures (Fukui & Tomoko, 2021, p. 270) —are considered. Data is elicited through content analysis of semi-structured interviews with 13 higher education students enrolled in a period of SA at a foreign university in 1) Oulu (Finland); 2) Bucharest (Romania); 3) Lleida (Catalonia) within the academic year 2015–2016. A varied sample of participants was selected, attending to their nationalities, destinations, gender, and fields of study (Appendix Figure 5.1). First, the expectations of the Erasmus students at each of the three uni­ versities concerning their SA experience are analyzed. The first objective is to understand how students frame a desire to study abroad in each of the three contexts in terms of potential personal and professional goals, among which language-related skills play a determinant role. Secondly, the perceived degree of accomplishment of students’ initial expectations in each of the three contexts when they are at the end of their sojourn abroad will be examined. In this way, we will delve into the reported relationship between the discourses behind the program, which associate different types of capital to be gained to an Erasmus sojourn in Finland, Romania, and Catalonia, and the actual impact of the experience in each of the three contexts. DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-7

60

Vasilica Mocanu

Study Abroad in the Sense of a Context SA has been defined as “a temporary sojourn of pre-defined duration, undertaken for educational purposes” (Kinginger, 2009, p. 11). In the present chapter, SA refers to a period at a foreign university that can last for one or two semesters where the study of or studying through a second language(s) is implied, even though it might not always be the primary purpose of the sojourn. SA has shown to be one of the best contexts to learn a second language due to its unique com­ bination of in-class (instructed) and out-of-class (uninstructed) learning (Freed, 1995; Collentine, 2009). Hence, it is also a key factor with a determinant role in SA experiences (e.g., DuFon & Churchill, 2006; Köylu & Tracy-Ventura, 2022). Research on the role of the host context has mainly focused on how the host culture, together with the program characteristics, can shape opportunities for language learning. Kinginger (2009) identifies three primary settings in which students are believed to have variable access to communicative interaction: (1) educational institutions and classrooms; (2) place of residence; (3) service encounters and other informal contacts with native speakers. However, SA is not a magic formula for language learning per se, and programs that foster student observation, participation, and reflection about the sociolinguistic context are recommended (Deardorff, 2009; Kinginger, 2011; Vande Berg et al., 2012). Since the SA setting refers to contexts where the L2 is “allegedly institution­ ally, socially, and functionally implemented” (Llanes et al., 2016, p. 293), feel­ ings of being rejected by the host culture or a certain degree of superficiality in the relationship with the host members can lead to withdrawal and reduce success in second language acquisition. Furthermore, the positions the learners adopt when encountering sociocultural and linguistic differences may also play a role in restricting or facilitating their access to the target communities (DuFon & Churchill, 2006). In relation to intercultural gains, cultural distance has shown to be positively rela­ ted (Wells, 2006; Che et al., 2009). Furthermore, not just cultural distance but also the characteristics of the host context seem to be determinants of SA experiences (Davis & Knight, 2021). On this note, Tarchi et al. (2019, p. 125) state that there is a need “to consider a range of programs in different contexts to develop a more general under­ standing of how cultural distance influences student learning in SA programs”. Regarding language learning objectives, oral fluency, vocabulary acquisition, and socio-pragmatic skills are the domains that benefit most from SA. For instance, Llanes et al. (2016) show how a SA period in a non-Anglophone country had a positive effect on students’ general L2 proficiency and written lexical complexity in English, thus demonstrating the contribution to the improvement of English of SA contexts where English is used as a lingua franca. However, Taguchi and Collentine (2018, p. 564) make the point that “(h)aving recognized the ‘study abroad myths’, scholars no longer believe that spending time abroad automatically leads to measurable gains in linguistic and cultural learning”, and they encourage researchers to examine SA at both an individual and a societal level.

Study Abroad in Diverse Contexts

61

Discussion of Methodological Approach A sample of interviews with 13 participants was chosen for the present chapter, attending to the principle of variety in terms of country of origin, gender, des­ tination, and field of study. The names of the participants were changed to preserve their anonymity. The three settings (Finland, Romania, and Catalonia) were chosen to examine three contexts in Europe believed to be different at the cultural, social, economic, and linguistic levels. Despite differences between the con­ texts not being empirically founded, they are well-established in the collective imaginary and exist and operate at many levels. For instance, at a mere geo­ graphical level, the United Nations Statistics Division1 separates the European continent into Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern Europe. Each of the three chosen contexts belongs to a different area: Eastern, Northern, and Southern Europe. While Finland’s first official language is Fin­ nish (a language unrelated to the Latin family of languages), Romanian, Cata­ lan, and Spanish belong to the Latin language family. Although the three are Roman languages, essential differences exist. Spanish has a very high interna­ tional profile, spoken by hundreds of millions of people and taught as a foreign language on five continents. The international projection and prestige of Romanian, instead, are much lower. Finally, while Spanish and Catalan are similar, the colossal dimension of the former, both at the national and inter­ national level, significantly overcomes the dimension of the latter, which is a minority language within Spain. From an economic and political point of view, the three countries belong to the European Union. However, while Spain accessed the EU in 1986, Finland was admitted in 1995, and Romania did not enter the EU until 2007. PRE and POST versions of a semi-structured interview (Appendix, Figure 5.2) were used to elicit the data at the beginning and the end of the sojourn abroad. The selected interviews were transcribed using a number of transcrip­ tion conventions (Appendix, Figure 5.3). Content analysis was employed to find similarities and contradictions in the participants’ accounts, which were even­ tually contrasted and compared.

What Have We Found? Beginning of the Stay – Setting Expectations At the beginning of their sojourn abroad, the participants were asked to reflect upon the following questions: Q1: What were the reasons that determined you to enroll in a mobility program?

What role did languages play?

Q2: Why Oulu (Finland)/ Lleida (Catalonia)/ Bucharest (Romania)?

62

Vasilica Mocanu

Oulu, Finland At the beginning of their sojourn abroad, students in the Oulu group said they were motivated by the attraction of Finland’s outstanding role in education and social welfare, the English proficiency of the Finns, and the high standards of Finnish education. Claudia and Jennifer depict Finland as an English-speaking country: “CQ: all the countries we could choose/ none was English spoken/ (…) / and we chose Finland for English/” in a discourse that shows how they are lured by their image of Finland: “CQ: they are very advanced/ so just for that/ I don’t mind not doing anything (…) but simply seeing how they do it/; JC: you feel like staying in the university/(…) not like in Spain that you feel like going home/”. Similarly, Stefaan points out having chosen Oulu because of the quality of the game industry: “the industry is really big over here”, and Mila also highlights Finnish education as one of the rationales for her choice. Bucharest, Romania In the Bucharest group, the participants appear to have different reasons for choosing Romania. For Kalina, geographical, cultural, and social proximity between Romania and her home country appears as a determinant: “I want to meet Romanian people/ and be close to home and learn Romanian/ (…) Romania and Bucharest is like Bulgaria/ is like Sofia/ a little bit better/”. Jesús remarks on the opportunity to travel to a European location that allows him to get to know the area: “it is a very big opportunity to travel being centered in an area that allows me to see all the rest of Europe/”. Federica chose Bucharest, expecting it to be an excellent place to learn Eng­ lish: “English/ because we speak English in Bucharest/”. Finally, Sami and Jussi highlight that they chose Bucharest for being the only place where they were allowed to go together and for the opportunity to get a very different cultural perspective: “SN: we had decided long ago that we will go to the same place/; JN: we’ll get a new perspective about how people live in other countries/ very different countries than Finland/”. Lleida, Catalonia In the Lleida group, Mildri mentions Spanish as the main incentive for her destination choice. She reports on not having Lleida, but Spain as a destination, for which she displays some sort of fascination: “I think that somehow/ (…) maybe in another life I was born in Spain/ (…) in a country where Spanish is spoken/ because I wanted very much to go to a country where Spanish is spoken/ (…) there were two options/ A Coruña and Lleida/ ah a friend of mine chose A Coruña, and I was left with Lleida, and I was happy with it because I was going to Spain/”. Finally, for Radka, Lleida appeared to be a more open place for English-speaking students: “I could choose two universities from Spain/ and Lleida was much more open for English speaking students/”. By the

Study Abroad in Diverse Contexts

63

way, language perception, either English as ELF or any other local language, during the traditional SA contradict our findings in part two and three of the current volume. End of the Stay – Aligning Expectations with Reality At the end of the stay, the participants were asked the following questions with regard to the context where their experience took place: Q1: What were your expectations before going to Oulu/Lleida/Bucharest? What

about languages? Would you say they were accomplished?

Q2: Did you feel welcome by the society where your stay took place? What

about the institutions?

Oulu, Finland In Oulu, Jennifer and Claudia were highly disappointed: “CQ: we thought it would be six months and in the end, it was five/ I think that was the only reason I could bear it/; JC: also that you spend twelve euros on two coffees/ it’s nonsense/; CQ: I also felt a little…not very well…treated or valued/; JC: at the moment of the practicum I didn’t feel well; CQ: one has to face many problems/ many/ many/ (…) regarding the healthcare system…; JC: exactly/; CQ: awful/”. All in all, their feeling of not being well-treated or valued in the host country led to an enhanced national pride: “CQ: I was very disappointed about the basic cures by the Finns/ because one thing is to be cold and the other one is to be a son of a bitch/; JC: awful/ awful/ I think that on the basic/ on the basic… at a cultural level/; CQ: I said/ let’s see/ they’ll speak about Spain/ but Spain is a gem/”. Jennifer and Claudia are, by far, the participants that show the most prominent contrast between a considerably high degree of expectations at the beginning and a significant lack of enthusiasm at the end of the sojourn. How­ ever, the participants declare that their English proficiency has improved: “JC: I arrived, and my English was non-existent/ and on my return I was assigned a hospital were many tourists come/ and certainly I felt super well because I can communicate with them/; CQ: the nurses come to look for you/ (…) please/ translate for me/ because I don’t understand anything/ and you go there/ with your English/”. On a similar note, Stefaan stresses that the experience was not as good as he initially thought: “I expected it to be…different/ but it’s hard to describe what I expected to be different/ (…) Finnish people/ I already knew what they would be like/ sort of/ but still they were a bit shier than I expected/ (…) and I expected the education to be a little bit better/”. In relation to Finnish, the participant remarks that he didn’t learn it because of its complexity and the English proficiency of Finns: “it’s impossible to learn/ (…) Finnish people speak excellent English/ so I didn’t really see why I would/”.

64

Vasilica Mocanu

Diego expresses positive feelings with regard to the treatment he received, but the coldness of the locals prevented them from making contacts and speaking Finnish: “all the teachers/ the…all the staff from/ (…) the international relations were great actually/ (…) the only thing with the local people there/ since they are really very cold/ we didn’t make many friends/ (…) I had little contact with the Finns/ I didn’t really need it/ there everybody spoke English/”. On a different note, Mila expresses she was expecting to have a great time in a country with a high quality of life and to find new friends, which was a rea­ lity: “I had expectations of having a really good time/ to live in a country with a higher quality of life/ to enjoy it/ this all happened/ to find new friends/”. The participant brings to the fore, once more, that the high proficiency in English of Finns prevented her from learning Finnish: “everybody was speaking so well English that I/ you didn’t need to strive so much learning Finnish/”. Finally, Meyer remarks that he did not have high expectations about Oulu, except for better grades. Both things were accomplished, and the experience is described as good overall: “I thought that I would have like better grades than I would get in Germany and this also turned out to be true/ (…) overall a good experience/”. The complexity and reduced size of Finnish also determined him not to invest in learning the language: “I took the basic Finnish/ it was extre­ mely hard, and then I compared like OK there are five million people in this world/ speaking like this fucking hard language/ so the effort is maybe not really worth it/”. Bucharest, Romania In the Bucharest group, Federica stresses that she changed some prejudices about Romanian people: “in Italy often the Italian people have not a good idea about Romanian people/ (…) my idea changed because the Romanian people is very friendly/ and they have a good student/ a good people/”. In relation to language learning, she did not invest much in Romanian, and she emphasizes that she would instead learn French before: “I did some Romanian courses in Bucharest/ (…), but I want to learn before French/ and after Romanian/”. Sami, who declares he had no expectations but hoped the experience was going to be a life-changing one, also shows satisfaction with his sojourn: “I had absolutely no expectations/ in the culture and the country really but/ I was hoping that it’s gonna be a life-changing experience/ and it was/”. He declares significant improvement and investment in sounding like a native speaker of English: “I’ve been working on my own/ English/ a lot/ I’m trying to sound like some/ native speaker/”. Similarly, Jussi affirms he felt welcomed by the local society: “well/ yeah/ many people were interested/ a:/ like/ why we came there/ where’re we from/ (…) so/ we felt welcome/”. The participant also declares improvement in English proficiency: “everyone improved their English/ got used to it/ easier to listen/”. Jesús also seems to be entirely satisfied with the context, a basis from where he could discover other places and improve his level of English: “I had the

Study Abroad in Diverse Contexts

65

intention to travel a lot/ learn other/ English and improve it/ (…) I wanted… to pass all subjects/ (…) I think they were accomplished/ also the one about tra­ veling was… I overcame it/”. In relation to Romanian, he emphasizes his lack of effort to learn it was due to the high English proficiency of Romanian people: “firstly is laziness/ (…) I didn’t have much contact with people with whom I needed Romanian/”. Finally, Kalina points out that the experience overcame her expectations: “I definitely didn’t expect this to be that good and that interesting/” and she emphasizes the metalinguistic knowledge she’s gained through the stay that enables her to understand Romanian and Italian people when they speak Eng­ lish: “well for me it was easier to communicate with a:h/ Italian people and with Romanian people/ (…) Italian people in general they speak slower/ so they are easier to understand when they pronounce words and a:h/ Romanian people they have the s… exactly the same sounds as we have in Bulgaria/”. Lleida, Catalonia In the Lleida group, Mildri affirms she didn’t have many expectations before her arrival: “I didn’t have that much expectations/ (…) in my apartment they were very nice to me, and class people were nice/ maybe not everyone was so open to get to know me like after class/”. However, when it comes to the treatment she received from the institutions in Lleida, Mildri highlights the refusal of some professors to speak Spanish who confronted her with the question of why she had chosen Lleida as a destination given her lack of proficiency in Catalan: “usually yes/ but for example, when the professors refused to speak Spanish/ or they asked me why I come to Lleida when I don’t speak Catalan/ I didn’t feel that welcome/”. The participant also highlights that her improvement in Spanish might have negatively affected her English level: “no/ I don’t think so/ (laughs)/ maybe it got worse because I started thinking in Spanish/”. Ma˘ da˘ lina explains that she did not expect to meet as many kind people as she did: “actually I didn’t expect to find so many people with such a good heart/ (…) and I’m very thankful/ thankful for that/”. The participant is satisfied overall, but she highlights the limited contact with local people: “I felt very welcome by the office of international relations in Lleida/ (…), but I didn’t have much contact with Catalans/”. However, the participant improved her Spanish level, but due to a surprising reason, her flatmate was Mexican. English profi­ ciency has not been improved: “I hope very much that I improved my Spanish/ (…) because I lived with a Mexican/ since she was my best friend then we always spoke Spanish/ (…) I didn’t improve my English/”. Finally, Radka brings to the fore that she felt somehow ignored by her tea­ chers since they did not seem to care about her being an Erasmus student, nor did she receive any material in English: “I didn’t expect that/ that the classes would be in English/ (…), but I thought they would be more open for Erasmus students/, but actually they were not so:/”. However, the participant seems to be satisfied with the treatment she received in Lleida: “international students’

66

Vasilica Mocanu

office made really good job/ (…) then it was a little bit harder on my university/ (…) they really wasn’t/ weren’t that warm as I expected but…”. Radka is also the only participant who seemed to have improved both Spanish and English during her sojourn. However, Catalan remained on a basic level: “Actually, I improved even my English because I had to work with many English material so at least reading/ reading texts/ (…) I did some improvement in this/ and then I learnt also Spanish/ I/ I had only some basis before I came to Spain and I enrolled to a Spanish course/ it was really useful/, and I also got some basis of Catalan language/”.

Some Reflections upon the Findings of the Three Contexts We learnt that the context and its linguistic landscape play an important role in deciding what kind of sojourn abroad students would like to have and, most significantly, what languages they are willing to invest in and the expected benefits associated with each location. However, the participants’ accounts at the end of their sojourn signal that the initially imagined contexts and how they eventually turn out to be could be considerably different, which are correlated to either positive or negative feelings towards the respective settings and the people that inhabit them. In the Oulu group, expectations are considerably high. Finland is praised for its outstanding role in education, its social welfare, and the high English level of the Finns. In fact, it is described as an English-speaking country by some par­ ticipants, while the existence of Finnish is ignored. However, it is precisely the Finnish context that appears to have deceived the participants the most, to the extent that a few display a significant amount of critique towards it. Indeed, there are different degrees of satisfaction, but overall, it appears that students’ initial expectations in Oulu are far from their actual experiences. English pro­ ficiency appears to be among the few benefits of the stay. It is a general opinion among the participants that their English skills are better at the end of the sojourn. However, the high English proficiency of Finns and the complexity of the Finnish language, together with what seems to be a perceived low economic reward for Finnish proficiency, are factors that determined the participants not to invest in learning the local language. Bucharest seems to follow the opposite trend. Initially, it is generally descri­ bed as an affordable city that might prove suitable for learning English. Inter­ estingly, while four of the five participants in Bucharest have chosen the destination for its exoticism and difference, the Bulgarian participant declares it was due to the similarity between the host context and her home city, which promised a comfortable stay. In the end, the sojourn is described as surprisingly positive, and the participants remark on the friendliness and kindness of Romanian people and even a change in their prejudiced ideas about Romania. In fact, it seems that the sojourn in Bucharest has been beyond the students’ expectations, which contrasts with the fact that their expectations from the Romanian context were relatively low or inexistent. The English proficiency of

Study Abroad in Diverse Contexts

67

the participants in Romania is also declared to be better. However, none of them invested in learning Romanian beyond an elementary level, primarily due to the high English proficiency of Romanians. Finally, Lleida (which equals Spain in the students’ imaginaries) is imagined as a context that would offer an excellent opportunity to learn Spanish, and in some cases, as a location that is friendly to English-speaking students. The most significant expectation is probably its imaginary linguistic landscape, whose description is adorned with a fascination for the Spanish language and culture. In the end, it seems that the sojourn in Lleida has proved quite positive in improving Spanish proficiency. The significant presence of Catalan at the uni­ versity and what is described as the refusal by some instructors to speak any other language but Catalan has negatively affected the sojourn of the partici­ pants. No investment in the Catalan language is reported, and just one partici­ pant declares having improved her English, though mainly through learning materials. Students are also discontent with the reduced presence of English at the uni­ versity and the limited contact with local people. Important to note is also the fact that some participants declare a lack of expectations, in some cases due to their conscious desire not to be disappointed. This deliberate lack of expecta­ tions signals that students are highly uninformed about the host contexts and also that, in some cases, the SA experience might be seen as an experience to be sought in itself, regardless of the context.

Conclusion While the vast majority of students pick up a context according to the objec­ tives (often linguistic) they believe a certain context might satisfy, many of them do not build any expectations in relation to the context, which is deliberate in some cases. Together with the students’ linguistic expectations, this shows the substantial need for pre-departure information in SA in Europe. In the cases where students have built expectations, the higher ones are correlated to rela­ tively disappointing results, while low expectations lead to surprising satisfac­ tion. These outcomes point to substantial variations in Erasmus students’ abroad opportunities to learn and the learning outcomes of the experience, which might be due to individual, but also to social factors (related both to the adoption of social discourses that can either idealize or underestimate a given context), “indicating that study abroad is far from a monolithic construct and needs to be examined at multiple levels (individual and societal)” (Taguchi & Collentine, 2018, p. 564). Due to this fact, pre-departure training focuses on the reality of each context, preferably combining a theoretical part that introduces the student to the intricacies of life in a foreign country and a practical side that includes meetings with former SA participants in each of these host contexts will “help students become aware of their sociocultural identities, cultural values, learning goals, and program expectations as well as to invest in their own learning and prepare to engage in sustained and meaningful ways with

68

Vasilica Mocanu

members of the host culture” (Goldoni, 2013, p. 359). In the next chapter, we will demonstrate how one and the same context impacts the key mobility experiences foreseen for the international exchange actors.

Note 1 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/.

Appendix Pseudonyms

Age and gender

Field of Study

Country of origin

Country of SA location

Claudia Jennifer Jussi Sami Mila Stefaan Meyer Jesús Radka

22, 22, 24, 24, 22, 22, 21, 22, 23,

female female male male female male male male female

20, 21, 25, 22,

female female female female

Spain Spain Finland Finland Bulgaria The Netherlands Germany Spain The Czech Republic Moldova Italy Norway Bulgaria

Finland Finland Romania Romania Finland Finland Finland Romania Catalonia

Madalina Federica Mildri Kalina

Nursing Degree Nursing Degree Construction Engineering Construction Engineering English Studies Computer Science Business Administration Physics Sports and Biology Teaching Journalism Business Studies Medicine Political Science

Catalonia Romania Catalonia Romania

Figure 5.1 Respondents’ demographic data

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

What’s your name and where are you from? Which were the reasons that determined you to enroll in a mobility program? Why Oulu/Lleida/Bucharest? In which ways do you think this mobility plan will influence your life? How would you define yourself? Do you feel you belong to a country/a province/ Europe? What makes you feel this way? Do you think a mobility plan can have any effects on your sense of belonging? Are you planning to socialize more with local/Erasmus/people from your own country?

� � �

Do you think Erasmus students usually get along together?

Why?

Which is the common language of the Erasmus communities?

Study Abroad in Diverse Contexts 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Which were your expectations before coming to Oulu/Lleida/Bucharest? How has your stay here been so far? Which are your hopes with regard to your stay here? And fears? How do you see your role in this new society? How do you see yourself in 5 years? And where do you see yourself? Had you had any experiences with foreign people before coming here?

� � � 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

69

Which kind of experiences? How do you react to different manners to do things? Do you think they affected your choice to be here in any way?

Which kind of jobs do you imagine yourself having in the future? Do you think this experience will help you with that? Do you think that the Erasmus programs are a place to make friends for a life? How will you stay in contact with them? Do you think there are any elements that define the European culture/identity? Do you think the fact you belong to a European country made your stay here easier? How do you see the world in the future? Do you think it will resemble more and more an Erasmus community? How do you see the future of the European Union?

Figure 5.2 Pre-interview guiding questions

/ – indicates the minimal but clear pause between phrases? Sentences in normally-paced speech … – indicates pause of significant length (more than 0.5) seconds : – indicates the elongated vowel “ ” – indicates that the speaker is overtly voicing her/ himself or someone else X – indicates incomprehensible speech ? – indicates rising intonation (including questions) Figure 5.3 Transcription conventions

References Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., & Brown, J. (2013). Second Language Identity in Narratives of SA. Palgrave Macmillan. Che, S.M., Spearman, M., & Manizade, A. (2009). Constructive disequilibrium: Cognitive and emotional development through dissonant experiences in less familiar destinations. In R. Lewin (Ed.). The handbook of practice and research in SA: Higher Education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 99–116). Routledge. Collentine, J. (2009). SA research: Findings, implications, and future directions. In M. H. Long & C. J. Catherine (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching. (pp. 218–233). Wiley. Davis, Kirsten A., & Knight, D.B. (2021). Comparing students’ SA experiences and outcomes across global contexts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 83, 114–127. Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of intercultural competence. SAGE Publications.

70

Vasilica Mocanu

DuFon, M. A., & Churchill, E. (2006). Language Learners in SA Contexts. Multilingual Matters. Freed, B. (Ed.) (1995). Second Language Acquisition in a SA Context. John Benjamins. Fukui, H., & Tomoko, Y. (2021). Exploring evolving motivation to learn two foreign languages simultaneously. The Modern Language Journal, 105(1), 267–293. Goldoni, F. (2013). Students’ Immersion Experiences in SA. Foreign Language Annals, 46(3), 359–376. Kalocsái, K. (2014). Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca. A study of Erasmus students in a Central European context. De Gruyter Mouton. Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing language learning in SA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 58–73. Kinginger, C. (2009). Language Learning and SA: A Critical Reading of the Research. Palgrave/Macmillan. Köylü, Z., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2022). Learning English in Today’s Global World: A Comparative Study of at Home, Anglophone, And Lingua Franca Study Abroad. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(5), 1330–1355. Llanes, À., Arnó, E., & Mancho-Barés. G. (2016). Erasmus students using English as a lingua franca: does SA in a non-English speaking country improve L2 English? The Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 292–303. Mocanu, V., & Llurda, E. (2020). Constructing and reconstructing attitudes towards lan­ guages in SA. In Bocanegra-Valle, A. (Ed.) Applied linguistics and knowledge transfer. Internationalization, employability and social challenges (pp. 181–202). Peter Lang. Taguchi, N. & Collentine, J. (2018). Language learning in a study-abroad context: Research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(4), 553–566. Tarchi, C., Surian, A., & Daiute, C. (2019). Assessing SA students’ intercultural sensitivity with narratives. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34, 873–894. Vande Berg, M., Paige, M., & Hemming Lou, K. (2012). Student learning abroad: what our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it. Stylus. Wells, R. (2006). Non-traditional SA Destinations: Analysis of a Trend. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of SA, 13, 113–133.

6

Ground Realities of International Students in China Identity, Social Network, Language and Literacy Socialization Wendong Marco Li

Introduction Owing to processes of globalization and internationalization of higher education (IHE), international student mobility (ISM) has witnessed unprecedented growth and garnered mounting research attention in the past few decades (Wen et al., 2018). However, extant scholarship features fragmentation are characterized by the scattered, repetitive, and conflicting discussions on how the IHE landscape evolves as international students’ mobility trajectories demonstrate greater diver­ sity and complexity (Yang, 2022). Notably, ISM research has been dominated by a neoliberal discourse that emphasizes the economic outcomes of international education and views international students as a vehicle for IHE, thereby reducing mobility decisions to strategies that increase social capital and maximize social advantages (Page & Chahboun, 2019). Despite the increasing attention to indivi­ duals’ mobility experiences (Montgomery, 2010), a deficit and “othering” dis­ course persists in portraying international students, especially those from less privileged social and educational backgrounds, as incompetent outsiders in need of linguistic and academic assistance through interaction with host community members (Page & Chahboun, 2019; Lipura & Collins, 2020). It nevertheless imposes expectations on international students without considering their own demands and goals and providing sufficient space for a personal agency (Tran & Gomes, 2017). Furthermore, studies remain skewed toward Westward mobility, reinforcing the presumed value of Western university degrees while downplaying non-Western education as inferior or undesirable choices (Lipura & Collins, 2020). In light of new mobility patterns that challenge the West as a traditional, prestigious, and leading international education provider (Kondakci et al., 2018), it is important to give voice to those underrepresented international students and consider how they mobilize their cultural and intellectual resources when undertaking academic studies in “less favored”, “periphery” educational contexts. This chapter intends to engage with the aforementioned research gaps by providing a discussion of the mobility experiences of international students in China, an under-researched population, to augment the understanding of ISM ground realities and actual outcomes. Following this introductory section, the DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-8

72

Wendong Marco Li

chapter will review related literature that informed the research project and then outline the major findings of its three resulting projects. Based on the synopsis of the findings, the chapter offers implications and suggestions for future research.

Research on Mobility Experiences of International Students in China The emergence of China as the top study abroad (SA) destination in Asia and the third in the world has led to a proliferation of studies on ISM in China (Wen et al., 2018). However, the existing literature has featured macroscopic studies on ISM situations in China (Ma, 2017), while limited research has been done to explore the experiences of international students (Xu & Montgomery, 2019). For example, there has been a persistent interest in analyzing national policies, strategies, and imperatives in relation to international student recruit­ ment in China (Yang, 2022). Another important line of studies, albeit the focus on student perspectives, examined the push-pull factors that affect international students’ motivations and decisions about choosing to study in China (Yu et al., 2021). These studies have come up with highly convergent findings, suggesting that China’s economic power and employment opportunities, prospects of Chinese language and culture, and chances for exotic cultural experiences are, among others, the major driving factors (Singh, 2022). In line with the call for more research on international students’ own voices and perspectives (Page & Chahboun, 2019), there have been an increasing number of studies on international students’ experiences in China, which have demonstrated two major focuses, namely, their sociocultural experiences and pedagogical/learning/academic experiences (Wen et al., 2018; Xu & Mon­ tgomery, 2019). Research on sociocultural experiences has revolved around students’ cross-cultural adjustment and intercultural communication experi­ ences; while studies on cross-cultural adjustment employed large-scale quanti­ tative surveys to identify predictors of students’ adaptation patterns, those on intercultural encounters adopted a more qualitative approach to investigating students’ engagement with issues of interculturality, intercultural learning, and personal growth, diversity of ethnicities in China, and so on (Dervin et al., 2018). There are also empirical investigations about the academic learning experiences of international students, with a specific focus on how individuals cope with such educational issues as a medium of instruction, pedagogy, and student-faculty/student-student academic interactions (Wen et al., 2018). Despite the notable shift in research paradigm from quantitative surveys to qualitative inquiries on international student experiences (Montgomery, 2010), research has not yet amounted to a systematic effort to explore international students’ experiences in China at a more conceptual and theoretical level (Xu & Montgomery, 2019). A more profound understanding of international students’ experiences in China is predicated on more in-depth inquiries that move beyond language and cultural learning to explore the different sociocultural dimensions in individuals’ lived experiences, such as identity in mobility, social networks and

International Students in China

73

connectedness, and other forms of social participation (Gong et al., 2021). There­ fore, more longitudinal ethnographic investigations are needed to explore the multiple dimensions of international students’ mobility experiences (Yang, 2022).

A Language and Literacy Socialization Approach to ISM Research Language and literacy socialization (LLS) draws on sociological, anthropological, and psychological approaches to the study of social and linguistic competence within a social group. Foregrounding the role of language, the theory posits that language serves as the vehicle through which individuals become socialized to act and interact in culturally appropriate ways while developing language compe­ tence also forms part of the social competence individuals require for community participation (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Furthermore, the approach extends its scope beyond language impacts and examines only the spoken modes (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). It is open to understanding the mutual effects of literate language use and society and investigating socialization throughout the human lifespan across a range of spaces and contexts (Baquedano-López & Hernandez, 2011; Lee & Bucholtz, 2015). Viewing socialization to use language meaningfully, appropriately, and effectively as a central component, LLS often involves the learning and develop­ ment of pragmatics (i.e., features of optimal language use in a discursive, textual, and social context), and thus, pragmatic socialization (Li, 2017). Pragmatic socialization regards language as a lens to “capture the social structuring and cultural interpretation of semiotic forms, practices, and ideologies that inform novices’ practical engagement with others” (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011, p. 1). From the perspective of pragmatic socialization, language not only conveys referential meanings but also constitutes symbolic practices that are indexical of social meanings such as emotions, identities, and ideologies. LLS also shows interest in exploring how individuals make indexical choices to construct identities, establish community memberships, and develop social networks. Through indexicality or the semiotic process of creating con­ textualized meanings, individuals use language to take interactional stances and make choices based upon the various linguistic and sociocultural resources to enact specific social roles and identities and become members of particular groups (Lee & Bucholtz, 2015). The process is mediated by individual agency, which is theorized as the capacity to make choices, take control, and self-reg­ ulate behaviors to achieve personal or social transformation (Duff, 2012). Therefore, LLS can shed light on how and why certain individuals can leverage their agentive resources to create learning opportunities and whether the agency is transferrable across contexts. LLS goes well beyond the focus on language to explicate literacy socializa­ tion. Literacy is not taken as a set of technical skills (e.g., reading and writing) but as “a way of taking meaning from the environment” (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 183). Of particular interest is literacy socialization in the academic discourse community, or academic discourse socialization, which denotes the

74

Wendong Marco Li

process where newcomers to an educational context acquire the competence to participate appropriately in the academic discourse and practice in the community (Duff, 2019). This socialization process demands more than mastery of academic skills, rather the competence to negotiate different norms and cultures, underlying ideologies, self-positioning, and community memberships (Duff, 2010). Related research thus examines spoken, written, and other forms of communication and investigates socializing interactions in light of individuals’ personal histories, other institutional processes, and broader sociocultural contexts (Lee & Bucholtz, 2015). In sum, the LLS approach demonstrates its compatibility with and utility for ISM research. It can usefully explain the role of language in socio-linguistically and culturally heterogeneous educational settings. It also concurs with ISM research by accentuating the prominence of identity, agency, and social con­ nectedness in international students’ experiences. Last, it extends the scope of ISM research to consider movements within and across geographic, linguistic, cultural, and educational boundaries and account for how cumulative mobility experiences affect socialization in settings such as higher education in transna­ tional contexts (Duff, 2019).

Discussion of Methodological Approach The chapter investigates the academic experiences of international students in China, focusing on the interplay of their identity construction, social network development, and language socialization. The project was conducted within one year at a public university in eastern China, which was recognized for its over 46 types of language programs and diversified student profiles from 121 countries and regions. Within this year, the author worked as an assistant at the university’s Office of International Student Affairs and made frequent contact with interna­ tional students. This has largely benefited ethnographic observation and partici­ pation recruitment. Eight participants1 were eventually recruited, who represented a range of nationalities, programs, and majors and varied in terms of language background and length of stay in China (see Table 6.1 in the Appendix). The project incorporated multiple data sources to corroborate and triangulate research findings. The data corpus included (1) ethnographic interviews (EIs), (2) study abroad network questionnaires (SANQs), (3) role plays and retrospective verbal reports (RPs & RVRs), (4) observational field notes (OFs), and (5) supple­ mentary data. EIs were conducted to elicit information from participants about academic challenges and coping strategies in relation to Chinese language learning and use, identity construction, and social network development. SANQs asked participants to provide background information (ego information), list names of twenty persons with whom they kept in regular contact (name generator), and supply biographical information about these contacts (name interpreter). RPs & RVRs elicited data about participants’ production of requests in L2 Chinese and asked them to report verbally about reasons for selecting specific request stra­ tegies. OFs were taken to document student engagement in academic

International Students in China

75

interaction and extra-curricular events. Supplementary data were also collected, including voluntarily submitted recordings of interaction in various settings, writ­ ten texts, and social media posts. Data analysis was conducted in tandem with data collection inductively and iteratively (see Table 6.2 in the Appendix).2 Specifically, thematic analysis (Spradley, 2016) was adopted to examine the transcribed EIs to identify pro­ minent words, ideas, and emerging themes pertaining to students’ different aspects of mobility experiences. Qualitative structural analysis (Herz et al., 2015) was employed to analyze the social network data. A standard network analysis via E-Net was performed to generate statistics about network composition and structure and produce sociograms. EIs were then examined closely to draw on participants’ emic explanations for the network data. Content analysis (Krippen­ dorff, 2018) was performed to analyze RPs & RVRs, OFs, and supplementary data. Analysis of different aspects of data complemented each other and informed a more elaborated understanding of the characteristics of participants’ mobility and socialization experiences.

Mobility Experiences of International Students in China: Synopses of Three Projects Project 1: Pragmatic Socialization into L2 Chinese Requests The first project (Li et al., 2021) adopted a personal network perspective to examine international students’ pragmatic socialization process and investigate how their networks mediated pragmatic choices of L2 Chinese requests. It spanned over one year and collected multiple data across three time points. Different data sources were collected at the three stages: Stage 1 and 3 collected role-plays, ret­ rospective verbal reports, and ethnographic interviews, while Study Abroad Net­ work Questionnaires were administered in Stage 2. In role-plays, four different scenarios elicited interactive data from the participants. In retrospective verbal reports, participants verbally reported reasons for selecting specific request strate­ gies in the scenarios. Ethnographic interviews were collected before and after the administration of the questionnaires, which would corroborate and triangulate participants’ choices in the questionnaires. Analysis of role-play data showed a general trend among participants of accommodation to the native-speaker norms of directness level in Chinese from T1 to T2 and divergences and variations in the use of both external and internal modifications. Social network analysis revealed participants’ personal networks’ compositional and structural features. C and H were chosen as focal cases out of the eight participants to illustrate the interaction between pragmatic choices and social networks due to the distinctiveness and richness of their social network and pragmatic production data. The interaction between social networks and pragmatic choices was salient in the two cases. In particular, social network development shaped their pragmatic socialization paths by affecting how they made subjective interactional choices. Although C formed a multiplex personal network with access to diversified

76

Wendong Marco Li

community norms, the close-knit clusters in his densely structured network never­ theless caused great hesitation and confusion due to the divergent or conflicting perceptions and cultural expectations for politeness. His pragmatic choices were thus featured with fluctuation in the use of reason to modify his requests. In com­ parison, H’s network was pretty loose, with multiple structural holes, which enabled her to assume the broker position and actively negotiate and leverage the non-redundant information about normative practices in different communities. Thus, H exercised her subjectivity by flexibly mobilizing all the pragmalinguistics resources available in her repertoire to make situationally appropriate requests. Underlying C’s and H’s divergent social experiences were the networks they developed while studying abroad, which could encompass contrastive and even contradictory demands and expectations for the politeness level and request strategies. This may, in turn, pose challenges to international students’ language learning and use. Hence, we contend that international students’ pragmatic socialization needs to be conceptualized as a process of diversification of the social network to better appreciate different affordances and constraints in their social lives. Project 2: Identity Construction and Social Network Development in L2 Chinese Socialization The second project (Li & Gong, 2022) drew on the notion of agency to explicate how international students underwent and negotiated processes of identity con­ struction and social network development in the second language (L2) socialization. B, A, and D were chosen as focal cases in this project as they were information-rich and contrastive cases and presented thematically prominent data about identity and social networks. Within-case and cross-case analysis provided an in-depth under­ standing and comparison of the cases’ distinctive and individualized socialization trajectories while allowing the critical abstraction of how individual agency was enacted in the process of L2 Chinese socialization. The within-case analysis demonstrated how positive identity and cumulative interpersonal connections con­ tributed to B’s agency to overcome challenges in the new academic environment, how richer cultural learning opportunities were afforded in a Chinese medium degree program as A shifted her identity and established broader connections, and how self-directed L2 Chinese socialization was initiated when D faced limited net­ work access and heritage identity crisis. The cross-case analysis further pointed out that these distinctive socialization paths were shaped by individuals’ personal his­ tories and identities and structured by the available socializing opportunities in their situated environment. The cases have collectively highlighted L2 socialization not as a linear process but as a “bumpy” journey that did not unfold in an entirely positive or negative direction and was subject to the mediation of agency. Drawing on the theoretical notion of agency, this research identified the intersection between identity and social network as a salient and consistent theme in the sojourners’ L2 socialization experiences, while the extent to which the two constructs interacted varied and were subject to the mediation

International Students in China

77

of individual agency. The participants’ perceived availability or lack of agency contributed to the divergent ways in which they mobilized social, cultural, and linguistic resources to realize personal or social transformations. We also argued that agency was neither readily nor equally accessible to all indivi­ duals; their capacity to use agentive resources was contingent on the structural and contextual affordances that shaped their options in coping with challenges concerning language socialization (Duff, 2010, 2012). Based on the findings, we call for more research efforts to explore the individual and social factors shaping international students’ access to their agentive resources, such as their prior SA experiences, social relationships, and local pop culture, among others. Additionally, we advocate that researchers should pay more attention to individual agency changes under different circumstances over time. Project 3: The Role of Social Networks in Academic Discourse Socialization The third project (Li & Gong, 2023) explored the role of social networks in the academic discourse socialization experiences of the eight degree-seeking multi­ lingual international students in China. Viewing networks as outcomes, it analyzed the compositional and structural characteristics of the international students’ net­ works and generated rich information about their socializing patterns. Analysis of network composition and structure revealed five patterns of students’ social net­ works, including heterogeneous-sparse network, heterogeneous-dense network, homogeneous-sparse network, homogeneous-dense network, and balanced net­ work. Viewing networks as explanations, the project utilized the resulting network typology in combination with interviews and other supplementary data to inter­ pret the role of social networks in individuals’ socialization trajectories. We found that networks with different compositional and structural features played different roles in international students’ academic socialization experi­ ences. Homogeneous-sparse and homogeneous-dense networks both lacked diversity in academic information and resources but exerted different influences depending on tie density. Although heterogeneous-sparse and heterogeneousdense networks both conferred potentially diversified academic resources, the use of resources within them hinged upon structural affordances. Finally, balanced networks offered a desirable socializing pattern for individuals who could leverage structural affordances and individual potentials in a balanced manner. We also revealed that while different network connections demon­ strated different roles, networks with similar characteristics could exert diver­ gent impacts, which points to the mediation of a range of individual and sociocultural dynamics. The students’ divergent trajectories point to the fact that while sparse networks might impose less normative pressure on individual decisions and offer greater space for agency enactment, similar socializing patterns do not necessarily guarantee similarly successful academic discourse socialization for individuals with varying agency and learning needs. The participants’ experiences also highlight that their social networks were medi­ ated by a range of individual and sociocultural forces, including personal

78 Wendong Marco Li histories and agency (learning trajectories, mobility experiences), program accommodation, online networking access, and so on. The project illuminates social network development as a synergistic interplay of different sociocultural factors and individual endeavors to establish, sustain, and extend social connections during SA. In light of ever-increasing global mobility and the accelerating pace of digital technology development, networks are complicated by the inclusion of both real-time relations and online social networking sites, affording myriad avenues to access community belonging and developmental opportunities. The project also extends our understanding of competence, which was traditionally believed to involve highly “academic” reading and writing literacies (Duff, 2010), to incorporate individuals’ strategic use of interactional resources in their various network channels (e.g., multi­ national peers, families, online friends) as they build interpersonal connections and engage with academic interaction.

Conclusion This chapter presents and discusses the findings of three projects resulting from a larger one that investigated the identity (trans)formation, social network development, and language and literacy socialization of international students in China. These three studies illuminated the possibility of understanding international student mobility (ISM) through the lens of language and literacy socialization (LLS), which conceptualizes international student experiences as the processes of LLS and foregrounds the prominence of identity, social connectedness and agency in individuals’ SA trajectories. The current chapter discusses what we can glean from the findings of the three projects to address challenges in current ISM research and then provide practical implications for future research and practice in international education. Hence, the three projects revealed different aspects of ISM experiences as LLS. �

�

Project 1 focused on the pragmatic aspect of language learning in inter­ national students’ SA experiences—socializing into L2 Chinese requests. Through documenting and comparing the two cases’ pragmatic sociali­ zation trajectories, it revealed that socialization into local language norms was contingent upon the affordances or constraints in interna­ tional students’ social networks with heterogeneous demands and expectations. As language norms in L2 communities were not mono­ lithic and homogeneous, international students as L2 learners need to immerse themselves in diverse community networks to enhance their pragmatic awareness and sensitivity. Project 2 focused on the interconnected aspects of identity and social net­ work in international students’ language socialization during SA. It deli­ neated the distinctive mobility trajectories of three focal cases in China and analyzed how they enacted and exercised individual agency to negotiate identity (trans)formation and social network development. The project

International Students in China

�

79

highlighted that students’ individualized socialization paths were shaped by their personal histories and identities and conditioned by the available socializing opportunities in their situated environment. It also pointed to L2 socialization, not as a linear process that unfolded in an entirely positive or negative direction but was mediated by the individual agency. Project 3 focused on eight degree-seeking multilingual international students’ socialization into local academic discourse communities. It analyzed patterns and characteristics of international students’ social networks and discussed their role in academic experiences. The generated five network patterns were found to lead to individuals’ divergent socialization trajectories by affecting their capa­ cities to negotiate academic norms, structuring channels to build and transform expertise, and shaping space for multicompetence development. The project accentuated the importance and pertinence of social network development in international students’ mobility experiences and added to a more nuanced understanding of the competence required for academic success in ISM.

Collectively, these three studies shed light on the possible directions to address challenges in ISM research. First and foremost, the studies focused on under­ represented, less privileged international students and allowed them to voice their individualized degree-seeking experiences in a non-traditional, “less favored” mobility context (Kondakci et al., 2018). In addition, they transcended the tradi­ tional focus on the efforts of adapting and acculturating to local communities made by international students to explicate how they enact personal agency to pursue their own educational goals and negotiate mobility experiences (Tran & Gomes, 2017). This constitutes an important force in counteracting the deficit ideologies imposed on international students as incompetent “others” in need of linguistic and academic assistance through interaction with host community members (Page & Chahboun, 2019; Lipura & Collins, 2020). Last but not least, they sought to unveil the multiple dimensions of international students’ mobility experiences, including identity (trans)formation, social network development, and different socialization processes. As such, they contributed to a more nuanced understanding of ISM experiences by directing research attention from welldocumented aspects such as language learning and cultural experience to the under-explored but fundamental social spheres of ISM (Yang, 2022). The findings of these three projects also provide practical implications. All of them have demonstrated the centrality of mobility histories in international students’ mobility experiences as they generate and accumulate mobility capital that leads to distinctive socialization trajectories. It is, therefore, crucial for researchers to recognize international students’ past histories and social net­ works and guide students to convert them into resources for building positive identities and extensive networks in the new educational contexts. It is also important to conduct longitudinal, ethnographic investigations to trace how students’ various types of online/offline network connections afford or constrain their mobility experiences and educational success (Yang, 2022). Educational practitioners can also contribute to international education by reducing the

80

Wendong Marco Li

segregation between local and international students and creating favorable socializing conditions for the latter. Specifically, both in-class and out-of-class interactions should be promoted between international and local students. Educational policies should be in place that encourage the mingling of students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

Notes 1 All the names in this chapter are pseudonyms. Different pseudonyms were used in the pub­ lished studies to avoid identifiable information and protect the anonymity of the participants. 2 It is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide methodological and statistical details, but interested readers can find them in the published three studies: Li et al (2021). Tracking the trajectories of international students’ pragmatic choices in studying abroad in China: A social network perspective. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34 (4), 398–416; Li & Gong (2022). Agency in the nexus of identity and social network: Understanding international students’ second language socialization experiences in China. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. Online first; Li & Gong (2023). The role of social networks in academic discourse socialization: Insights from degree-seeking multilingual international students in China.

Appendix Table 6.1 Participant profile Name

Sex

Age

Nationality

Program

Major

A

F

22

Thai

MA

Diplomacy

B

F

23

Thai

MA

C

M

23

Thai

PhD

D

F

20

Kyrgyz

BA

International Business China Studies TCSOL*

E

M

24

Kyrgyz

MA

TCSOL

F

F

20

Pakistani

BA

TCSOL

G

F

24

Russian

MA

H

F

22

Filipino

MA

Communication Translation Studies

Background Languages*** Thai, Chi­ nese****, English Thai, Chi­ nese****, English Thai, Chi­ nese****, English Kyrgyz, Russian, Chinese, English Kyrgyz, Chinese, English Urdu, English, Chinese Russian, Eng­ lish, Chinese Filipino, Chi­ nese, English

Years of stay 3 4 5 3 4 2 4 4

*TCSOL = Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages **LS = local students; IS = interna­ tional students *** The listing order (most proficient language on the top) was based on partici­ pants’ self-reported information. ****All participants reported high Chinese proficiency (above HSK 5). HSK (Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi) is a standardized Chinese proficiency test for non-native speakers. HSK 6 indicates the highest proficiency among the six levels.

International Students in China

81

Table 6.2 Data corpus and analytic methods Data Corpus

Analytic methods

Data types

Content/Focus

Ethnographic interviews

Academic challenges and coping strategies in relation to Chinese language learning and use, identity construction, and social network development Ego information (e.g., demographics, linguistic background, mobility experiences) Name generator (e.g., names of 20 contacts) Name interpreter (e.g., demographics, commu­ nication languages, frequency of interaction, level of friendship) Elicited interactive data about participants’ Chinese request production and reflection

Social network questionnaires

Role plays + Retrospective verbal reports Observational field notes Supplementary data

Thematic Analysis (Spradley, 2016)

Qualitative Struc­ tural Analysis (Herz et al., 2015)

Content Analysis (Krippendorff, 2018)

Naturalistic interaction in in-class and out-of-class settings (e.g., service encounters) Social media posts Written compositions Email interactions

References Baquedano-López, P., & Hernandez, S. J. (2011). Language socialization across educa­ tional settings. In B. A. U. Levinson & M. Pollock (Eds.) A Companion to the anthropology of education (pp. 197–211). Wiley-Blackwell. Dervin, F., Du, X., & Härkönen, A. (Eds.) (2018). International students in China. Springer International Publishing. Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169–192. Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. Routledge. Duff, P. A. (2019). Social dimensions and processes in second language acquisition: Multilingual socialization in transnational contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 103 (S1), 6–22. Gong, Y., Gao, X., Li, M., & Lai, C. (2021). Cultural adaptation challenges and strate­ gies during study abroad: New Zealand students in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(4), 417–437. Herz, A., Peters, L., & Truschkat, I. (2015). How to do Qualitative Structural Analysis: The qualitative interpretation of network maps and narrative interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1), 1–24. Kondakci, Y., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Social network analysis of international student mobility: Uncovering the rise of regional hubs. Higher Education, 75(3), 517–535.

82

Wendong Marco Li

Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE. Lee, J. S., & Bucholtz, M. (2015). Language socialization across learning spaces. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 319–336). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Li, C., Li, W., & Ren, W. (2021). Tracking the trajectories of international students’ pragmatic choices in studying abroad in China: A social network perspective. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(4), 398–416. Li, D. (2017). Pragmatic socialization. In P. A. Duff & S. May (Eds.) Language Socialization (pp. 49–62). Springer. Li, W., & Gong, Y. (2022). Agency in the nexus of identity and social network: Understanding the second language socialization experiences of international students in China. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. Online first. Li, W., & Gong, Y. (2023). The role of social networks in academic discourse socialization: Insights from degree-seeking multilingual international students in China. Multilingua, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2022-0106. Lipura, S. J., & Collins, F. L. (2020). Towards an integrative understanding of con­ temporary educational mobilities: A critical agenda for international student mobilities research. Globalization, Societies, and Education, 18(3), 343–359. Ma, J. (2017). Why and how do international students choose Mainland China as a higher education study abroad destination? Higher Education, 74(4), 563–579. Montgomery, C. (2010). Understanding the international student experience. Macmillan International Higher Education. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. In The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1–21). Wiley-Blackwell. Page, A. G., & Chahboun, S. (2019). Emerging empowerment of international students: How international student literature has shifted to include the students’ voices. Higher Education, 78(5), 871–885. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthro­ pology, 15(1), 163–191. Singh, J. K. N. (2022). Benefits of studying in China: International students from top-tier Chinese universities ‘spill the beans.’ Journal of Further and Higher Education, 0(0), 1–13. Spradley, J. P. (2016). The ethnographic interview. Illinois: Waveland Press. Tran, L. T., & Gomes, C. (2017). International student connectedness and identity: Transnational perspectives (Vol. 6). Springer Singapore. Wen, W., Hu, D., & Hao, J. (2018). International students’ experiences in China: Does the planned reverse mobility work? International Journal of Educational Development, 61, 204–212. Xu, C. L., & Montgomery, C. (2019). Educating China on the move: A typology of con­ temporary Chinese higher education mobilities. Review of Education, 7(3), 598–627. Yang, P. (2022). China in the global field of international student mobility: An analysis of economic, human and symbolic capitals. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52(2), 308–326. Yu, Y., Cheng, M., & Xu, Y. (2021). Understanding international postgraduate students’ educational mobility to China: An ecological systematic perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–17.

7

“Not just English” Identity and Positionality Among

Japanese Bilingual Returnees

Gavin Furukawa and Mitsuyo Sakamoto

Introduction According to Appadurai (1996), five “scapes” (social forces and flows) affect globalization. Returnees are a phenomenon of one of the five: the ethnoscape (flows of people due to migration), as is the mediascape (flows of information via the media). Japanese kikokushijo (returnees) are portrayed in a particular way, positioning them in a unique social sphere. Specifically, returnees are popular images in Japanese media with a strong focus on their ability to speak English. However, this seemingly positive image is also met with strictures, such as culturally inappropriate conduct, overt solipsism, recalcitrance, and audacity, often culminating in derisions and hyperboles against them. This chapter explores the identity formation of two returnee students within this context. It is common for returnee students, like other third-culture kids (Jeon, 2021, pp. 2–3), to feel ostracized (Kanno, 2003) because of their English ability, given the expected associations with low English ability and national identity. Bodis (2021) showed how being multilingual can lead to social stigmas and how language ideologies often reinforce stereotypes which can prevent students from being fully accepted in schools. In such complex and conflicting discourses in the globalizing world, how returnees view them­ selves and negotiate their identity, sometimes accepting stereotypical ascrip­ tions while resisting and rejecting others, in a foreign language classroom would be particularly enlightening and important. This chapter documents the complex and dynamic ways they identify as English users. By examining this issue, we hope to shed light on the human aspect of the problems with Japanese English language education. English education in Japan has often been perceived as embodying a type of linguistic schizophrenia (Groves, 2011). The problems in this area have been laid at the feet of motiva­ tional issues (McVeigh, 2004), outdated teaching methodologies, or an institu­ tionalized concept of English as something only required for tests (Hiramoto, 2012). What is rarely seen is the students’ understanding of these issues, parti­ cularly for those whose English plays a large part in their identities, like returnees. DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-9

84

Gavin Furukawa and Mitsuyo Sakamoto

Specifically, the research questions explored in this chapter are: 1) How do Japanese returnees see themselves with respect to their English usage? 2) How do they perceive non-returnee English users in relation to themselves? 3) What issues, if any, do students see as problematic for their language learning journeys?

Understanding Returnee Image in Japan In this globalizing world, national boundaries are becoming increasingly less prominent due to international migration and technological advancements, which in turn enhance our communication ability across different continents, allowing us to disseminate and exchange vast amounts of information easily and quickly, predominantly by the media (the mediascape). This further prof­ fers knowledge and ideas upon which new ones are created and reformulated (the ideoscape). All this leads to creating new imagined worlds (Appadurai, 1996, p. 33) that transcend national boundaries and create different commu­ nities. With the recent active mobility of the Japanese, usually due to overseas business obligations, a new group of Japanese has emerged - returnees, who migrate with their family and return to Japan after several years of overseas sojourn. This trend matches up with concerns regarding international student mobility. Baker (2016) explains that this current state of global movement does not allow for the simple assumption of direct connections between languages of instruction, the social context, and the idea of a national language. This additional level of complexity in the context of returnees often needs to be clarified for the Japanese at large, especially in rural Japan, as retur­ nees are not dispersed evenly across the country nor in vast numbers. This sets a backdrop for the creation of particular images of returnees, which often results in hyperbole, and this warped returnee image is in turn pro­ liferated by the technoscape that allows quick delivery of information. Unsurprisingly, both returnees and non-returnees are exposed to these newly propagated imaginaries and constantly have to accept, assess, reject, chal­ lenge, or negotiate them. One of the significant ways that returnees and non-returnees negotiate iden­ tity against the complicated backdrop of globalization is through positionality. Traditional research in sociology gives primacy to categories for participants that the researcher has determined as relevant. However, predetermined, fixed categories cannot possibly capture the dynamic nature of identity formation. Our research is informed by the understanding that identity is emergent in dis­ course and that people position themselves toward each other and their envir­ onment through interaction. Indeed, the concept of positioning is often used to point out that identity is an agentive resource for people in that they typically have a role in claiming their own identities in discourse (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, pp. 591–592). This notion of how speakers orient to or negotiate identities stems from a paradigm that sees language as a non-abstract system based on its actual usage in real life and from the need for reflexivity in critical poststructuralist research.

“Not just English”

85

Discussion of Methodological Approach This chapter project is run by two English language instructors, one teaching English composition (henceforth EC) and another teaching general English skills (henceforth ES). Both have comparative experiences in teaching English, with doctoral degrees in applied linguistics from North American universities. In the academic year 2019, they both taught the same group of students (Class β) composed of 23 Japanese freshmen (21 females, two males) majoring in English at a private university in Japan. Two of the 23 student-returnees are focused upon: Ayaka and Kousuke (pseudonyms). We chose these two because of their comparable experiences living abroad while still reporting a need for more confidence in their language abilities. Ayaka (female) spent four years of her life living in London during her elementary school years, while Kousuke (male) spent a total of 12 years living abroad, with nine years in China during his elementary and middle school years and three years of high school living in the United States. Ayaka is a speaker of Japanese and British English, while Kousuke is a speaker of Japanese, Man­ darin Chinese, American English, and Hawaii Creole. Their sojourn in Englishspeaking countries is comparable with four years in London, England (Ayaka), and three years in Hawaii (Kousuke). Throughout the year they were found to have excellent oral skills in English, conversing fluently and often with very little, if any, non-native speaker (NNS) accents.1 Despite their oral proficiency, however, they were not entirely confident throughout the year. As instructors, we felt the need to investigate whether the returnees were model English users (cf. Sakamoto, 2018; Sakamoto & Furukawa, 2022) able to learn, improve, and use English easily. We aimed to prove that their self-identification is complex, fluid, dynamic, multi-faceted, and situated. Hence, our primary source is a final focus group online interview2 with our two participants soon after the end of the academic year, which lasted for an hour and 12 minutes. The final manuscript draft was shared with the two stu­ dent respondents. The academic year began with a six-item questionnaire that collected their background information, ranging from their interests to their experience residing overseas. The year also ended with another 14-item ques­ tionnaire that asked about their English learning experiences in the past year. In between, three formal papers ranging from 750 words to 2,500 words were col­ lected, along with other informal writing assignments, such as reflection papers. The writing samples were shared between the instructors and their comments based on them were recorded monthly, three times in the course of the fall semester. Each instructor also created an analytic memo based on discussions addressing the research questions. During this stage, the two participants for this project were identified. Our analysis is strongly informed by Sociocultural Linguistics (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005). This analytic style is open to drawing upon various methodologies while maintaining the understanding that identity is not something the researcher decides for the subject/participant but rather something that people

86

Gavin Furukawa and Mitsuyo Sakamoto

negotiate with others while seeking intersubjectivity in interaction. We find this approach well-suited in that it is dedicated to using insights gained from discursive research into making positive changes in the classroom while maintaining a fair degree of analytic rigor. Below, we are discussing the major findings of the chapter project. Japanese Self and English Self Our interviews revealed that learning English allowed our students to develop different personae. In the first extract, Ayaka explains how she feels different when speaking English (Extract 1, Online Interview, May 19, 2020; https://bit.ly/3TvIa7U). When asked about the role that English plays in her life, Ayaka sets up a contrast between English and Japanese. Like many returnees who lived in English-speaking countries before returning to Japan, her questions about language ability often are about positioning oneself on a linguistic dimension between English and Japanese. Along this dimension, Ayaka positions herself away from the English side by explaining that for her, English is quite hard despite considerable early exposure through living abroad. This statement makes an exciting contrast to research findings that show the impact of lan­ guage on early education (Wakabayashi, 2002). She then elaborates on this description by completely constructing this linguistic dimension by saying that Japanese is more manageable for her with increased speed, showing that this is an elaboration of her earlier statement. She then explains another interest­ ing description of her relationship with English, prefacing what might be seen as something odd by saying that she does not understand the reason for her following statement. She then goes with the statement that she is different when speaking English, explaining that she feels more confident when speak­ ing in front of others. However, Ayaka points out that despite this more robust sense of confidence when speaking English, she is better at basic com­ munication in Japanese. This was surprising because, often, it is assumed that the lack of confidence among English students in Japan is related to a lack of linguistic ability. In this particular discussion, Ayaka is stating the exact opposite. She sees her Japanese ability as more potent, but her confidence is still higher when speaking English. Ayaka then shares that she likes to feel confident and would speak that way in Japanese if she could. She then shows discomfort at choosing one language over the other by laughing. Ayaka then makes a neutral statement saying that both languages have positive and negative points and that she is unable to choose between them (line 74 of the extract). A short while after Ayaka explained this, Kousuke also agreed with Ayaka’s initial statement about feeling confident while speaking English, saying that he, too, noticed himself being different when speaking English. In the following extract, Kousuke tells the skills teacher ES about this different English-speaking self (Extract 2, Online Interview, May 19, 2020; https://bit.ly/3TvIa7U).

“Not just English”

87

After ES asks Kousuke about his relationship with English, he puts himself into a group with Ayaka by saying he is the same. He then explains what features he shares that equal (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 599) him this way. Kousuke states that the quality that puts him and Ayaka together is being different when he speaks English. He explains that he has some different characteristics when speaking English compared to his other main language, Japanese. When he talks about ‘most person’, he cites these others as authorities, emphasizing the qualifi­ cations of these people as bilinguals. In line 107 Kousuke describes his Englishspeaking persona as being willing to talk to anybody and then describes his gen­ eral disposition in this mode as being happy. He then ascribes this personality change to the joy he gets from speaking English with others. ES then asks Kousuke whether he feels comfortable or enjoys speaking Chinese. Kousuke constructs Chinese and Japanese as distinct from English. While doing so, Kousuke describes English as something that provokes happy feelings, whereas Chinese, like Japanese, is more of a regular occurrence and, therefore, not a unique experience. This formulation is first established by his explanation that he uses Chinese daily when speaking to his parents. He then summarizes the experience of speaking Chinese and Japanese as parts of his everyday life, therefore, nothing special. Kousuke then further explains this complex relationship with his three languages. He then says that because his English ability is at a different level than his Chinese or Japanese, he still feels he is learning from others by speaking English with them. The effort he describes in improving his English becomes the key reason for his unique feelings towards the language. After a long pause in line 123, he summarizes the feelings towards speaking English as fun. He accepts ES’s assertion that he had improved his language ability due to his study abroad experience. While some returnees like these two see themselves as having different personae when speaking English, these characteristics are still associated with their under­ standings and perceptions of their English language ability. This tendency towards self-assessment was further mentioned by our students in the interviews and some of the work they did in our classes. Self-Assessment Given that Ayaka had resided in London for a prolonged period, she displayed a native-like accent, which could mislead others, including English instructors, to assume that she was confident and had no difficulties learning the language. However, Ayaka disagrees with this idea, stating that such assessments are only on the surface (Extract 3, Online Interview, May 19, 2020; https://bit.ly/3TvIa7U) Ayaka first explains that she can pronounce English well, clarifying that this is about her accent. She then further explains that one effect associated with her accent is that people assume her overall English skill level is high. This reflects a tendency within Japanese society to assume that the major source of difficulty for Japanese people speaking English is pronunciation, ignoring the ability to construct sentences in situ as well as a general understanding of English

88

Gavin Furukawa and Mitsuyo Sakamoto

pragmatics or possessing a broader lexicon (Furukawa, 2015). It also reflects how native speakers are often idealized in educational contexts. Ayaka then says that she believes her English ability decreased after moving back to Japan in terms of vocabulary and grammar, leaving only her British accent. She then says that despite working to improve her English, she still feels great difficulty speaking to foreigners and is still unsatisfied with her overall ability to speak English. In this extract, Ayaka further utilizes the tactics of adequation and distinction (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, pp. 599–601), often drawn on in identity work to establish intersubjectivity. In one sense, it makes her the same as other Japanese people. Her story here connects the act of moving back to and living in Japan to help her construct herself the same as other Japanese citizens without study abroad experiences. Ayaka also points out that the benefits she might have gained from her study abroad experience have mostly disappeared. By doing so, she also draws upon the authentication tactic by making her current English ability something gained by what Japanese society sees as hard effort. According to Ayaka, her pronunciation is somewhat deceiving, and while she is often mistaken to be a highly proficient English user, she realizes that her English needs improvement. In contrast, she recalls one non-returnee student, Mikiko, who has never studied abroad, yet comes across as confident and highly proficient (Extract 4, Online Interview, May 19, 2020; https://bit.ly/3TvIa7U). One of the important differences in skill for Ayaka is displaying confidence when speaking in English. She constructs her classmate Mikiko’s (pseudonym) skill by stating she is very good. She then explains in a more detailed way using, also and like indexing solidarity and affect. This is likely due to the presence of her classmate and teachers in this discussion and justifies her initial assessment. She then explains that Mikiko’s confidence when doing presentations and speeches led to her positive assessment. Ayaka then describes her high school experience in Japan. She did not see many other students being able to speak English confidently with no study abroad experience, which she unpacks using the phrase only taking like Japa­ nese education in line 606, which is then rephrased as never been study abroad. By doing this, Ayaka draws upon the tactic of illegitimation in a fascinating way to show how the education system has yet to enable them linguistically. She then describes the relationship between no-study-abroad experience and English ability. She states that she was initially surprised by Mikiko’s skill. This mirrors the common understanding many Japanese students have, where Eng­ lish education in Japan is seen as unrelated or separate from actual language use (Brown, 2018, pp. 395–396). She tells the interviewers that the surprise was due to Mikiko being completely educated in Japan while still being able to speak skillfully in English. Ayaka summarizes her point that there are those like Mikiko who have fantastic English in Japan despite the earlier stated condition of being educated only in Japan. She describes her classmate’s ability as impressive through the use of the word sugoi (“amazing”), which has been shown in previous research as a standard general description for perceived English skills for Japanese people (Furukawa, 2015).

“Not just English”

89

While Ayaka gives a clear example that Japanese people who have no study abroad experience can be good or excellent English speakers, she also highlights the common perception of this educational background as leading to little or no real English skills through her initial surprise. This highlights how exceptional or rare her classmate’s skill is while simultaneously illustrating the dichotomy within Japanese society in the domain of education regarding kikokushijo and non-retur­ nees. Ayaka’s minimizing of her skills, a type of denaturalization (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, pp. 601–603), shown in her earlier self-assessment in Extract 3, is not uncommon. Many returnees feel a great reluctance to talk about their abilities or display them in front of others in Japan because they feel they are held to a stan­ dard of perfection (Kanno, 2003). This pressure shows why a student like Ayaka might reduce her perceived skill in English to just pronunciation. Our other student, Kousuke, also expressed his uneasiness in displaying his English ability to others. In the year-end questionnaire, he wrote: To be honest, I did not enjoy writing an English paper in both classes. I hate to show others how bad my grammar skill is. (Collected January 20, 2020) Despite Kousuke’s high level of fluency and native-speaker-like vocabulary and expressions, he suffered from low self-esteem. In fact, in the same questionnaire, he emphasizes the importance of grammatical knowledge: “I had realized that my grammar skill was worse than I thought”. To the question, “In your opinion, what traits would a good English writer have?” he answered, “It is absolutely grammar skills. Good English sentences start with good grammar”. Hierarchies and Hegemonic Influences In this following extract, Ayaka again denaturalizes her knowledge of English, immediately disqualifying it as something that was simply picked up, having been immersed in an English-speaking environment. For her, this is something that was acquired without much effort (Extract 5, Online Interview, May 19, 2020; https://bit.ly/3TvIa7U). Ayaka begins here by immediately positioning herself as unskilled in Japanese. She then justifies this by explaining that other Japanese around her have always described her this way. She then further places herself as distinct from the other Japanese students around her by explaining that she is weak in both languages, leaving her with no strong language ability. Ayaka saying that her English is also perceived this way by those around her justifies her position. In this way, we can see how these “others” around her are being given the power to make her a nonskilled member of the larger community of language speakers and thus inadequate. Ayaka then minimizes her English skill by voicing a negative inner voice. She shifts her footing to voice her feelings toward herself in line 4 as not having enough English ability after living in England or being at a mediocre level through the use of the quotatives, which often voice the speaker’s feelings in Japanese.

90

Gavin Furukawa and Mitsuyo Sakamoto

Ayaka then expresses her immense respect towards those Japanese stu­ dents who have managed to learn English as a foreign language. After con­ structing the category of these students through the predicate of having been entirely educated in Japan (‘Nihon no kyoiku o zutto ukete kita’), which utilizes authorization in lines 6–7, she then nominates candidate members of this category by mentioning two students the researchers interviewed the previous day. Thus, this segment of her interview combines aspects of selfassessment of the speaker but also positions her as being unable to belong to either community of speakers while reproducing an oppressive societal structure where she is the victim of judgment by people around her. Ayaka further positions such students above her in this constructed hierarchy by saying that she genuinely respects students like them. She uses the adverb sugoi (“amazing”) to describe her respect and the effort required to study a language without experiencing it in real life. Again, this word has, in particular, been shown to have quite common uses when positively evaluating English language ability in Japan and attributing a certain level of social cool (Furukawa, 2015, p. 283). Ayaka then justifies her self-assessment by stating that, since she is studying Italian as a third language, she under­ stands the difficulties they must have faced learning English as an L2 in a foreign setting. However, unlike her non-returnee peers, Ayaka does not succumb to the hegemonic native speaker myths present in Japan when she assesses Japanese English users’ oral performance. She explains that she has “long questioned how the Japanese denounce their English variety”. This is in response to her own British-accented English, for which she receives so much praise from other Japanese, yet she does not fully take this as her distinct advantage.

What is Revealed about the Japanese Returnees? Due to their seeming fluency, returnees are often deemed competent English users. To a certain extent, this is true, often having been endowed with a native-like pronunciation and having cultivated a sense of cosmopolitanism. However, one cannot describe its effects as simply positive or negative. Instead, having been immersed in a multilingual/multicultural environment, their residence abroad affected their English learning and led to its use in different ways compared to non-returnees (cf. Sakamoto & Furukawa, 2022). While they may have acquired native-speaker-like pronunciation, their writ­ ing, specifically grammar, is found to be a source of vexation for these stu­ dents. Pronunciation and fluency are two emblematic indexes (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005) that non-returnees have expressed their strong admiration for (Sakamoto, 2018; Sakamoto & Furukawa, 2022), but Ayaka and Kousuke have voiced a counter-narrative to this, emphasizing how grammatical and vocabulary knowledge are crucial dimensions in knowing a language. Indeed, Cummins (2021) proposed that Cognitive Academic Language Profi­ ciency (CALP) is far more difficult to attain compared to Basic Interpersonal

“Not just English”

91

Language Skills (BICS). However, because returnees are often automatically perceived to be good English users, exposing their grammatical weaknesses can be particularly detrimental to their self-esteem and motivation. Moreover, we discovered how these returnees underestimate their achievements and knowledge, having lived abroad. For Ayaka, she “merely picked up the language”. For her, admiration and praise she receives for her English skills are mere platitudes, and she expresses a sense of unease, almost a compunction to deny this skill. Similarly, an L2 immersive envir­ onment for children has been reported to possibly result in traumatic experiences (Schwartz & Verschik, 2013, p. 79). Learning a new language is no easy feat, yet we found it disturbing to see how the participants downplayed their achievements and became critical of their knowledge and experiences as if their learning in an immersive environment was a subterfuge, disqualified to be deemed a “legitimate” language learning experience. Such privation haunts their English learning experiences, discouraging them from celebrating the knowledge and successes they have managed to attain.

Conclusion As we have shown, although skills in both English and Japanese are frequently associated with stereotypes of bold and confident returnees and shy unconfident non-returnees, discussions with actual returnee students show that such ideologies are often challenged by individual learners in their language learning journeys. Rather than accepting the predicate of possessing exten­ sive English abilities connected to the category of returnee by non-returnee Japanese students, the returnees in our study preferred to contest them, playing up the language skills of non-returnee students instead. Stereotypes of skill and ability inspired linguistic anxieties within the school setting for these students. In many ways, the situation of returnees mimics the complexity found in a globalized world. They are embodiments of the ethnoscape (Appadurai, 1996) whose lives, migrating across boundaries that in earlier times were much more challenging to cross, show the interplay between culture, lan­ guage, and the sense of self. The existence of an English-speaking self and Japanese-speaking self for these students is quite natural and, at the same time, speaks to the fear of being made distinct in a society famed for its love of the adequation tactic. Thinking about the broader topic of English education in Japan, in general, leads us to question what it is about entering Japanese schools that prevents these returnees from being confident in the skills and abilities that they pos­ sess. Recent reports in the news have shown that reported instances of bully­ ing have reached record highs in schools across Japan. Such statistics lead us to wonder whether our returnees would be so rigid in assessing their abilities if there were far fewer instances of bullying in Japanese schools, yet at the same time, we must acknowledge the fact that the tendency to be hard on

92

Gavin Furukawa and Mitsuyo Sakamoto

oneself has a possible causal relationship to the bullying itself. Students being hard on themselves may feel frustrated with students who do not seem to be making the same effort on the surface regardless of whether they do or not on the inside, leading to unkind behavior towards each other. Indeed, we are forced to wonder what Japan would look like if both returnees and nonreturnee language learners felt safe, encouraged, and supported by themselves and their environment. If all students could feel the joys of speaking both languages, would these problems persist?

Notes 1 Japan has a high level of Native Speakerism, often seen with respect, prizing native-speaker accents (Furukawa, 2015). 2 Due to COVID-19, a face-to-face interview was not possible.

References Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press. Baker, W. (2016). English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: Student mobility in the transcultural university. Language and Intercultural Communication, 16 (3), 437–451. Bodis, A. (2021). Double deficit’ and exclusion: Mediated language ideologies and international students’ multilingualism. Multilingua, 40(3), 367–391. Brown, C. A. (2018). Membership in an imagined home community and stance toward English among university students in Japan. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 17(6), 388–401. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7, 585–614. Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners. Multilingual Matters. Furukawa, G. (2015). ‘Cool’ English: Stylized native speaker of English in Japanese television shows. Multilingua, 34(2), 265–291. Groves, J. M. (2011). “Linguistic schizophrenia” in Hong Kong: Hong Kong English comes of age. English Today, 27(4), 33–42. Hiramoto, M. (2012). English vs. English conversation: Language teaching in modern Japan. In L. Wee, R. B. Goh, & L. Lim (Eds.) The politics of English in Asia: South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Asia Pacific (pp. 227–248). John Benjamins. Jeon, A. (2021). Growing up (un) bounded: globalization, mobility and belonging among Korean third culture kids. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1–13. Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds. Lawrence Erlbaum. McVeigh, B. J. (2004). Foreign language instruction in Japanese higher education: The humanistic vision or nationalist utilitarianism? Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 3(2), 211–227. Sakamoto, M. (2018). How effective is interactive learning? Investigating Japanese university students’ language patterns in a collaborative writing task. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(2), 115–139.

“Not just English”

93

Sakamoto, M., & Furukawa, G. (2022). (Re)imagining oneself as an English user: Identity formation of Japanese English learners. Asian Englishes. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13488678.2021.1989547. Schwartz, M., & Verschik, A. (2013). Successful family language policy: Parents, children, and educators in interaction. Springer. Wakabayashi, T. (2002). Bilingualism as a future investment: The case of Japanese high school students at an international school in Japan. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(3), 631–658.

8

In-between Varied Identities Engagement of Indian Students as Partners in an Australian University Preeti Vayada

Introduction A frequently referenced definition for engagement with “students as partners” (SaP) in higher education comes from Cook-Sather et al. (2014, pp. 6–7), who frame learning and teaching partnerships as a values-based practice drawing on the ethos of respect, reciprocity, and shared responsibility. It is a colla­ borative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportu­ nity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same way, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualization, decision-making, implementation, investigation, or analysis (Healey et al., 2014). It has been argued that such practices revolutionize the traditional model of higher education, altering the role of students from “receptors of knowledge” to “producers” (Bindra et al., 2018). In many universities, this practice is implemented as a student-part­ nership (hereafter SP) project that encapsulates partnership with students in teaching and learning, and extracurricular activities. In a more project-driven nature of the partnership that forms the context of this chapter, the students engage with non-teaching staff in various educational activities. Increasing international student mobility and a diverse student population call for the engagement of underrepresented student-partners to better understand their lived experiences and how they (re)shape their identities as students and knowledge holders. Against this backdrop, we examine how the Indian students describe and reflect on their identities of being knowledge-holders in SP projects at an Australian university. We explain the values underpinning these practices, outline the research design, and discuss participants’ experiences as they navigate their identity as knowledge-holders in a structured partnership pro­ gram. Our analysis suggests that students perceived their capabilities as knowledge-holders; they also signaled unequal relations of power, agency, and lack of cross-cultural awareness by explicitly and implicitly narrating their experiences in the program. Thus, the chapter calls for a more inclusive approach to SP programs, where the inherent principles of authentic partner­ ship are followed and foregrounded on the ethos of acknowledging the diverse knowledge that students bring to the partnership space. DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-10

In-between Varied Identities

95

Postcolonial Theory and the Perception of Being a Knowledge-Holder Postcolonial theory provides the framework for this chapter to question binaries in ways of thinking, seeing, and doing (Sperduti, 2017). It comes with acknowledging the inadequacy of one knowledge system to completely comprehend the world and its incapacity to produce new forms of knowledge in diverse disciplines (Dei, 2000). Recognizing the legacy of colonialism and how it continues to shape con­ temporary educational discourses and institutions, it is imperative to expand on the understanding of cultural domination through established power structures (Rizvi, 2007) in a cross-cultural partnership space. Therefore, developing ‘alter­ native analyses and propositions based on different ways of knowing’ (HicklingHundson, 2006, p. 205) in partnership practices is necessary. Authentic partnership spaces allow knowledge production not limited to specific groups or actors; instead, they aim to provide opportunities for students of diverse identities to share their experiences, perspectives, and knowledge in various educational activities (de Bie et al., 2021). Hence, we argue that adopting a single way of knowing in SP risks creating a blind spot of a “universalized” understanding of knowledge. This approach may make SP projects a revolutionary but not necessarily inclusive practice. By comprehending the lived experiences of Indian students, we locate alternative discourses of these students to support the plurality of knowledge that is contextually and historically produced (Indira, 2020). With this, we acknowl­ edge that the knowledge sources are multiple, and this chapter offers the counternarratives that form an integral part of the scholarly discourse of student partnership.

Student-Partners’ Identities as Knowledge-Holders Individuals hold different identities according to different positions held in a social structure (Schwarz & Williams, 2020). Depending on how a person creates and engages in the meaning-making process, these multiple roles (Rauf et al., 2019) (re) shape their identities. This explains the pluralization of identities that is significant in determining and regulating an individual’s behavior (Carter & Mireles, 2007). The simple explanation of student partners’ identity as knowledge-holders comes from the justification that a knowledge resource is created and stored by the stu­ dent in their role as a partner, so they have this unique identity of being a knowl­ edge-holder. This view of being a knowledge-holder does not align with my belief in socially constructed knowledge. Much of the way partners act in the partnership practices and how they perceive different events and activities are influenced by socially constructed knowledge (Lenkauskaitė et al., 2020). This form of knowl­ edge is acquired through socialization, where ongoing communication and dialo­ gue (Lenkauskaitė et al., 2020) form inherent features of an authentic partnership. Since knowledge is socially constructed, it raises an essential question of knowl­ edge ownership: whose knowledge is it? To unravel the concerns associated with the pluralism of knowledge ownership, we assert postcolonial theorist Homi Bhabha’s (1994) notion of in-betweenness in identities. In-between identities

96

Preeti Vayada

concern individual and group elements and identifiers of belonging, identification, self-description, and representation. The current chapter will replicate this under­ standing of in-between identities with SP spaces and how Indian students make sense of their identities as knowledge-holders. By supporting appreciation for both ways of learning, we are not striving to find a consensus about worldviews. The intent is to appreciate diverse perspectives and help students navigate between the knowledge systems they bring from their cultural background and the new knowledge system they are exposed to in the host country (Armour & Miller, 2021) in their engagement in partnership practices. It is vital to note that high­ lighting and valuing the resources embedded in ‘other’ students does not mean abandoning western knowledge but opening spaces of dialogue between the knowledge systems (De Sousa Santos, 2014). Adapting this approach honors the underlying principles on which an authentic partnership is formed.

Discussion of Methodological Approach We build our research on the principle of social construction that negates one specific and definitive truth, as there are various realities in the world through which meaning can be construed (Merriam, 2009). Exploring how participants experience and interact within the SP space and give meaning to their experi­ ences was vital to valuing and voicing their lived experiences; however, we were presented with a unique challenge while endeavoring to gain access to the socially constructed knowledge of these students. It was challenging to ask participants to reflect upon the knowledge that subconsciously guided their experiences because it is hardly acknowledged or reflected upon. So, this knowledge had to be gathered when the participants told their lived experiences through recalling specific positions (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). A narrative inquiry is a suitable methodology for collecting and analyzing these lived experiences. This meaning-making approach allowed us to detach from a single way of knowing. The sharing of lived experiences allowed multiple ways of interpretation that encompass local narratives in lieu of grand narratives (Bochner, 2001). By making meaningful connections with the participants, we have engaged in a narrative inquiry using dialogical interactions to construct new knowledge. Ethical approval was acquired from the Institutional Human Ethics Research Committee of the university, which aligns with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. The Australian university involved into the project has implemented institutional-wide student partnership practices in the form of projects, student voices, and representational activities referred to in this study as SP programs. The SP program is based on the SaP ethos of mutual respect, reciprocity, and responsibility. To realize this aspiration, the university created a semester-long, project-based partnership model. Students or staff (although the vast majority were staff) applied to a “partnership project” to a student-staff committee that selected projects for approval. Approval involved funding for a “student grant” to compensate for the students invested. Selected projects were then advertised

In-between Varied Identities

97

through an online student portal that also allowed students to apply. The project head then selected student partners for various projects. The selected student-partners were then contacted, and the partnership started with a mandatory two-hour induction involving the whole team (teams could be from two to ten people). In addition to the defined structure in terms of timeframe, hours of engagement, and the grant paid to students for their participation, there were well-structured reporting requirements at the start and completion of the projects, grievance redressal mechanisms, and net­ working events. As Krause (2022) observed, Australian universities tend toward isomorphism—they are similar in strategy and operations as they tend to mimic each other in a competitive marketplace. This is relevant for the research because while it is set in one university, the idea of engaging students as partners is shared across most universities. Thus, like other Australian institutions, the university has a program to engage students as partners to enhance the quality of education and assert students’ importance in the university community. Our participants are students from India studying at an Australian university with experience being a student-partner in at least one partnership program. They are capable and competent social agents who are perceived as co-produ­ cers and collaborators, co-creators (Neary et al., 2014), and knowledge-holders in their role as student-partners in SP programs—for this reason, examining how they acknowledged themselves and how they perceived others to acknowledge them as knowledge-holders was essential. A total of six participants shared their lived experiences. One of the partici­ pants was a male, four were females, and one participant did not want to be identified. Two of the participants were undergraduates, while four others were graduates. SP programs involved in designing new course, effective group work, international advisory group, enhancing inclusivity in partnership, etc. While it can be argued that these participants’ narratives are not representative of the experiences of the large student population in a multicultural university, their lived experiences provide unique standpoints in recognizing “students as knowledge holders” that should not be overlooked. The researcher of the current chapter has engaged in multiple semi-structured interviews using dialogical interactions that allowed open-ended interactions. This was to examine how Indian students perceived themselves as knowl­ edge-holders with expertise to contribute through participation in SP prac­ tices. We started the inquiry with a relationship-building exercise that opened with discussions about their prior collaborative experiences in the Indian educational system, their motivation behind studying in Australia, their experiences navigating the COVID-19 global pandemic, and a briefing on the interview processes and protocols. Participants engaged in three individual interviews of 45 minutes and further interactions with the researcher via emails, Messenger, and text messages. The interview process ran from September 2020 to April 2021.

98

Preeti Vayada

Discussion of the Procedure to Formulate Thematic Groups We conducted a multi-stage standardized thematic analysis. The interpretation and coding of the interview scripts followed the guidelines set by Clarke and Braun (2014). First, we read the interview scripts and identified the codes in the shared document. Then, by re-reading the scripts, we identified the initial codes that came out explicitly and implicitly from the interviews. Guided by inductive reasoning, codes were sorted and grouped based on category similarity. Wherever similar codes were found, they were combined to form overarching themes relevant to the scho­ larship of “students as knowledge holders”, “students as co-producers and co-crea­ tors”, and “principles of authentic student-partnership in higher education”. The themes were identified based on the links to the literature on Students as Partners. As Patton (1990) recommended, dual criteria (i.e. internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity) were adopted from where three themes were defined and named. Hence, we elaborated on the findings regarding how participants’ experiences in partnership programs shaped their understanding of ‘being a knowledge holder’. The three themes that emerged are (1) the situatedness of the studentpartners as agentic “knowers”; (2) relational agency that appreciates different ways of knowing; and (3) co-ownership of the knowledge produced in partner­ ship. It is to be noted that the three major themes listed are not separate entities but are interwoven to provide a clear understanding of participants’ positioning of themselves and their perception of feeling seen as knowledge-holders in their partnership roles. Student-Partners as Agentic “Knowers” Engaging as student partners, students realize their self-efficacy, effective opportunities, and responsibilities to achieve the learning goals that matter to them (Cook-Sather & Reynolds, 2021). An agency is a term linked to self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the development of a “growth mindset” where success in academic pursuit results from individual effort, self-regulation, and metacognition (Dweck, 2016). Many of the participants interviewed affirmed the role of intrinsic motivation linked to self-determination and a growth mindset by highlighting that they wanted to contribute equally to the project with the staff, enhance their learning experiences, and build their resumes. Kripa, who was associated with three SP projects, stated that she was selective of the projects she joined and became involved only if she felt she could add value to the project: I apply in partnership only if I know that it will be intellectually stimulating and where I know that the work done in the project will aid in building my resume. The participants’ motivation essentially equated to actorhood, defined by Klemencˇ icˇ (2020) as the ability for students to participate in the construction

In-between Varied Identities

99

of knowledge—prompted by staff who designed active learning activities—where student participants seized the opportunities provided in projects and became active participants in learning and teaching rather than passive receivers of edu­ cation. Almost all participants affirmed that the structured nature of the part­ nership projects meant that the outcomes were pre-determined, and they had to follow through. While the student-partners were asked for their input and chose to offer such input, the decision-making was vested mainly with the staff, which raised crucial issues related to power dynamics. The responses were insightful on the questions about agency as something that the staff partners were willing to impart to the student partners. Beth explained what other participants affirmed about the structured nature of the SP projects: Though the staff was discreet about displaying power, it persisted. The staff had complete control over the project, and the outcomes were predecided. All we had to do was follow through. Similarly, Vrunda said her experience of participation in SP projects was devoid of voice and agency: When I look back, I realize that I was hesitant and scared to ask questions to clarify doubts. As international students, I think we respect authority a lot. So I did not want to challenge the staff partners even when I felt my contribution could have been valuable. They did not ask for my input either. The participants were agentic knowers, and opportunities within the SP space aligned with the ethos of respect, reciprocity, and responsibility. All partici­ pants echoed that they were treated with great respect; however, as they were in an agentic role as student partners, it meant that they were engaged in dis­ rupting and changing traditional teaching and learning norms. The goal was to explore how the student-partners could pursue acts of learning or shape learn­ ing environments as actors and drive changes as agents rather than as objects in learning and teaching. The participants also echoed that the procedures and structured format of the partnership projects did bestow student-partners with more or less agentic oppor­ tunities for active participation to shape learning environments; however, they said it was vital to include participants’ interest in driving change and their will to enact agency in shaping the SP projects. The responses of many participants show that despite the capability to participate in the construction of their knowledge and having agency, the student-partners chose not to engage in the process of knowl­ edge construction. One of the most striking reasons was the monetary grant asso­ ciated with their participation. Amish echoed what many other participants said about the financial motivation behind their participation in SP projects: The COVID-19 pandemic was at its peak, and getting a job was difficult. When I came to know about the financial grant that the students get for

100

Preeti Vayada their contribution to the SP program, I did not give it a second thought. I applied for nearly 5–6 projects in anticipation of getting selected for one. It was better than riding for a food delivery app. I would not care about agency as long as it brings food to the table.

While such a view appears simultaneously empowering and lacking agency, the research states that when students can participate in the construction of their learning environment and knowledge, they have agency (Klemencˇ icˇ , 2020). Nevertheless, the participants stated that it was not that simple. Par­ ticipants’ experiences demonstrated that they came up with challenging positions in a complex space of student-partnership. Moreover, as student partners managing the messy partnership landscape, they were unwilling or unable to provide agentic involvement. The complexity of social and cul­ tural challenges with COVID-19 shaping the educational context cannot be overlooked as it affected them in many ways, such as financial difficulties, mental health issues, and isolation (Vayada, 2021). Relational Agencies as “Knowers” Knowledge is relational. Acknowledging that knowledge and the knower are intricately dependent on each other means that this dependency is both tem­ poral and contextual. Moreover, it reveals how the SP as an inclusive and cross-cultural space is built on understanding how diverse forms of knowledge shape subjectivities (Gachago et al., 2021). An element of relational agency is to both offer support and ask for support (Edwards, 2005). As a concept within SP, relational agency refers to the ability of both student and staff partners to work together to accomplish the project outcomes and transform the education space by recognizing and accessing the resources that student partners bring to the table. As stated by Edwards (2005, p. 172), “relational agency involves recognizing that another person may be a resource and that work needs to be done to elicit, recognize and negotiate the use of that resource to align oneself in joint action on the object (that is, the outcome)”. It comes with acknowledgment of the plurality of knowers for developing the body of knowledge. The plurality creates opportunities for information exchange, judgment con­ frontation, and verification. Dynamic SP practices are embedded in the world of plurality, where diverse perspectives and differences are respected. Some of the participants were comfortable in stating that differences were valued in their partnerships, as Maya noted: I think the SP project helped me get over the barrier between students and staff and made me communicate better. I think it has made me open about my ideas because I think everyone is more than willing to listen to your perspective and how you see things in the SP space.

In-between Varied Identities

101

While the holistic purpose of SaP practices is to recognize varied points of view, it is theorized on openness in communication where there are no hierarchies, and the practice is enabled to transcend cultural boundaries; however, two of the participants shared insights that strengthened an emerging view of the messy and complex nature of SP practice. Vrunda quotes: Though we were given a platform in the form of a project that holds great value in resume development and learning new skills, I did not feel it was very collaborative. It was not like we were developing the idea with the staff. The 4–5 staff partners were off and on, and only the moderator collaborated with us. Beth was disappointed when their expectations regarding equal contribution were not fulfilled. During the induction, we were to identify a spectrum on paper where the power would be in your project. We drew the line in between, meaning we shared equal power. However, between the student partners and the staff, I found the staff was consistently inconsistent in the project. Some of them joined and left without any formal introductions. The participants shared a necessary predicament to the earlier discussion on agency and power: overcoming unequal power relations in SP is vital for creating a third space that provides other positions to emerge (Dai & Hardy, 2022). This can only be possible when SP practitioners are willing to embrace the different perspectives of student partners. In addition, the participants’ comparison with other domestic student-partners in their project constructed barriers between “us” and “them”. While some suc­ cessfully broke the barrier, others maintained the status quo. One participant shared how the domestic student-partners were at ease in sharing their opinions and questioning the procedures and processes of the project, while she preferred to remain quiet unless asked. Undoubtedly, the participants’ responses call for interdependence among diverse forms of knowledge and knowing. At the same time, accepting all knowledge as incomplete opens up new opportunities for epistemic dialogue (De Sousa Santos, 2014). This means that SP practices have created a discrepancy between experiences and expectations due to the notion of the outcome-driven and structured nature of the partnership. In a more equitable sphere driven by the theoretical underpinnings of SaP practices, a balance between experiences and expectations needs to be the norm. Negotiating Co-Ownership of Knowledge Student-partners engaged in SP projects have made contributions that have the potential to enhance curriculum development, course design, research, and extracurricular elements of the university. More importantly, while terms such

102

Preeti Vayada

as equal collaboration, active engagement, and knowledge co-creation (CookSather, 2014; Matthews et al., 2017) reflect the ethos of SaP scholarship, the participants’ experiences provided great insights into how student-partners nego­ tiated co-ownership of knowledge produced through partnership. The negotiation of co-ownership refers to the democratic educational practice of incorporating student-partners’ input in the process of teaching and learning, along with pro­ viding them with recognition as co-owners of knowledge created in the process. In the context of SP, the importance of constructivism suggests that the negotiation of co-ownership promotes student participation and their con­ tributions to the development and implementation of teaching-learning pro­ grams. By reorganizing teaching, learning, and assessment through the involvement of student partners (Cook-Sather, 2014; Jensen & Bennett, 2016), student co-ownership is implicitly developed; however, the partici­ pants’ responses on who owns the knowledge created during the SP project were disappointing. Beth disclosed her disconnect with her project, having received no updates from the SP team leader: Being a participant in the partnership project for a complete 13 weeks and contributing to it wholeheartedly, I do not even know what happened to it after it ended. I do not know if it is running or how it has impacted the target group we were focusing on. We were unaware of the results and where that project is now. The participants were aware that Intellectual Property Rights were surrendered to the university; however, they were disappointed because the practices were meant to be transformative of traditional education models, whereas what they experienced was a struggle navigating the power relationship hidden discreetly in the program. This suggests challenges associated with ownership of knowl­ edge, control, and lack of transparency. Rahul hid his emotions cleverly as he shared his feelings: I am trying to figure out what happened to the work we did on our first SP. It got into a deep pool where what you have done is gone, and you are not even related. It is just that the university now owns whatever I did in the project. Some of the Indian participants’ views reflect their frustration associated with exclusion from the knowledge created which raises profound questions that shift from ownership to answerability. The students’ descriptions of their departure experiences from the SP project demonstrate a form of internal and external disjuncture. The commonality in their internal disjuncture was the inability to claim the knowledge produced in the process. The engagement in the knowledge pursuit through SP meant that the student-partners had to disown and disengage after the deadline was achieved. The external disjuncture is revealed in the form of a disconnect with the staff partners after the

In-between Varied Identities

103

completion of the project. The disassociation between the knower and the object poses some uncomfortable questions: � �

Can this be called a partnership or an outcome-driven project? Accepting the technicality associated with Intellectual Property Rights, how can students claim their contribution and the knowledge created in the project?

General Reflections This chapter aimed to make visible the (often) silenced presence of international students in partnership discourses. By producing a postcolonial analysis that encourages thinking responsively about international student-partners, we ask for the undertaking of shared responsibility to bring other diverse voices to the discussion. Our participants outlined some provocative challenges they faced in their role as student partners in a project-based partnership. We showed that Indian students embraced agency and voice in their engagement as partners entangled within hidden power dynamics. One of the significant elements that influenced their agentic involvement was the structured nature of the project that outlined the outcomes, timeframe, and student role dis­ tinctively. In some instances, the perception of agentic involvement and the relational agency was partially revealed, with satisfaction derived from com­ pleting the goal and getting a financial grant in return. An issue that was foregrounded within the project was most students’ incapacity to build dialo­ gic relationships with their staff partners and make their voices heard. Instead, the relationship was more with student-partners themselves questioning the ethos of the SP project as a partnership with the staff. What was lacking was the students’ motivation to bring about ways of doing and making meaning that was different from the status quo. This perhaps points to subjugation in their identity formation, which perceives their knowledge as insufficient for the dominant group. Another insight gathered from the students’ responses is that structurally crafted SP needs to examine the current practice for all other forms of knowledge to exist. Scholars and practitioners need to consider how to help student-partners enter, navigate and emerge from these liminal zones (CookSather & Alter, 2011) to bring their knowledge into the practice. This may be done through open communication in a horizontal landscape where the power relationships are diluted, and differing viewpoints are valued without the fear of being judged. At the same time, further embracing the potential of SaP practices as a distinct paradigm of knowledge, it would be more profound to refer to it as “partnerships for knowledge development”. This would be a space in which knowledge ownership does not belong to a single partnering group but is equally shared and claimed and where localization potential is taken into account.

104

Preeti Vayada

Conclusion In this chapter, the Indian students navigate their multiple identities by participat­ ing in SP projects. The students navigate and (re)shape their identities as knowl­ edge-holders with the capacity to be agentic knowers and relational agents. The chapter also questions the structured form of partnership where under­ represented groups struggle with their identities. By taking on the responsi­ bility to hear multiple voices to enable SP practices to be more inclusive, this text also presents some uncomfortable questions. While it is impossible to give easy answers, this text does open space for dialogue. It is more cri­ tical to maintain optimism that the amalgamation of various empirical and scholarly works will create a body of knowledge that will flourish in an inclusive SP program.

References Armour, D., & Miller, J. (2021). Relational pedagogies and co-constructing curriculum. In Shay, M., & Oliver, R. (Eds.) Indigenous Education in Australia (pp.162–173). Routledge. Bhabha, H. K. (1994 / 2012). The location of culture. Routledge. Bindra, G., Easwaran, K., Firasta, L., Hirsch, M., Kapoor, A., Sosnowski, A., StecMarksman, T., & Vatansever, G. (2018). Increasing representation and equity in students as partner initiatives. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(2), 10–15. Bochner, A. P. (2001). Narrative’s virtues. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(2), 131–157. Lenkauskaitė, J., Colomer, J., & Bubnys, R. (2020). Students’ social construction of knowledge through cooperative learning. Sustainability, 12(22), 9606. Carter, M. J., & Mireles, D. C. (2007). Identity theory. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosi078. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In T. Teo (Ed.) Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1947–1952). Springer. Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: A threshold concept in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(3), 186–198. Cook-Sather, A., & Alter, Z. (2011). What is and what can be: How a liminal position can change learning and teaching in higher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42(1), 37–53. Cook-Sather, A., & Reynolds, B. (2021). Developing Agentic Engagement through and across Pedagogical Partnership Programs. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 34(1), 1–7. Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). What are student-faculty partnerships? Our guiding principles and definition. Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty (pp.1–14). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. Dai, K., & Hardy, I. (2022) Language for learning? International students’ doctoral writing practices in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, doi:10.1080/01434632.2022.2089154.

In-between Varied Identities

105

De Bie, A., Marquis, E., Cook-Sather, A., & Luqueño, L. (2021). Promoting equity and justice through pedagogical partnership. Stylus Publishing, LLC. De Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge. Dei, G. J. S. (2000). Rethinking the role of indigenous knowledge in the academy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 111–132. Department of Education, Skills and Employment (2020). Selected higher education statis­ tics – 2020 student data. https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-statistics/student-da ta/selected-higher-education-statistics-2020-student-data-0. Dweck, C. (2016). What having a “growth mindset” actually means? Harvard Business Review, 13, 213–226. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182. Gachago, D., Jones, B., Esambe, E. E., Jongile, S., & Ivala, E. (2021). Engaging knowledge and the knower: Design considerations for emerging modes of academic staff develop­ ment. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning (CriSTaL), 9(SI), 145–169. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Educa­ tion Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/engagement_ through_partnership.pdf. Hickling-Hudson, A. (2006). Cultural complexity, postcolonial perspectives, and educa­ tional change: Challenges for comparative educators. Education and Social Justice (pp.191–208). Springer. Indira, R. (2020). Lending voices to the marginalized: The power of narratives as alternative sociological discourse. Sociological Bulletin, 69(1), 7–16. Jensen, K., & Bennett, L. (2016). Enhancing teaching and learning through dialogue: A student and staff partnership model. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 41–53. Klemencˇ icˇ , M. (2020). Students as actors and agents in student-centered higher education. In The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 92–108). Routledge. Krause, K. L. (2022). Higher education sector institutional diversity: An Australian case study. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 1–18. Matthews, K. E., Dwyer, A., Hine, L., & Turner, J. (2018). Conceptions of students as partners. Higher Education, 76(6), 957–971. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. Neary, M., Saunders, G., Hagyard, A., & Derricott, D. (2014). Student as producer: Research-engaged teaching, an institutional strategy. http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/ep rint/14789/1/14789%20lincoln_ntfs_2010_project_final_report_fv.pdf. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Rauf, F., Xu, J., & Yasmeen, G. (2019). Role of the individual as a “knowledge holder identity” in knowledge processes. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Organization Management. 8(1), 1–9. Rizvi, F. (2007). Postcolonialism and globalization in education. Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies, 7(3), 256–263. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

106

Preeti Vayada

Schwarz, K. C., & Williams, J. P. (2020). Introduction to the social construction of identity and authenticity. Studies on the social construction of identity and authenticity (pp.1–24). Routledge. Sperduti, V. R. (2017). Internationalization as westernization in higher education. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 9(Spring), 9–12. Vayada, P. (2021). Being a Mature-Aged Student Partner. In Critical Issues in the Future of Learning and Teaching, Adults in the Academy (pp. 27–34). Brill.

9

Intercultural Awareness and

International Identities

Necessary Support and Preparation

for Academic Staff

Sezen Arslan

Introduction Thanks to globalization, countries’ borders have become transparent, and inter­ nationalization has gained momentum. This has increased the speed of inter­ nationalization in student mobility in tertiary education through mobility programs. These programs are crucial in enhancing intercultural understanding because when students have a chance to study abroad, they are likely to meet new cultures. As a result, they are supposed to understand the differences and relate them to their own cultures, which contributes to the development of intercultural awareness. However, a related line of research indicates that stu­ dents’ first encounters with different cultures do not constantly develop their intercultural understanding (Holmes et al., 2015; Foster, 2016). Therefore, inter­ nationalization seems to be separate from the recruitment of international stu­ dents on its own, but it should also refer to support and preparation for academic staff (Castro et al., 2016). That means student mobility implies a com­ prehensive engagement with academic staff to develop intercultural awareness. Otherwise, mobile students may strengthen their existing cultural biases. Along similar lines, many researchers have expressed their concerns about the impact of student mobility on the development of intercultural knowledge and skills (e.g., Breen, 2012; Sharpe, 2015). They think that although mobile students may be exposed to different cultures, this is a temporary engagement with intercultural interactions, thereby resulting in superficial intercultural learning. In this scheme, academic staff should be given support to promote intercultural awareness for mobile students. Therefore, the research question sought in this chapter is: “How can the academic staff at higher education (HE) be supported in promoting intercultural awareness for mobile students of various international identities?” The chapter aims to explore how the HE academic staff in the international arena should be supported to promote intercultural awareness for mobile stu­ dents. It seeks to provide further guidance for the academic staff to create learning settings that help students to achieve intercultural competence inspired by Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) (Paris, 2012). Accordingly, the recent extant literature is reviewed, and suggestions for academic staff preparation in

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-11

108

Sezen Arslan

developing intercultural awareness are introduced. Thus, we aim to contribute to the growing literature on student mobility from a different perspective.

Internalization and Higher Education The ideological spectrum based on Americanization and Westernization immensely impacts uniting cultures and identities across the nations (Gargano, 2009). This perspective explains how the dominance of Americanization and Westernization represses cultural diversity, resulting in a monopolized culture. Globalization is handled from a different view. Accordingly, globalization promotes hybridity by highlighting and encouraging diversity in the context of culture and identities (Gargano, 2009). This view is based on internalization, which is closely linked to globalization. Knight (2003) defines internalization as “the process of integrating an interna­ tional, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education”. In other words, Knight’s definition emphasizes three components: (1) international, (2) intercultural, and (3) global. The scholar main­ tains that whereas international refers to the close relationship among cultures, intercultural denotes cultural diversity in the communities. Global is used as a worldwide phenomenon. Based on international and intercultural thinking through encouraging various cultural groups, internationalization is an umbrella term that includes globalization as an essential part. Great attention is attached to internationalization within the HE context; therefore, it has recently become the primary concern for many universities worldwide (Castro et al., 2020). Globalization has a substantial impact on uni­ versities making internalization a priority. This results from shifting focus from the view of globalization and internalization of HE to globalization of HE inter­ nalization. While the former emphasizes economic practices such as production and competition among the institutions, the latter prioritizes global respectability and status (Egron-Polak et al., 2017, as cited in Castro et al., 2020). The motivation for internalization is built on maximizing the number of international students in HE as much as possible (Knight, 2014).

Student Mobility Globalization has a significant impact on the change of policies in HE institutions. They emphasize collaboration and communication with various parts of the world because education solely underpinned by national or regional practices would not contribute to their academic growth (Teichler, 2004). Therefore, student mobility has gained importance in HE institutions. However, to avoid confusion about the term student mobility throughout this chapter, it would be better to define it first, thereby highlighting who the mobile students are and how/why they become mobile. Student mobility refers to the term that indicates international students. They have completed their prior education (such as secondary or high school education) in another

Intercultural Awareness of Academic Staff

109

country, and they have started to study in a different country (host country), although they are not residents of that country (OECD, 2022). In addition to this definition, UNESCO highlights the physical dimension of student mobility and defines international students as those “who have crossed national and territorial borders for education and are now enrolled outside of their country of origin” (UNESCO, 2022). This definition by UNESCO is fundamental in further elaborating student mobility as it can happen in dif­ ferent forms. As a result of technological advancements and digital reforms in education, specifically right after COVID-19, online instruction has been given weight. Therefore, a new dimension of student mobility appeared: virtual mobility implemented through digital tools. In virtual reality, the students can attend courses held by the host countries without physically leaving their home country. Information and communication technologies (ICT) help the students communicate and collaborate with other students in the host country. However, unlike the chapters in the third part of the cur­ rent volume, this chapter only focuses on student mobility that is realized physically from one destination to the other.

Language and Identity of the Students in the Mobility Programs International exchange programs include students from diverse settings who might have different skills as well as historical, educational, and national backgrounds (Gargano, 2009). This diversity primarily feeds their identities. However, talking of this identity issue, it would be ill-advised to accept that identity is binary as “host” and “home”. Mobile students may identify them­ selves with different identities (Baker, 2016). Therefore, identity is not stable. Notably, this complexity of identity shows up for language users in ELF (Eng­ lish as a Lingua Franca) settings (Virkkula & Nikula, 2010). Multilingualism and multiculturalism are natural for mobility programs in ELF settings where hundreds of mobile students come from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds but speak English as a common language (Baker, 2016). Considering that there are multiple native speakers of other languages in an ELF environment, it is impossible to emphasize and dominate only one culture and language. Specifically, there can be certain language-related deviations as the students might have different proficiency levels. For exam­ ple, code-switching can easily be observed in international settings whereby non-native English-speaking mobile students mix two or more languages to communicate. In particular, native Turkish-speaking students may switch to Turkish while speaking with native speakers of other languages during their stay abroad. Linguistic reasons and willingness to create an intercultural identity may play a role in code-switching. In this sense, identity and inter­ cultural interaction are inextricably linked. That is why students’ identities should be handled from a broader perspective by including linguistic and cultural dimensions to encourage intercultural understanding.

110

Sezen Arslan

Intercultural Learning through Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy In a setting whereby ELF is used to create a common channel for communication among mobile students, it is unlikely that there is a dominant culture and language. Considering that students come from different parts of the world, it is possible to see the traces of various cultural and linguistic products during the study program. Recognizing and appreciating these diversities is of crucial importance for the promotion of intercultural understanding. Otherwise, the depreciation of cultural diversities may result in stereotyping and generalizations that may hamper intercultural communication, especially during studying abroad. Therefore, mobile students should be made aware of the sophisticated characteristics of intercultural learning. Intercultural learning for mobile students should be within a purposeful way to enhance the opportunities to create an awareness of multiple identities. Paris (2012) introduces Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) which maintains cultural and lin­ guistic diversity. Accordingly, instead of homogenized, dominant languages, cul­ tures, and racial practices, CSP favors multiple sociocultural contexts, including multiethnicity, diversity of languages, and cultures that people bring to the instruc­ tional settings. To accomplish CSP, collaborative and supportive learning settings should be created so those cultural identities can be recognized and monocultural practices concerning racism and oppression can be dismissed (Kinloch, 2017). A pluralist view is adopted in CSP, thereby increasing the representation of all socie­ ties in the classroom. Therefore, linguistic diversities stemming from culture, race, and other identity-related issues should be welcomed; slang, translanguaging, and code-switching should be accepted and valued (Bucholtz et al., 2017). These ele­ ments reflect the use of a language due to the different identities. As for CSP-related practices for teachers, Ladson-Billings (2017) summarizes three components: (1) student-centered learning, (2) improving cultural competence for students, and (3) developing critical consciousness of students. Accordingly, student-centered learning refers to learning outcomes that the students obtain from their experiences. Therefore, classroom instruction should be based on the activities that render the students active. These activities include problem-solving, debates, group projects, questioning, and reflection. Secondly, cultural competence includes developing insight into one’s own culture (native/local culture) and another culture that is foreign to them. Ladson-Billings (2017) asserts that cultural competence is promoted by expanding the knowledge of visible and invisible dimensions of cultures. Hence, cultural subjects such as art, food, dances, and religion should be addressed. Finally, critical consciousness covers questioning societal situa­ tions. In so doing, specific actions to fight against stereotypes could be taken. To promote intercultural learning through CSP, instructors should give up unhealthy thinking that causes someone to believe they are privileged because of an identity attached to a group/society/nation (Paris, 2021). It is harmful as it impedes creating cultural awareness of other cultures. If someone thinks that their culture is superior to others, it is unlikely that they will be open to learning about different cultures.

Intercultural Awareness of Academic Staff

111

How to Prepare Academic Staff to Create Intercultural Learning for Mobile Students through CSP? The number of mobile students has increased for tertiary education in recent years. These students study outside their origin country and bring several identity-related components to the international educational settings. These components are linked to language and culture. Considering that they come from countries or societies with diverse identities, special acknowledgment of this diversity is needed to accomplish cultural awareness and learning. How­ ever, only some students coming to these settings recognize and respect others’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds, thereby possibly strengthening stereotypes. Although they may not have sufficient knowledge of other cultures, they may humiliate entire cultural groups or societies or make assumptions about them. It implies that mobile students may not always improve intercultural learning and understanding, although mobility programs enable them to promote inter­ cultural awareness. Therefore, a pedagogic approach should be conducted to create intercultural awareness for mobile students. In so doing, a set of knowl­ edge, skills, and attitudes should be fostered and addressed explicitly by aca­ demics who teach subjects to mobile students in HE institutions. In this chapter, to create intercultural awareness for mobile students in diverse settings, CSP is suggested. Therefore, this chapter is significant in pro­ viding guidance for academic staff in international HE institutions. Based on the extant literature related to CSP, it is, therefore, beneficial to document the components concerning CSP for guiding academic staff as follows (e.g., Paris, 2012; Kinloch, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 2017): 1 2 3 4

Create collaborative and supportive learning settings; Encourage student-centered learning; Develop cultural competence for students; Improve the critical consciousness of students.

In the following section, each of the components above is elaborated on. Also, practical implications for academic staff in HE are provided for creating intercultural awareness through CSP. Create Collaborative and Supportive Learning Settings Kinloch (2017) thinks collaboration, collectiveness, and affection are the keys to practical learning settings for increased recognition of students’ identities. The scholar maintains that linguistic variations of the students should also be acknowledged in this way. For example, a Turkish-speaking student who stu­ dies in Britain as an exchange student and uses ELF to communicate with their classmates in class can produce utterances under the impact of their native language, which can deviate from the target language. This production can naturally manifest the students’ language-related identity (Song, 2012). Such

112

Sezen Arslan

expressions can also be observed in English as a foreign/second language set­ ting. For instance, a study by Mammadova (2021) points out that some non­ native English speakers may use verbal elements in their L1 while expressing their emotions, particularly in spoken discourses. Thus, one’s L1 plays a vital role in forming language identity. Academic staff should have positive attitudes towards these linguistic variations. They should not be so strict about the accuracy of the expressions as long as the meaning and communication are not distorted. In ELF settings with diverse linguistic backgrounds, the distinction between accuracy and fluency is crucial. Therefore, it should be handled by the instructors carefully. As communication lies at the heart of studying abroad, fluency through communication skills may be emphasized. These skills include organizing and expressing ideas with no/little hesitation, automaticity of the speech, and active listening. In addition, Fang’s (2014) study emphasizes that confirmation of linguistic identity and variations are essential for mobile students. The study shows that a Chinese international student in Canada had difficulty writing in English because the student thought this difficulty stemmed from the different written forms of writing in the English and Chinese languages. It also emphasizes that the student did not evaluate her writing performance on its own in an objec­ tive way but thought that the writing professor judged her; thus, she main­ tained the Chinese writing discourse style as a revelation of her linguistic identity. In this case, the instructors should recognize that students’ native languages can play essential roles in how they use a second language. There­ fore, they should understand linguistic variation and discourse styles across different linguistic groups. However, recognizing the linguistic and cultural diversities is not sufficient on its own for implementing CSP in mobility programs. For this reason, a colla­ borative learning environment should be created where stakeholders, including families, instructors, and community members, can work together to support linguistic and cultural diversity. With this aim, for example, Prasad and Lory (2020) implemented a collaborative multilingual and multicultural project where students from different language and cultural backgrounds produced multilingual texts in seventeen languages. Later, students’ families and com­ munity members were called on to read these texts out loud to create a sense of belonging and support the inclusion of the languages. Inspired by this project, mobility programs could similarly conduct such implementations. International students can collaborate and produce written or spoken products in which several languages are represented and included. Further, these products could be presented to and shared with the community members in the host country. Such implementations may serve as great opportunities to increase the interaction with the local community members. To sum up, as the international student population in HE becomes more intercultural and multilingual, another parallel shift in the instructional para­ digm is also required to support diverse identities. Without the involvement of different identities, including cultural and linguistic varieties, the departments in

Intercultural Awareness of Academic Staff

113

HE would be heavily under monolingual and monocultural implementations. Therefore, to promote the inclusion of all mobile students in the international HE programs, the first step can be to enable a supportive and collaborative learning environment where several languages and cultural differences are recognized, appreciated, and promoted. The instructors should thus have posi­ tive attitudes towards this diversity and take the initiative to include different linguistic/cultural variations in instructional practices. Encourage Student-Centered Learning Ladson-Billings (2017) explains that student-centered learning within the concept of CSP encompasses valuing individual academic development at someone’s level and pace. The scholar states that every student can increase their academic growth due to the instructional experiences they had and benefitted from. Therefore, she does not emphasize centralized tests as accurate performance indicators as they cannot show how much students have improved themselves; however, they only focus on the results and scores, mostly limited to the White class and monolingual implementations. Accordingly, she thinks an instructor supporting CSP should recognize the differences in students’ drawing inferences, decision-making, and problem-solving skills. Therefore, problem-solving activ­ ities can be helpful for cultural learning. The students can be provided with a cultural problem for which they are expected to suggest reasonable solutions. Problems can help activate students’ reasoning. For instance, drawing on the observations of two German Erasmus students in Turkey (Neumann & Knust, 2013), such a situation that is likely to generate a cultural misunderstanding can be given to mobile students to evaluate it from another lens: A German student says: Turkish people are friendly and kind. When you ask them to go out, they accept it. However, when you ask them the exact time to go out, they often do not say the time directly. Instead, they say: “We can meet whenever you like”. Or, “We can meet sometime tomorrow”. It is confusing for Germans because we do not tell such an approximate time to go out with someone. Such a situation can be handled by investigating and evaluating two cultures, Turkish and German. These western and non-western cultures differ in aspects such as directness. Such situations can be given to mobile students studying abroad in HE. They can be asked to suggest possible solutions for the problems by interpreting the cross-cultural differences, such as indirectness/directness. While these problem-solving activities help facilitate student-centeredness, they also promote intercultural awareness. Apart from that, mobility and student-centered learning are closely linked. Mobility is an effective chance for students to study abroad and challenge the problematic situations stemming from adjusting to a new culture. This implies

114

Sezen Arslan

that academics should first be given adequate opportunities to attend staff mobility programs where they can have first-hand experience regarding mobility in an overseas country. Then, they can understand the potential challenges and recognize good mobility practices. Further, they can organize and implement CSP practices after seeing the implementation of high-quality in terms of instruction. Overall, student-centeredness is inextricably linked to problem-solving skills. Within the CSP framework, it can be considered by posing situations where cultural mis­ understandings occur. As cross-cultural differences may exist between different societies, such problem-solving activities can help understand other cultures, thereby increasing the potential interaction. Another remarkable way of promot­ ing student-centeredness for CSP is enabling opportunities for staff mobility pro­ grams for academics and allowing them to share their related experiences about good practices of intercultural awareness with the stakeholders. Develop Cultural Competence for Students Cultural competence does not solely include the materialistic and visible knowl­ edge of any culture, such as cultural products (traditions, cuisine, clothing, etc.); on the contrary, it also includes the skill of recognizing and appreciating one’s own culture and the other foreign culture (Ladson-Billings, 2017). In this case, CSP and Byram’s model of Intercultural Communicative Competence (Byram, 1997) share a common ground. Accordingly, Byram thinks one should have knowledge about social products (cultural symbols, food, traditions, essential days, celebrations, important people) of one’s own culture and other cultures. He also thinks that openness and curiosity towards other cultures are the expected attitudes to estab­ lish healthy interactions with people from different cultures. Thus, they can learn more about different cultures by eliminating their stereotypes. In addition, instructors in an international HE institution should first eliminate their stereotypes of any culture. To this end, they should enhance their knowledge of their own and foreign cultures, which is possible through staff exchange programs. Thus, they can attend such programs and have first-hand experi­ ences with the mobility process. In this way, they can compare and contrast different cultures without rendering one culture superior/inferior to the other. Their understanding of the benefits and potential challenges regarding studying/teaching abroad can be expanded. Drawing on these experiences, the instructors can also guide the students, which may inspire them as they are based on true stories. Secondly, drawing on the study by Holmes and Neill (2012), mobile students can first be paired with partners from another culture, and their stereotypes of the other culture are listed. Also, the researchers state that the next step can be spending time with that partner (e.g., eating out together) and talking about guided topics of conversation given by the instructors, which will help them see how they can handle the cultural differences. In such a way, they can see both visible and invisible parts of the foreign culture and have the chance to get rid of their cultural prejudices.

Intercultural Awareness of Academic Staff

115

To conclude, cultural competence for mobile students in international HE institutions includes knowledge of one’s culture and other cultures. Also, mobile students should be able to develop positive attitudes toward learning more about different cultures. This is important for eliminating cultural stereotypes. There­ fore, academic staff in HE should build their repertoire of cultural knowledge, including concrete and abstract concepts regarding one’s own and other cultures. To develop cultural competence for the mobile students, the instructors can pair local and international students and implement cultural practices to reduce/end stereotypes and enable further intercultural learning. Improve the Critical Consciousness of Students CSP supports multiple sociocultural settings representing diverse ethnicities, languages, and cultures. However, more than one representation of this diversity may be required to cultivate intercultural understanding and aware­ ness. Therefore, within international HE settings, the students need to be able to critically evaluate the social, political, and cultural issues across the world. It should go beyond giving a talk or delivering presentations about those issues, thereby implementing learning projects (Ladson-Billings, 2017). These projects could be based on harmful practices against social justice and humanism, where the participants can engage with others to understand and self-reflect. Similarly, in his model, Byram (1997) indicates that one should critically analyze different cultures’ perspectives, practices, and products to develop an understanding of cultures. There are some ways to practice critical consciousness to create intercultural awareness. Gay and Kirkland (2003) state that one of them is role-playing or simulations where the students exchange different ethnic perspectives on cul­ tural issues. In addition to that, they also gave a specific example of practicing critical consciousness by rewriting American patriotic songs to render them more inclusive. They believe these implementations effectively dismiss the thought that one race/ethnic group is superior to the other. Therefore, HE academic staff should become aware of the acts of social injustice and take action to address them by providing students with related evidence from real life. This could be through simulations, role-play, projects, and panel discus­ sions where critical questions are posed.

Conclusion As a result of globalization and the eminent status of ELF, internalization of the HE and student mobility have gained importance. Therefore, the inclusion of multicultural and multilingual differences in HE settings has accelerated. This integration is critical for mobile students to develop intercultural awareness. Studying abroad is an excellent opportunity for many students since they may meet different local people and maintain conversations with them while devel­ oping an understanding of the cultural elements pertaining to that setting. It can

116

Sezen Arslan

also be a unique activity for them to improve their global perspective through communicating and collaborating with international people. Those students can develop an insight into their own cultural values and customs and compare them with others. Developing intercultural awareness may help the students adjust to different opinions and respect differences. However, based on the extant literature, some studies show that mobility only sometimes yields good results for students in improving intercultural knowledge and skills (cf. Breen, 2012; Sharpe, 2015). They may temporarily develop intercultural awareness, or their prejudices towards people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds may be maintained and developed. Thus, it is noteworthy to say that mobile students should be provided with effective practices through which they learn how to value and respect different cultures. This indicates the need to prepare and support academic staff in interna­ tional HE settings. They should become aware of identity-related diversities such as linguistic and cultural aspects, and they need to improve their knowledge and skills towards appreciating and acknowledging these differences. Using a wellestablished framework such as CSP (Paris, 2012) would be systematic to provide intercultural awareness using instructional implementations. CSP employs the philosophy holding that people of different linguistic and cultural identities can co­ exist within the same classroom. Such a pluralistic view emphasizes that instruc­ tors should embrace diversity and conduct instructional practices. These practices should help students to recognize their own culture while accommodating other cultural norms and showing openness and tolerance. Therefore, based on CSP, this chapter suggests practical examples of providing intercultural understanding to eliminate stereotypes and generalizations.

References Baker, W. (2016). English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: Student mobility in the transcultural university. Language and Intercultural Communication, 16 (3), 437–451. Breen, M. (2012). Privileged migration: American undergraduates, study abroad, academic tourism. Critical Arts: South-North Cultural and Media Studies, 26(1), 82–102. Bucholtz, M., Casillas, D. I., & Lee, J. S. (2017). Language and culture as sustenance. In D. Paris & H. S. Alim (Eds.) Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 43–60). Teachers College Press. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters. Castro, P., Lundgren, U., & Woodin, J. (2020). Intercultural dialogue: An educational approach. In U. Lundgren, P. Castro, & J. Woodin (Eds.) Educational approaches to internationalization through intercultural dialogue (pp. 3–15). Routledge. Castro, P., Woodin, J., Lundgren, U., & Byram, M. (2016). Student mobility and inter­ nationalization in higher education: Perspectives from practitioners. Language and Intercultural Communication, 16(3), 418–436. Fang, X. (2014). Exploration EAL learner identity: Understanding language-related challenges of Chinese international students at university of Saskatchewan, Education Matters, 2(2), 109–128.

Intercultural Awareness of Academic Staff

117

Foster, M. (2016). Exploring intercultural awareness: International student mobility in China and the UK through a non-essentialist lens. In D. M. Vellaris & D. ColemanGeorge (Eds.) Handbook of research study abroad programs and outbound mobility (pp. 349–369). IGI Global. Gargano, T. (2009). (Re) conceptualizing international student mobility. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 331–346. Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and selfreflection in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181–187. Holmes, P., Bavieri, L., & Ganassin, S. (2015). Developing intercultural understanding for study abroad: Students and teachers’ perspectives on pre-departure intercultural learning. Intercultural Education, 26(1), 16–30. Holmes, P., & Neill, G. O. (2012). Developing and evaluating intercultural competence: Ethnographies of intercultural encounters. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 707–718. Kinloch, V. (2017). “You ain’t making me write”.: Culturally sustaining pedagogies and black youths’ performances of resistance. In D. Paris, & H. S. Alim (Eds.) Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp.25–41). Teachers College Press. Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3. Knight, J. (2014). International education hubs: Student, talent, knowledge models. Springer. Ladson-Billings, G. (2017). The (R)evolution will not be standardized: Teacher educa­ tion, hip hop pedagogy, and culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0. In D. Paris & H. S. Alim (Eds.) Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 141–156). Teachers College Press. Mammadova, T. (2021). Discourse particles as cultural phenomena of intercultural communication breakdown. In T. Mammadova (Ed.) Cultural diversity in cross-cul­ tural settings: A global approach (pp. 65–88). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Neumann, M. L., & Knust, S. L. (2013). Perceptions of cultural differences between Turkish and German societies: Personal observations of two German Erasmus students at Karabük University. Journal of History, Culture and Art Research, 2(4), 203–212. OECD. (2022). International student mobility (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/4bcf6fc3-en. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. Paris, D. (2021). Culturally sustaining pedagogies and our futures. The Educational Forum, 85(4), 364–376. Prasad, G., & Lory, M. P. (2020). Linguistic and cultural collaboration in schools: Reconciling majority and minoritized language users. TESOL Quarterly, 54(4), 797–822. Sharpe, E. K. (2015). Colonialist tendencies in education abroad. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 27(2), 227–234. Song, L. (2012). On the variability of interlanguage. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 778–783. Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26. UNESCO. (2022). International (or internationally mobile) students. http://uis.unesco. org/en/glossary-term/international-or-internationally-mobile-students. Virkkula, T., & Nikula, T. (2010). Identity construction in ELF contexts: A case study of Finnish engineering students working in Germany. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 251–273.

Part II

International Academic Mobility in the Light of Global Pandemics

Considering the substantial damage academic mobility has recently sustained, the book recognizes the impact of COVID-19 on many aspects. The second part of the collection, entitled International Academic Mobility in the light of Global Pandemics, examines the ups and downs of academic mobility in the context of travel policies, program coordination, network capital, as well as cross-cultural and linguistic perceptions in times of uncertainty. The chapters look into the general challenges most students and stakeholders faced at the time when gov­ ernments imposed regulated and restrictive lockdowns. While some authors argue that the mobility programs carried out during pandemics failed to main­ tain the regular outcomes and, as a result, could not benefit the mobility actors, others reveal new horizons of diverse opportunities to be incorporated into future academic mobility programs. The latter foresees the growing interest in virtual mobility and collaborative online international learning capable of engaging students within pre-, in-, and post-mobility time. The present part suggests that virtual mobility though not new to Higher Education, its value and implementability for international academic mobility, became noticed practically in the times of global pandemics. In turn, this gives rise to the next part of the book, which will present virtual mobility as a new form of international academic mobility complementary to the traditional one.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-12

10 Travel Policies and International Student Mobility in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic A General Review of Cases in Australia and China Yingxin Liu and Ai Tam Le Introduction Following the worldwide breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic, global higher education has faced significant changes. International students, being a significant part of the global higher education student body, have been a particularly vulner­ able group, facing unprecedented obstacles as a result of the pandemic and the resulting travel policies enacted by local governments (Yıldırım et al., 2021). In responding to the pandemic, Australia and China, two of the most popular desti­ nations for foreign students in Asia and the Pacific, swiftly adopted “Zero COVID” policies in an attempt to halt the transmission of COVID-19 by putting in place stringent lockdowns and strict travel restrictions (Barbieri et al., 2021). Both Australia and China have been proactively recruiting international students. The foreign student enrollment (excluding graduates of the year) in higher education institutions in Australia stood at 440,667 as of 2019 (Fer­ guson & Spinks, 2021) and in China at 333,072 as of 2019 (Ministry of Education, 2020b). The rigorous travel restriction policies have an immedi­ ate negative impact on the enrollment of international students as well as their inward mobility to Australia and China. International student enroll­ ment in higher education fell to 418,168 in Australia (Ferguson & Spinks, 2021) and 273,792 in China (Ministry of Education, 2021) in 2020, the year when the pandemic broke out. In this chapter, we examine the travel policies of the two nations in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as how international students and interna­ tional student mobility are impacted, particularly the challenges and opportu­ nities they have encountered. Two key research questions guide our analysis: � �

How have Australia and China coped with the COVID-19 pandemic? What travel policies do China and Australia institute? What are the impacts of the travel policies of the two countries on inter­ national student mobility?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-13

122

Yingxin Liu and Ai Tam Le

Australia’s Travel Restriction Policies and International Student Mobility According to the Oxford Coronavirus Government Response Tracker research note (Hale et al., 2022), most countries generally adopted two approaches to dealing with the pandemic in 2020. The first approach was adopted by “Zero COVID” countries that sought to suppress or eliminate COVID-19 through strict lockdowns and stringent travel control (Hale et al., 2022, p. 5). This approach was more common in Asia and the Pacific region. The second approach was adopted by countries that “sought to reduce but not eliminate the spread of COVID-19 while attempting to maintain openness”. This approach was more common in Europe, America, and Africa. Australia’s approach can be considered to be aligned with the first, consisting of a range of mobility restriction measures within and outside the country. International restrictions primarily included restrictions on cruise ship arri­ vals in Australia, restrictions on foreign nationals entering Australia (inward travel restrictions), restrictions on Australian citizens and permanent residents leaving Australia (outward travel restrictions), and requirements for interna­ tional arrivals to undertake mandatory quarantine for 14 days at designated hotels or other facilities managed by state and territory governments (Aus­ tralian National Audit Office, 2021). While the Australian federal government decided on inbound and outbound international travel, quarantine and inter­ state travel restrictions fall into the purview of the state government (Australian National Audit Office, 2021). Table 10.1 summarizes key events related to international travel restrictions in Australia from early 2020 to February 2022, when borders were re-opened. The first case of COVID was detected in Australia on 25 January 2020. Through February and March, the situation escalated. The first travel restric­ tion for foreign nationals was enacted on 1 February 2020 for those traveling from mainland China; Australian citizens, permanent residents, and their immediate families returning from China were required to self-isolate for 14 days. From then, a series of country-specific travel restrictions were imple­ mented in February and early March 2020, including China (1 February), Iran (29 February), Korea (5 March), and Italy (11 March). This first set of travel restrictions led many Chinese international students to travel to a third country to enter Australia, causing significant anxiety and chaos (Qi & Ma, 2021). They could potentially have similar impacts on students entering from other countries on the banned list. The closing of borders was announced on 20 March 2020, except for Aus­ tralian citizens, permanent residents, and their immediate family members (and other exemptions). These practices were in line with most countries in the world at that time (Hale et al., 2022). A few days later, the outbound travel ban on Australians was enacted on 25 March 2020, marking the closing of Aus­ tralian borders for nearly two years, until February 2022. While inbound and outbound travels still took place during that period, they were only allowed

Travel Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

123

Table 10.1 Major events related to travel restrictions in Australia from January 2020 to July 2022 Date

Description

9/01/2020 25/01/2020 1/02/2020 1/03/2020 5/03/2020 11/03/2020 11/03/2020 15/03/2020

Preliminary determination of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China The first case of COVID-19 in Australia detected China’s inward travel restriction for foreign nationals Iran’s inward travel restriction for foreign nationals South Korea’s inward travel restriction for foreign nationals COVID-19 virus was declared a pandemic by WHO Italy’s inward travel restriction for foreign nationals Compulsory 14-day self-isolation implemented for all international arrivals Cruise ships are prevented from arriving in Australia Inward travel restrictions on any foreign nationals Outward travel restrictions on Australians traveling overseas Mandatory 14-day quarantine mandated and managed by the state government Capped international arrivals at major airports mostly to repatriate citizens or permanent residents Intermitting periods of free quarantine travel bubble with New Zealand India’s 14-day travel pause was due to a sharp increase in infections originating from India Borders were opened to international students for most states except for Western Australia and the Northern Territory Border restrictions lifted for vaccinated visitors Pre-departure COVID test no longer required for travelers to enter transit Australia Evidence of vaccination status and completion of Digital Passenger Declaration or Maritime Travel Declaration is no longer required for travelers entering Australia; Travel exemption is not required for unvaccinated travelers

15/03/2020 20/03/2020 25/03/2020 28/03/2020 07/2020–12/2020 02/2021–04/2021 30/04/2021 15/12/2021 21/02/2022 18/04/2022 06/07/2022

For a comprehensive list of travel restriction policies, see the Australian National Audit Office’s report, 2021.

under exceptional circumstances, such as the repatriation of Australian citizens. In addition, international arrivals were capped, and the caps varied across states and territories and were adjusted according to the pandemic development. Major states would have a few hundred arrivals per day (350 arrivals per day in Sydney), while others would have hundreds of arrivals per week (500 arrivals per week in Brisbane). When the pandemic started deepening, in early April 2020, Australia’s Prime Minister said to international students who were struggling to support them­ selves that there was an alternative for them (international students) to return

124

Yingxin Liu and Ai Tam Le

to their home countries (Burgess, 2020). This comment not only heightened anxiety and fear among international students but also called into question Australia’s ethical and moral responsibility in times of chaos (Tran & Tan, 2020). Given the number of international students at that time—more than 650,000, constituting about 30% of the student body in Australia (Department of Education, Skills, and Employment, 2020a)—the comment immediately caught media attention and sparked responses from various student peak bodies. During the first few months of the pandemic, staying in the country was not easy for many international students who were not eligible for the support that was available to Australian citizens. Many international students lost their jobs but could not leave the country and had to rely on support from the state gov­ ernment and their universities. A survey conducted by Union NSW in March/ April 2020 suggests that of the total international student respondents (accounting for two-thirds of 5,432 valid responses), 60% lost their jobs, 46% were financially forced to skip meals on a regular basis, and 84% ‘were relying on savings which were expected to run out in a few weeks due to the impacts of the pandemic’ (Union NSW, 2020, p. 4). Amidst the pandemic, international students were not allowed to enter Australia; they were made to believe that they were not forgotten. For exam­ ple, in July 2020, the Australian government announced several changes to visa arrangements “to ensure Australia remains a priority destination for international students as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic” and that “international students are not worse off due to the coronavirus pandemic and that Australia remains competitive with other countries” (Ministry of Immi­ gration, Citizenship, Migrant Services, and Multicultural Affairs, 2020). The changes include continuing to grant visas for students so that they were ready to travel when borders open; free of charge visa fees due to COVID, offshore study time can be counted in the study requirement for a post-study work visa; ability to apply for post-study visa offshore; flexibility in providing English efficiency evidence (Ministry of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services, and Multicultural Affairs, 2020). However, only in 2021 were international students gradually and reservedly allowed to enter Australia. The total number of international student arrivals in July 2021 was 510, a drop of more than 99.6% compared to January 2020 of 91,250 (Hurley et al., 2021, p. 15). The number of international student arrivals in June 2022 was 29,480, which was still 36% lower than the pre-COVID levels in June 2019 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). Strict travel restrictions might also have impacted international students’ intention and interest in studying in Australia. For example, according to a report by the Mitchell Institute (2021) (Victoria University) in Australia, international students’ enrollments have recovered the fastest in countries where international travel remained possible, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, whereas this number remained well below the pre-pandemic levels in Australia and New Zealand (Hurley et al., 2021, p. 3). This report also suggests that the number of new international Chinese students has reduced significantly across five major

Travel Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

125

study destinations, but the highest reduction was observed in Australia (61%) and New Zealand (92%) (Hurley et al., 2021, p. 10). Chinese students prior to the pandemic constituted the highest group, but this decreased significantly after the borders were open, and India now has taken over China as having the highest number of international student arrivals (Department of Education, Skills, and Employment, 2022b).

China’s Travel Restriction Policies and International Student Mobility The earliest known cases of the novel coronavirus (now known as COVID-19) in China were reported in late December 2019 in Wuhan, the provincial capital of Hubei. COVID-19 swept across the country in China starting in early Jan­ uary 2020 with the university students’ journeys back home and the ensuing Spring Festival travel rush (mid-January to mid-February)—one of the sig­ nificant seasonal population migrations across various places. Following the “Zero COVID” strategy, China implemented highly stringent controls to halt the spread of the disease. These efforts included mass lockdowns, extensive COVID testing, and isolation of confirmed cases and close contacts (Kennedy & Huang, 2022). COVID-19 had spread swiftly to 28 more countries (e.g., Japan, South Korea, and Thailand) as of 21 February 2020. Due to COVID-19’s extreme contagiousness and rapid global spread, the World Health Organiza­ tion (WHO) (2020) formally declared the outbreak a pandemic on 11 March. The Ministry of Education (2020a) announced on 27 January 2020 that the 2020 spring semester would be postponed due to the pandemic. The government shut down all the universities nationwide and asked all students and faculty to vacate the campus to prevent the virus dissemination (Yang, 2020). Additionally, a policy titled “Ensuring learning undisrupted while classes are halted” was car­ ried out (Huang et al., 2020; Yang, 2020). To ensure that teaching activities resumed, all the courses were converted to online delivery in the interim (Altbach & de Wit, 2020). The psychological state of international students studying in China has deteriorated because of the abrupt COVID-19 pandemic outburst (including those physically in China and out of China). A recent study by Man­ zoor et al. (2022) indicated that international students in China experienced “physical”, “academic”, “financial”, and “psychological” stress as a result of the COVID-19 epidemic. International students were troubled by the uncertainties brought by the pandemic, which included fears about their health conditions and their families, difficulties adjusting to online learning, doubts about the efficiency of virus control measures, and increasing financial burdens for those who were mentally unprepared (Yang, 2020; Manzoor et al., 2022). Table 10.2 summarizes critical events related to restrictions on international travel to China from early 2020 to August 2022, when the quarantine time for inbound travelers was cut to half, and international students were allowed to enter together with the restart of student visa applications. The compilation of travel restriction policies on international travels to China referred to the web pages of the National Immigration Administration (2022), the State

126

Yingxin Liu and Ai Tam Le

Table 10.2 Major restrictions on international travel to China from March 2020 to August 2022 Date

Description

26/03/2020

Implemented a 14-day quarantine and health observation for inbound personnel from all destinations Prohibited foreign nationals from all countries to enter; temporarily stopped foreigners from entering China with current valid visas and residence permits, and suspended entry of foreigners holding APEC business travel cards; those with diplomatic, service, courtesy, or C visas, as well as those going to China for essential business, commerce, science, or technology purposes, or urgent humanitarian reasons, were all granted exceptions. Issued “Five Ones Policy”, which meant “one airline, one country, one route once a week” Prohibited entry and exit of third-country personnel through border ports, suspended the issuance of non-essential border entry and exit documents, and suspended the passenger function of land ports Established fast lanes with eight countries, including South Korea, Germany, Singapore, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Switzerland to resume business exchanges The quarantine and control time for close contacts and inbound per­ sonnel to be 14-day, those who have the conditions for closed transfer management and home isolation conditions (with independent rooms and independent toilets) can implement the “7+7” centralized isolation medical observation measures on a voluntary basis Foreigners with valid Chinese residence permits for work, personal affairs, and reunions were allowed to enter Banned entry of travelers from the UK, France, India, and other countries All passengers entering the country by flight must have a nucleic acid and antibody double-negative certificate within 48 hours The quarantine and control time for close contacts and inbound personnel to be “14+7” The quarantine and control time for close contacts and inbound personnel was adjusted from “14+7” to “7+3” Resumed acceptance of long-term study visa applications Foreign students holding a valid residence permit for study do not need to re-apply for a visa to China and can directly enter China with the corresponding certificates Simplified entry and exit declarations and cancelled the declaration requirements for entry and exit personnel nucleic acid test information, previous infection status, and vaccination dates

28/03/2020

29/03/2020 06/04/2020

01/05/2020– 01/06/2020 11/09/2020

28/09/2020 05/11/2020 06/11/2020 11/05/2021 28/06/2022 23/08/2022 24/08/2022

31/08/2022

Council (2022) of the People’s Republic of China, and the Comprehensive Team of the State Council’s Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism in Response to the Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Outbreak (National Immi­ gration Administration, 2022).

Travel Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

127

The number of confirmed COVID-19 infections in China reduced significantly in March following the rigorous execution of strict pandemic control. On 18 March 2020, China made the first-ever announcement that there were no confirmed domestic cases. In the interim, the number of confirmed cases outside China outnumbered those in China. From this point on, China’s epidemic control strategy was to tightly forbid the import of coronaviruses from overseas. China’s earliest international travel restrictions amid the COVID-19 outbreak started in March 2020. On 26 March, the country imposed mandatory quarantines on inbound travelers from all destinations, with a 14-day compulsory hotel quar­ antine. Rigidly enforced inbound travel restrictions to China officially began on 28 March when it was enacted that all foreign nationals with valid visas and residence permits were prohibited from entering. International students who did not arrive in China by 28 March were prevented from entering by the restriction on holders of valid study visas. Previous international travel restrictions were momentarily removed in the third quarter of 2020 (28 September), allowing foreigners with legitimate residence per­ mits for work, personal matters, and family reunions to enter the country without the need to re-apply for new visas. On 11 May 2021, concerning the highly infec­ tious Delta variant of COVID-19, China changed the entry regulation to “14+7”, which entailed a 14-day mandatory hotel quarantine followed by seven days of home health monitoring. However, the 2021–2022 academic year saw a continua­ tion of the problem whereby international students who had not returned to campus could not enter China. The enrollment of international students in 2020 saw a decrease in China, as the statistics written in the introduction above (the statistics for 2021 and 2022 have not been released by the MoE yet). Some countries, like Sweden, the United States, and Australia, lifted border restrictions on foreign nationals ever since the second or third quarter of 2022. There is no specific timeline for China’s com­ plete opening of entry to all other countries yet. However, the reduction of the mandatory quarantine period upon entry from “14+7” to “7+3” from 28 June 2022 was more of a sign that international travel restrictions to China were loosening up. Since the end of August 2022, a series of steps have been taken, including restarting the application for study visas, granting entrance authority to those with study visas, and streamlining the entry and exit declarations procedure with no vaccination information and COVID-19 confirmed information required. The recruitment of international students in China was considered an essential strategy for nation branding, in line with the worldwide trend of the globaliza­ tion of higher education (Yousaf et al., 2020). The restart of entry for study visa holders indicated the nation’s effort to resume international students’ education in China. However, considering the limited flights and outrageous fares for international travels to China, and together with international students’ unfa­ vorable attitude towards stringent quarantine and testing policies when more countries re-open to travelers, it is still unknown when international students will be able to travel to China to resume pre-pandemic routine offline learning even though the hindrance of study visa application is lifted.

128

Yingxin Liu and Ai Tam Le

The Impact of Restricted Travel Policies on the lives of Chinese and Australian students Early in the pandemic, the Australian federal government responded quickly and decisively by implementing several travel restrictions to contain the spread of the virus. However, this approach also left international students, both outside and inside the country at that time, in a difficult situation. Many international students were “stuck” overseas and were not allowed to enter Australia to complete their studies. Some even had to pay rent for accommodation that they could not use. For those remaining in Australia at that time, the loss of jobs and lockdowns in major cities caused significant stress and anxiety, especially racism toward Asian Aus­ tralians (Kamp et al., 2022). Strict travel control resulted in a dramatic drop in international students in Australia compared to other major study destinations such as the US, UK, or Canada (Hurley et al., 2021). For example, between Octo­ ber 2020 and September 2021, new international student visas issued in the UK— an indication of international student enrolment and future arrivals—were 38% above what they were in the tw12elve months to September 2020. However, this number in Australia was approximately 70% lower (Hurley et al., 2021). In the same period, the number of Chinese international student visas, in particular, dropped by 61% in Australia compared to the UK by 2% and the US by 12%. While the number of international student arrivals has seemed to bounce back since the opening of borders, it is still low compared to the pre-pandemic era (Department of Education, Skills, and Employment, 2022b), and recovery is expected to take time. One of Australia’s strategies to respond to the pandemic and travel restric­ tions was the deployment of online learning. So far, this approach, coupled with the change in visas that allow offshore studies to be eligible for post-study work visas, has helped retain the attractiveness of Australia as a destination for international students even with limited mobility. However, online and hybrid learning has raised concerns about the student experience and workload among academics (Martin, 2020). If this approach remains part of higher education teaching and learning in the future, as some have argued (Adachi & Tran, 2022), perhaps a question about its impact on student learning experience and skills preparation for staff should be considered. In addition, the pandemic is a reminder of the extent to which Australian universities rely on international students’ fees to finance their operations (Welch, 2022a). Thus, another ques­ tion is what business model is viable and sustainable for Australian universities moving forward. After the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese government adopted a “Zero COVID” draconian control, taking prompt and decisive actions despite the panic-stricken atmosphere that prevailed throughout the country. The battle against this raging epidemic ended with a temporary triumph in three months, manifested by the official unblocking of Wuhan and the normalization of business activities and routine life of residents after a 76-day (started on 23 January 2022) rigorous lockdown. At the time, international students physically in China

Travel Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

129

were experiencing a challenging period coupled with perturbing pandemic outbreaks and stringent pandemic control, which prompted some international students to return home plunged into anxiety and concern. What followed by the outward mobility of international students amid the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak was the official start of hard-line implementation of the “Zero COVID” strategy started in March 2020. Since then, complying with restrictions placed to prevent the virus from being transmitted by inbound tra­ velers, international students have not been granted permission to enter China against the backdrop of the global pandemic havoc (Lahiri, 2022). Over the past two years, international students have been immersed in the “new norm” of online study (i.e., online classes and recorded teaching videos). All students, including local Chinese students and those from other countries, were taught online for the first semester following the COVID-19 outbreak. However, despite resuming campus offline teaching and learning for the sub­ sequent fall semester of 2020, the so-called “Dynamic Zero COVID-19” approach continued to bar foreign students from entering China. There have been com­ plaints about the unrelenting actions taken in disregard of the pressing needs of international students to return to China and continue their university studies, which international students described as “the abandoned” in Chinese higher education (Lahiri, 2022). In a recent study by Jiang et al. (2022, p. 10), interna­ tional students’ dissatisfaction with online learning was summarized as “emo­ tional fatigue, boredom, demotivation, and laziness when faced with online learning”. In the absence of on-site guidance, practical training, and supervision, students’ active learning dynamics were ineffective, and they could not take the initiative in their learning. Meanwhile, the aftermath of the inflexible pandemic control policies gradually came into being, with an increasing unemployment rate and bankruptcy of businesses of different scales. Concerns regarding future careers or directions plague current international students in China. Given the strict policies regarding international travel restrictions, international students who are now outside of China are losing hope of returning (Leung, 2022).

Conclusion In comparing the travel restriction policies implemented by both countries, we found similarities in their effort to contain the virus by reducing domestic and international travel mobility. Higher education institutions in both countries also quickly responded by shifting to online learning to avoid disrupting students’ learning. While strict travel restrictions remained the norm in both countries until 2021, their policies started to diverge in 2022. The higher vaccination rate in Australia enabled the country to cautiously open up to international students and travelers. In-person classes and activities can be seen across Australian campuses. Compared to Australia, China has taken a more cautious approach. However, according to the most recent updates on travel restrictions, China is currently getting geared up to welcome back international students. This has been demon­ strated by a series of actions, such as allowing entrance with valid student visas

130

Yingxin Liu and Ai Tam Le

and resuming the application for long-term student visas. International student mobility is expected to resume, and students can return to campus in China. We believe universities should reflect and develop contingency plans to cope with similar future events (e.g., public health crises, wars, and natural disasters). They should offer greater assistance to cater to the needs of international students while also paying attention to their welfare by proactively fostering closer relations between staff, international students, and domestic students. This will ensure that universities fulfill their duty of care for international students in times of need. The next chapters of the current part will demonstrate how some educational institu­ tions around the globe coped with the impacts of COVID-19 and the lockdowns.

References Adachie, C., & Tran, L. (2022, March 3). International students are back on campus, but does that spell the end of digital learning? Here’s why it shouldn’t. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/international-students-are-back-on-campus-but-does-that-sp ell-the-end-of-digital-learning-heres-why-it-shouldnt-177545. Altbach, P., & de Wit, H. (2020). Responding to COVID-19 with IT: A transformative moment? International Higher Education, 103, 3–5. Australia Bureau of Statistics. (2022). Arrivals—international students (June 2022). Com­ monwealth of Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/tourism-and-transport/ overseas-arrivals-and-departures-australia/latest-release#arrivals-international-students. Australian National Audit Office. (2021). Management of International Travel Restric­ tions during COVID-19 (December 2021). https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performa nce-audit/management-international-travel-restrictions-during-covid-19. Barbieri, D. M., Lou, B., Passavanti, M., Hui, C., Hoff, I., Lessa, D. A., … Rashidi, T. H. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mobility in ten countries and associated perceived risk for all transport modes. PLoS ONE, 16(2 February), 1–18. Burgess, K. (2020, April 4). Coronavirus: International students should go home if they can’t support themselves. Canberra Times. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ 6710557/international-students-should-go-home-morrison/. Deng, I., Qu, T., & Cao, A. (2022, September 6). Coronavirus: How China’s strict COVID-19 control measures have evolved over the past 5 months from Shanghai to Shenzhen. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/ 3191456/coronavirus-how-chinas-strict-covid-19-control-measures-have-evolved. Department of Education, Skills, and Employment. (2020a). Student Numbers July 2020. https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/DataVisualisations/Pages/Student-number. aspx. Department of Education, Skills, and Employment. (2022b). Student visa arrivals, by Top 10 countries of citizenship. https://www.dese.gov.au/international-education-data -and-research/student-visa-arrivals. Ferguson, H., & Spinks, H. (2021). Overseas students in Australian higher education: A quick guide. Parliament of Australia. at:https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Pa rliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/Quick_Guides/Oversea sStudents. Hale, T., Cameron-Blake, E., Folco, M. D., Furst, R., Green, K., Phillips, T., … Zha, H. (2022). What have we learned from tracking every government policy on COVID-19 for the

Travel Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

131

past two years (updated March 2022)? The Oxford Coronavirus Government Response Tracker. https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/What-have-we-learned-from %20tracking-two-years-of-COVID-responses-BSG-research-note-March-2022.pdf. Hall, E. (2022, September 1). COVID-19 travel alert: Which countries have opened their borders? World Nomads. https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/worldwide/ worldwide-travel-alerts. Huang, R., Tlili, A., Chang, T. W., Zhang, X., Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D. (2020). Disrupted classes, undisrupted learning during COVID-19 outbreak in China: Application of open educational practices and resources. Smart Learning Environments, 7(19). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00125-8. Hurley, P., Hildebrandt, M., & Brisbane, R. (2021). Student, Interrupted: International Education and the Pandemic. Mitchell Institute, Victoria University. Melbourne. Jiang, Q., Horta, H., & Yuen, M. (2022). International medical students’ perspectives on factors affecting their academic success in China: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 22, 574. Kamp, A., Denson, N., Sharples, R., & Atie, R. (2022). Asian Australians’ experiences of online racism during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences, 11(5), 227. Kennedy, S., & Huang, Y. (2022). China’s Zero-COVID: What Should the West Do. Center for Strategic & International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-zer o-covid-what-should-west-do. Lahiri, T. (2022, March 17). China has abandoned its foreign students over COVID zero. Quartz. https://qz.com/2126939/china-has-forgotten-about-its-foreign-graduate-students/. Leung, M. (2022, January 14). Foreign students lose hope of return amid COVID outbreaks. World University News. Available at: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php? story=20220114124341196. Manzoor, F., Wei, L., & Haq, M. Z. u. (2022). Effect of Coronavirus-19 on mental condition of international students in China. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.738828. Martin, L. (2020). Foundations for Good Practice: The Student Experience of Online Learning in Australian Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Australian Government Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. Ministry of Education. (2020a). Notice of the Ministry of Education on Postponing the 2020 Spring Semester [in Chinese]. Ministry of Education. http://www.moe.gov.cn/ jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/202001/t20200127_416672.html. Ministry of Education. (2020b). Number of Students in Higher Education Institutions 2019. Ministry of Education. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/moe_560/jytjsj_2019/qg/ 202006/t20200611_464788.html. Ministry of Education. (2021). Number of Students in Higher Education Institutions 2020. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/moe_560/2020/quanguo/202108/t20210831_556352.html. Ministry of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services, and Multicultural Affairs. (2020). Joint media release—Supporting international students to support Australian jobs (20 July 2020). Commonwealth of Australia. https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/a lantudge/Pages/supporting-international-students-support-australian-jobs.aspx. Mitchell Institute. (2021). Report on Australian Investment in Higher Education (30 August 2021). Victoria University. https://www.vu.edu.au/mitchell-institute/tertiary-e ducation/australian-investment-in-higher-education-in-2021. National Administration of Disease Prevention and Control. (2022). Policy documents [in Chinese]. http://www.nhc.gov.cn/jkj/zcwj2/new_zcwj.shtml.

132

Yingxin Liu and Ai Tam Le

National Immigration Administration. (2022). Policies [in Chinese]. https://www.nia.gov. cn/n741440/n741547/index.html. Qi, J., & Ma, C. (2021). Australia’s crisis responses during COVID-19: The case of international students. Journal of International Students, 11(S2), 94–111. Tran, L., & Tan, G. (2020, April 23). 90,000 foreign graduates are stuck in Australia with­ out financial support: It’s a humanitarian and economic crisis in the making. The Con­ versation. https://theconversation.com/90-000-foreign-graduates-are-stuck-in-australia -without-financial-support-its-a-humanitarian-and-economic-crisis-in-the-ma king-136717. The State Council. (2022). Services. http://english.www.gov.cn/services/. Union NSW. (2020). No Worker Left Behind. Union NSW. https://www.unionsnsw.org. au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NWLB_survey_results_aug_2020.pdf. World Health Organization. (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. https:// www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19. Welch, A. (2022a). A plague on higher education? COVID, Camus and culture wars in Australian universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(2), 213–229. Welch, A. (2022b). COVID crisis, culture wars, and Australian higher education. Higher Education Policy, 35, 673–691. Yang, R. (2020). China’s higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Some pre­ liminary observations. Higher Education Research and Development, 39(7), 1317–1321. Yildirim, S., Bostanci, S. H., Yildirim, D. Ç., & Erdog˘ an, F. (2021). Rethinking mobility of international university students during COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 15(2), 98–113. Yousaf, S., Fan, X., & Laber, F. (2020). Branding China through the internationalization of higher education sector: An international students’ perspective from China. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 30(2), 161–179.

11 Coordinating an Outbound Study Abroad Program During a Pandemic A Case Study of Academic Staff Experiences in Japan Todd J. Allen Introduction Study abroad (SA) refers to “a temporary, pre-scheduled educational stay in a country where the target language is spoken among community members” (Taguchi, 2018, p. 127). Furthermore, studying abroad is supposed to be a time of adventure and interpersonal and academic growth in another cul­ tural context. However, as mentioned in Chapter 10, in November 2019, COVID-19 was detected (World Health Organization, 2020), and a pan­ demic was declared. By early 2020, countries began to close their borders to mitigate the spread of the disease. Thus, this pandemic created an envir­ onment where SA adventures were restricted, changed, and/or canceled across various universities worldwide (Allen, 2021b; Liu & Shirley, 2021). While some SA programs were canceled, others were moved to online platforms. Students then had to undertake SA remotely, and facilitators had to ensure that these programs offered similar components to regular SA experiences. Due to this unprecedented disruption, scholars have focused on students’ experiences of online SA programs (e.g., Liu & Shirley, 2021). However, few stu­ dies have examined how managers facilitated these programs during the pandemic. Consequently, we tried to investigate academic managers’ experiences facilitating an SA program in the Japanese context and focus on the opportunities, challenges, and evaluation of online SA during the pandemic. The chapter aims to answer the following questions: 1 2 3

What was the overall impact of the pandemic on participants and the SA programs? What were the positive and negative challenges facilitating SA programs during the pandemic? How have these challenges been managed? How has the pandemic shaped future SA programs?

To contextualize the answers to these questions, the following subsection presents an overview of the SA program examined in this chapter.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-14

134

Todd J. Allen

SA Program Overview The SA Program at Kansai University, Faculty of Foreign Language Studies, is fully coordinated and integrated into the four-year undergraduate degree program and curriculum. Students who enroll in the faculty must complete a one-year SA program to graduate. A fully coordinated program is completely planned for students, including accommodation, academic and extracurricular activities, and other administrative requirements (e.g., travel insurance). Partner universities are in Oceania, North America, Central, and East Asia, the United Kingdom, and Europe. Students begin their SA by completing required language courses (in English and/or a third language), then progress to study undergraduate courses aligned with the home institution’s interests, such as intercultural communication, translation and interpreting. Figure 11.1 outlines the typical SA pattern for a one-year academic program:

Figure 11.1 Overview of SA program pattern at the university

The responsibility for planning and facilitating the SA programs in the current chapter falls into three main categories: (1) Administration (e.g., visa applications), (2) Academic Program and Negotiation (e.g., establishing and maintaining the program), and (3) Student Preparedness and Relations (e.g., facilitate information sessions). The participants work in areas (2) and (3). In the next section, the limited literature that has focused on the establishment and management of SA programs is discussed. Establishment and Management of SA Programs Despite SA being a popular feature of international education around the world, research on the management of such programs is scarce (Sachau et al., 2010). However, in this section, we review previous studies that discuss the various ele­ ments of managing SA, including establishing agreements, communication between partners, risk management, and the goals of various programs. These areas of SA management are related to the participants’ general responsibilities in SA programs. To establish an SA program between universities, an agreement or MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) is often produced. Agreements are typically

Coordinating Study Abroad During a Pandemic

135

made between each university for strategic reasons, such as their rank or prestige, course offerings, geographical location, and the pursuit of internationalization (Tsuneyoshi, 2005). Partner universities may go through several rounds of negotiation, scrutinizing program details to ensure that both parties approve all elements of the agreement, as they outline each institution’s responsibilities for managing the respective programs and are legally binding. SA programs vary in terms of duration and academic objectives. Engle and Engle (2003) presented an instructive classification of different programs used across the SA space. For example, the duration of these programs ranges from a few weeks to a full academic year. Shorter SA programs range from one to eight weeks and include study tours and some contact with the host culture. Longer SA programs range from a semester to a full academic year. During these longer-form SA programs, students engage predominately in the target language. Furthermore, the objectives of these longer-form programs differ significantly in terms of the level of study, contact with the host culture, and how the SA program is integrated into their home institution’s overall objectives (e.g., formal exchange). Specifically, students may undertake SA to acquire language, develop intercultural skills, and experience academic life in another cultural context (as in the current study). Contrastingly, some program objectives may only focus on language development. Specific goals and learning outcomes associated with SA programs center around positive language skill development (reading, writing, listening, speaking) and intercultural education (e.g., Murphy et al., 2014). To achieve these goals, host universities require language learning and academic study resources. Language centers at various universities have been established to focus on developing students’ language abilities only or prepare them for matriculating into an academic program once they achieve a certain proficiency in the host language. Overall, studies have shown that long-term SA (like the one focused on in this chapter) can have positive outcomes in these areas. Students can also develop as global citizens and fully immerse themselves in local communities and host universities (Goertler & Schenker, 2021). As a result of the various services offered at universities, host universities need to have qualified language teachers in language centers, support and administration staff, and clear pathways for full university study. Universities also require programs and courses applicable to their international guests. Students may be traveling to institutions for unique course offerings and require faculty that can accommodate their needs. Furthermore, students may undertake SA at a university due to available extracurricular activities, high aca­ demic rankings and reputation, accommodation options, appealing location, or additional services. All these elements of the SA program require coordinators, managers, and support staff to ensure the effective operation of these programs and the smooth transition for students moving from one academic culture to another (Goertler & Schenker, 2021). Aside from managing the operation of programs, coordinators at both host and home institutions devote time and resources to preparing students for their SA. For example, home institutions facilitate pre-SA information sessions aimed

136

Todd J. Allen

at preparing students for both academic and personal challenges that may arise. Furthermore, when students arrive at their host institutions, coordinators often provide more context-specific orientation meetings that ease the transition for students. Coordinators at both institutions attempt to mitigate the psychological, physical, and social risks associated with SA, such as homesickness (Jin & Dewaele, 2018). Similarly, coordinators assess other risks, including natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic. Managers strictly monitor government sources (e.g., the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan) to make informed decisions about their SA programs. Discussion of Methodological Approach Considering the aim and research questions, the chapter adopts a case study approach to investigate the academic staff’s reflections on one outbound SA program in the Japanese context. Case studies “provide an analysis of context and processes which illuminate the theoretical issues being studied” (Hartley, 2004, p. 323). Case study research is an approach that considers the processes involved in the organization and the individuals working in this context. Simply, case studies account for participants’ experiences and the context-specific issues that they face (Hartley, 2003). Researchers have recently used qualitative surveys to capture participants’ subjective perceptions about various topics (e.g., Allen, 2019, 2021a; Braun et al., 2020). Surveys used for qualitative means are unobtrusive, easy to complete, and offer participants anonymity (Braun et al., 2020). Qualitative surveys allow participants to respond to open-type questions on various topics related to their experiences. Qualitative surveys also allow researchers to gather wide-ranging data (Allen, 2021a). In this light, we also addressed to surveys, as a key vehicle to reach out the qualitative results. Hence, an online qualitative survey dis­ tributed to SA managers and coordinators1 (academic staff, n=5) has been applied. Participants were emailed the link for the survey, which took approximately 20–30 minutes to complete. The survey consisted of four sec­ tions: (1) study information and consent, (2) demographic information, (3) goals of the SA program, and (4) COVID-19 and SA. Section three consisted of 13 open-ended questions, and section four asked 10 open-ended questions. Par­ ticipants’ reports (collected April–May 2021) are about managing students who had traveled to their SA destinations before border closures and had to either complete their studies online from their accommodation in the host country or return to Japan and continue their studies online at the home university. In 2021, students were completing their SA online from Japan. Some students who did not want to complete their studies online in Japan took an academic leave of absence until 2022. The survey was written in English, and participants were asked to respond to the questions in English. Although two participants’ (FP4 and FP5) are not L1 English speakers, all participants have full working English proficiency. Once the participants completed the survey, their responses were thematically analyzed

Coordinating Study Abroad During a Pandemic

137

(Swart, 2019). By adopting a thematic analysis, researchers can identify recurring patterns (or themes) emerging from qualitative data (Swart, 2019). The analytic process used for this chapter included reviewing, coding, and grouping the responses into various categories related to the questions (Rossman & Rallis, 2012). These categories were then presented as themes in section four. The participants were purposively selected (Rossman & Rallis, 2012), as they had relevant knowledge of managing SA programs and could report on their experiences during the pandemic. All of them are tenured academic faculty and are expected to teach, research, and serve on other committees, while also managing the academic and student-relation components of the program. Among the participants are three males and two females; three of them are full professors, while two others are associate professors. Their job roles include: director of SA (three participants), academic program and negotiation (two participants) some physically based in the UK and the US. Positionality In qualitative research, analyzing one’s positionality is a way for researchers to reflect on their identity and experiences and the impact it has on their research (Berger, 2015). The author of this chapter is a faculty member as well as a coordinator on the academic and negotiation committee of the SA program. While the author does not provide direct responses to the survey questions, through their experiences, they offer additional information to contextualize the participants’ responses, which are explored in the next section. Discussion of the Findings In this section, we discuss participants’ reports on the impact of the pandemic on SA programs, students’ performances, managers’ positive experiences, and how these programs can be improved in the future. Impact of COVID-19 on the Current SA Program Participants were asked to consider the following questions related to the impact of COVID-19 on their SA programs and how these challenges were managed. Their reports are analyzed and discussed in this subsection. 1 2

What challenges have your SA program undergone due to the COVID-19 pandemic? In what ways have these challenges been managed or overcome?

Overall, the participants reported that programs were significantly impacted due to COVID-19 in several ways. Specifically, managing SA became difficult due to abrupt changes to already planned and established face-to-face pro­ grams, the need for students to return to Japan quickly, and the shift to online

138

Todd J. Allen

study. Other challenging factors included finding solutions to problems quickly to continue the SA program and regularly staying up-to-date as information surrounding the pandemic and mobility was changing on a day-to-day basis. For example, a participant reported: FP4: Students who were supposed to study in Europe (UK and Germany), China, and Korea stayed in Japan and did online SA. Some students who were able to fly to the destination returned to Japan and did SA online. 14 out of 94 completed (or, in other words, quit) the SA after the first semester. These reports suggest that not only was the mobility of students affected but also effective program management. Specifically, managing students’ dis­ satisfaction with online SA, as they could not immerse themselves in the local culture, was difficult. Thus, managers needed to focus on coordinating the program and supporting students’ welfare and motivation for SA online. This is further supported by participant FP4’s additional comments: FP4: Carrying out the program as it was originally designed was difficult. Some programs were online as entry to the countries was not allowed. […] conditions were dramatically different depending on the destinations. Stu­ dents must have had difficulties dealing with these “differences” [sic] of the experiences. Sustaining (1st year) students’ motivation for studying lan­ guage and learning, in general, was complex. The reports indicate that managing programs during this time was chaotic and challenging and required all coordinators working in all areas of the program to focus on solving issues and supporting students. For example, Student Relations managers offered students different study options (e.g., online study, taking an academic break, returning to Japan). This involved extensive meetings with students and parents as well as SA staff across the three sections. The faculty executive also needed to be consulted to approve changes or endorse decisions made by the SA teams. This took time, and problems evolved after decisions were already made, as a participant noted: MP2: I try to slow things down and see all the evidence and perspectives to avoid a hasty decision based on partial information. Furthermore, Academic Program and Negotiation managers needed to liaise with counterparts at host institutions to gather information about how pro­ grams were being managed on the ground and give status reports to the executive. For students who decided to stay in their host country, the Student Relations team needed to ensure that they could take classes online. Previous research has also reported similar issues for SA programs during times of crisis (e.g., earthquakes) (Engstrom & Mathiesen, 2012). However, as similarly reported by the managers, clear communication, student support, effective

Coordinating Study Abroad During a Pandemic

139

“customer service”, efficient debriefings, and follow-up are essential during these times (Engstrom & Mathiesen, 2012). Positive Experiences Managers were asked to reflect on their observations coordinating SA programs during this pandemic and consider whether there had been any positive experi­ ences. Managers reported that they developed new ways to facilitate informa­ tion sessions. As students and managers developed new technological skills, Zoom was used as a new way to conduct information sessions. Similarly, some managers explicitly reported that the pandemic provided an opportunity to reflect on how SA had been managed in the past and how it could better respond to the pandemic. In addition, it gave new members of the SA Academic Program and Negotiation team the opportunity to become familiar with the program. This is shown in two examples below: MP2: We have learned new skills and reflected on how we operate. New team members have had a chance to learn before a flood of meetings. FP5: It was a good experience for us in terms of developing our crisis response skills. These responses highlight that despite the challenging aspects of the pandemic on SA programs, there have been some positive experiences as well. As programs had been suspended or moved to an online format, managers had time to reflect on particular processes in delivering successful pre-departure programs. Further­ more, as “behind the scenes” changes were occurring (changes to the Academic Program and Negotiation Team) at the home university, it gave new members of the SA team a chance to learn more about their roles and responsibilities in a positive and deliberate way. Typically, members are expected to get involved and learn all the aspects of their partner university quickly, which is a demanding process while also preparing for classes and grading assessments, doing research, and engaging in other committee responsibilities. Despite a participant high­ lighting it as a positive experience, the pandemic has shone a light on the crisis response and management of this SA program. The COVID-19 pandemic was an unexpected crisis that was difficult to plan for, and managers were reacting whenever issues arose. Further development of crisis management may be needed in the future, and the university is currently making structural and curriculum changes (e.g., requirements of SA, discussed later) to the program to respond to these kinds of issues. Students’ Performances Managers were asked how they typically measure students’ linguistic development for their SA program. Managers reported that students are tested pre- and postSA. Reported tests include TOEFL ITP and the Telephone Standard Speaking Test

140

Todd J. Allen

(TSST). While not mentioned in the reports, students studying at partner uni­ versities in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom need to take the IELTS exam to study undergraduate courses. Managers were asked to consider the following question: in terms of your SA program(s), are students meeting appropriate linguistic skill development requirements in the current pandemic? All managers reported that while online SA provided some form of linguistic skill development, students probably were not developing their skills as well as previous cohorts of students. Specifically, the impact of COVID-19 on students’ language skill development has been negative overall, which is exemplified in two reports below: MP1: It is difficult to make a generalized statement as some have done okay while others, I think, have struggled to cope. Overall, I would say the COVID situation has had a negative effect on students’ linguistic skills. FP2: As far as the TOEFL scores of the students are concerned, the scores were not much lower than the previous year. However, the speaking score did not increase much compared to the previous year. Similarly, in terms of intercultural communication and competence, participants were also asked whether the university formally tested students’ development during their SA period. At this university, students were not tested pre- or postSA. Based on the reports, the university is more concerned with students’ lin­ guistic development, which is consistent across the international education space (Goertler & Schenker, 2021). Participants were also asked to consider whether the current environment of online SA was conducive to students’ intercultural development. Managers reported that in the current situation, students would not be developing their intercultural skills in regular ways, as shown in the examples below: MP2: […] I doubt it if they are studying individually online in Japan. MP1: […] it would be difficult for students to improve their intercultural communication skills. Most participants claimed that due to the online nature of SA, it would be difficult for students to develop their intercultural skills. Previous studies have suggested that contact with local cultures and longer SA experiences in-country positively influence students’ intercultural development (Schartner, 2016). However, in this new context of online learning, students may not be able to have similar experiences as they would have in a face-to-face situation. While host universities have attempted to develop alternative intercultural commu­ nicative exercises (discussed in the next section), students may not be acquir­ ing adequate skills. These results also mirror previous studies that have investigated non-SA students undertaking online studies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (Li et al., 2021). In their quantitative study that focused on Japanese medical students’ experiences during this time, Li et al. (2021, p. 11)

Coordinating Study Abroad During a Pandemic

141

claimed that the “uncertainty and drastic change triggered substantial psy­ chological distress in students, which was greater than we had assumed”. This suggests that even without the added stresses of SA (e.g., the transition from one culture to another), students’ academic experiences were already nega­ tively impacted by COVID-19 in Japan (e.g., online study, isolation, and loss of part-time work) (Allen, 2021b). Students studying abroad (online) were also experiencing similar issues but situated in a completely foreign cultural, linguistic, and academic context. Improving SA Programs and the Future Participants were asked to reflect on the programs during the pandemic and think about what host institutions could do to facilitate them better. Partici­ pants reported on a variety of areas that could be improved, such as better student support and frequent communication between counterparts. Other responses are shown in the following excerpts: MP2: Students are probably lonely and don’t know whom to contact for advice. So, some type of online community might help. FP2: Efforts should be made to provide students with as many learning opportunities as possible, such as increasing online language learning opportunities, promoting online internships abroad, and, if possible, setting up domestic [SA] programs. The managers’ reports show how particular areas of the SA program should be improved, which are summarized below: 1 2 3 4 5

Provide consistent reporting on issues and students’ progress; Be deliberate in planning and implementation of classes and activities; Develop online communities to mitigate loneliness; Offer online internships and other extracurricular activities that promote community involvement; and Deliver active learning and synchronous classes instead of asynchronous pre-recorded lectures with minimal interaction.

These reports demonstrate some of the issues program managers face and ways to solve them. These suggestions can be implemented in programs should online study continue. As programs need to adequately support students, host uni­ versities need to consider issues such as the style of online learning (e.g., syn­ chronous classes) and develop strategies to ensure students are not experiencing loneliness. These factors may significantly impact students’ positive experiences towards SA and their learning. For example, in a Japanese context, senior stu­ dents often advise junior students about their studies and their SA experiences at various universities (Allen, 2021a). If students have negative experiences at a particular university, this may shift future students to other universities instead.

142

Todd J. Allen

Participants were also asked to think about the future of SA programs, and most of them reported that they hoped there would be a return to some form of pre-COVID-19 normality. However, one participant noted that there would be significant changes to future programs considering COVID-19, which is shown below: MP1: […] I guess participation in the SA program may become more flex­ ible [reduced duration], and more options may be provided for students unable or unwilling to go overseas. As indicated by one participant, the experience of COVID-19 will have broader implications for the undergraduate program. As SA is a mandatory component of the undergraduate program, new forms of SA may be adopted (e.g., con­ tinuing with online options), and the duration of the experience may become less stringent. Researchers have argued that the crisis will bring significant changes to mobility and SA, noting that it will ‘likely increase the trend for shorter periods of mobility (less than eight weeks) and dependence on “safe countries” (Altbach & de Wit, 2020, p. 17). While the program in the current chapter will not significantly reduce SA experiences to less than eight weeks, it will reduce the requirement for students to study for a whole academic year. Furthermore, managers will seek to create new or strengthen current programs in ‘safer’ countries.

Conclusion The current chapter has described managers’ experiences of SA in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan and its impact on SA programs. It dis­ cusses the positive and negative experiences during the pandemic and how the SA programs may be improved in the future based on managers’ experiences. Through an exploration of managers’ experiences facilitating SA programs, the we have attempted to fill the current gap in the literature. While the discussed program has attempted to mitigate all kinds of risks at various times, managing issues related to COVID-19 is a much more difficult task. Despite extensive planning and reacting to various challenges, managers needed to focus on supporting the program, which at times placed extra stress on themselves. This increased their workloads while also transitioning to online teaching and adjusting their research schedules (Allen, 2021b). Managers’ reports show that they needed to be well-supported and flexible to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on their work. The chapter has also demonstrated that SA can be facilitated online, but some elements need to be improved. Similarly, recent previous research has outlined the need to improve both short-term and long-term online programs in various ways (e.g., Goertler & Schenker, 2021). For example, developing online communities for students to communicate; developing more options for learn­ ing and personal growth through online platforms (e.g., virtual tours); ensuring

Coordinating Study Abroad During a Pandemic

143

that programs are effectively planned and implemented; and providing classes that are active and engaging. There should also be consistent reporting from the host university about students’ progress and the services available for their use. While these reports were expressed by the managers of this SA program, similar reports were made by students when they ‘returned home’ and gave feedback on their experiences. Although we have brought to light some of the issues surrounding managing SA programs during the pandemic, there are two limitations. The limited number of participants and a single cultural context only offer a narrow view of the impact of COVID-19 on SA programs. Consequently, future studies should include more participants to give further insights into individual experiences from all stakeholder perspectives and to analyze other cultural contexts. The next chapter of the current book will focus on the management and main­ tenance of the network capital within the pandemic era.

Note 1 All participants responded voluntarily. The study was approved by Kansai University, Faculty of Foreign Language Studies/Graduate School of Foreign Language Education and Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 19–24).

References Allen, T. J. (2019). Facilitating graduate student and faculty member writing groups: experiences from a university in Japan. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(3), 435–449. Allen, T. J. (2021a). Exploring students’ perceptions about intercultural communication education: Rethinking the design and facilitation of a course in Japan. Intercultural Communication Education, 4(3), 213–233. Allen, T. J. (2021b). Infrastructure, literacy, and communication: The challenges of emergency remote teaching in a university in Japan. In J. Chen (Ed.) Emergency remote teaching and beyond: Voices from world language teachers and researchers (pp. 23–42). Springer. Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2020). COVID-19: The internationalization revolution that isn’t. University World News, 14 March. https://www.universityworldnews. com/post.php?story=20200312143728370. Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative research, 15(2), 219–234. Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2020). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1–14. Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of program types. Frontiers: The interdisciplinary journal of study abroad, 9(1), 1–20. Engstrom, D., & Mathiesen, S. (2012). Study abroad and an accidental death: Lessons learned. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(4), 785–796. Goertler, S., & Schenker, T. (2021). From study abroad to education abroad. Language proficiency, intercultural competence, and diversity. Routledge.

144

Todd J. Allen

Hartley, J. (2004). Case study research. In C. Cassell, & G. Symon (Eds.) Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 323–333). Sage. Jin, Y. X., & Dewaele, J. M. (2018). The effect of positive orientation and perceived social support on foreign language classroom anxiety. System, 74, 149–157. Li, Y., Nishimura, N., Yagami, H., & Park, H. S. (2021). An empirical study on online learners’ continuance intentions in China. Sustainability, 13(2), 889. Liu, Y., & Shirley, T. (2021). Without Crossing a Border: Exploring the Impact of Shifting Study Abroad Online on Students’ Learning and Intercultural Competence Development during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Online Learning, 25(1), 182–194. Murphy, D., Sahakyan, N., Yong-Yi, D., & Magnan, S. S. (2014). The impact of study abroad on the global engagement of university graduates. Frontiers: The interdisciplinary journal of study abroad, 24(1), 1–24. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage. Sachau, D., Brasher, N., & Fee, S. (2010). Three models for short-term study abroad. Journal of Management Education, 34(5), 645–670. Schartner, A. (2016). The effect of study abroad on intercultural competence: A longitudinal case study of international postgraduate students at a British university. Journal of mul­ tilingual and multicultural development, 37(4), 402–418. Swart, R. (2019). Thematic analysis of survey responses from undergraduate students. SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526468666. Taguchi, N. (2018). Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of the study abroad research. Language Teaching, 51(1), 124–137. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005). Internationalization strategies in Japan: The dilemmas and possibilities of study abroad programs using English. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(1), 65–86. World Health Organization. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): situation report, 72. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation­ reports.

12 Maintaining and Mobilizing Network Capital Exchange Students’ Friendships During the COVID-19 Pandemic Suvi Jokila, Kalypso Filippou, Ella Sirva and Anne Laiho

Introduction Since the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing has been used to combat the virus. The policy measures that mainly targeted the mobility of people at an international and local level have had extensive consequences. We focus on exchange students, a temporally mobile group of people whose study abroad experience was suddenly interrupted and impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak. International students’ friendships have particular char­ acteristics in temporary migration in a shared time and space (studying abroad) (e.g., Robertson 2018); however, limited knowledge exists on how physical social distance shaped international students’ friendships. This chapter analyzes how international students’ friendship networks were shaped and transformed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland. We employ Elliot and Urry’s (2010) conceptualization of network capital, accompanied by Martin’s (2017) work, to illuminate how mobilities contribute to social relations. Empirically, we use eight semi-structured interviews conducted online in the spring of 2020, which we analyze through abductive analysis (Tavory & Tim­ mermans, 2014). We argue that face-to-face meetings are a vital part of the overall studying abroad experience. Similarly, the temporal friendships developed prior to the outbreak affected students’ decision-making regarding whether to stay or go back home. We also found that the sudden disruption in studying abroad affected students differently depending on their social networks back home, that is, what kind of social and economic possibilities they could return to. Overall, the pandemic-related social restrictions—especially in the form of uni­ versity facility closures and limited social gatherings—limited the possibilities of gaining network capital and transformed the social relations of both fellow exchange students and other friends. The current chapter looks into a Finnish context, an example of a country with a long experience of hosting exchange students in higher education and a country with a less severe pandemic situation (especially at the beginning) compared to other countries such as China or Italy. For instance, the state DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-15

146

Suvi Jokila et al.

measures were rather suggestions than heavy regulations (Moisio, 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Finnish education system, including universities, has predominantly moved to online/distance teaching and learning without any breaks (Loima, 2020, p. 66). Thus, Finnish university education offers an interesting example of institutional structures for ‘mobile life’ and mobilizing friendship during the early stage of COVID-19. International Student Mobility and Network Capital After decades of growing numbers of mobile students, the COVID-19 pandemic brought a sudden decrease in this number. Across the globe, the pandemic transformed the experiences of international students in many ways (e.g., Qi & Ma, 2021), affecting the underlining prerequisites of mobile lives, such as international travel and meeting people locally. Even though, in many contexts, university studies continued in an online form, many other aspects of students’ lives were extensively affected. What really seemed to challenge the interna­ tional students’ lives was the inability or limited options to meet people face-to­ face. Studies prior to the pandemic connect social and cultural interaction with home and international students (Belford, 2017; Nada et al., 2018). Friendships developed while studying abroad have drawn increasing research interest among international student mobility scholars. Many have noted the inte­ gration issues in terms of mixing international and home students (Mendoza et al., 2022) and bonding with co-nationals (e.g., Brown, 2009; Pazil, 2019). According to Rienties and Nolan (2014), students from different cultural backgrounds vary in what kind of friendship networks they create. Research also shows that friendships developed during a particular temporal and spatial context in the mobility frame have characteristics that differentiate them from other forms of friendship (e.g., Sinanan & Gomes, 2020). Sinanan and Gomes (2020, p. 688) defined “friend­ ships forged by international students, as a more transient migrant population, tend to be characterized by sharing mutual time over a common interest, where the positive affective dimensions tend to be ‘in the now,’ present and shortlived”. So far, limited studies have analyzed international students’ friendships during the pandemic. In their study on international students’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, Thorson et al. (2022) found that many inter­ national students became closer to friends from a distance. Elliot and Urry (2010) argue that mobilities are increasingly complex in terms of scale, diversity, and significance, resulting in complex social worlds. Mobility creates connections that then produce networks and network capital (Elliot & Urry, 2010). Network capital extends beyond social capital as it requires geo­ graphical premises. Like Elliot and Urry (2010) and Martin (2017), we see that social relations—and, hence, wider networks—are established and maintained in places. We follow Bunnell et al. (2012, p. 2), among others, in arguing that geography “is important in the making, maintenance, and dissolution of friendships, as well as in the types of friends that are important within parti­ cular space-time settings”. Despite the pandemic being a globally shared

Maintaining and Mobilizing Network Capital

147

experience, the local conditions varied and shaped international students’ lives (e.g., Qi & Ma, 2021). Although Elliot and Urry (2010) have mainly connected mobility to advantages, Martin (2017) developed the network capital concept and argued that mobility (as well as immobility) could also result in disadvantages. A characteristic of educational mobility is the infrastructure that higher education institutions provide. According to Elliot and Urry (2010), network capital is based on those institutional structures that support mobility. Some forms of institutionalized practice supporting mobility are the recruitment agents, international offices, and buddy systems, but also the exchange studies, which are often state-subsidized, such as the Erasmus Plus program which makes it a more accessible form of mobility (although within a segregated field of higher education). To establish and maintain mobile lives, Elliot and Urry (2010) noted face-to-face meetings with friends, family, and acquaintances as focal; they particularly emphasized this kind of materiality in the meetings. Similarly, in international student mobility, maintaining relationships by organizing meetings in study destinations and nearby places promotes travel and connects students to friends and kin. Next, we situate our discussion in the Finnish context. The Finnish Context In the current context, Finland represents a country that was not among the countries worst affected by the pandemic, as mentioned in the previous chapters. Nevertheless, measures were introduced at an early stage of the COVID-19 pan­ demic to reduce infections in Finland. Some of those core measures were closing borders and restricting gatherings. Restrictions limited everyday encounters, which significantly impacted international students’ social relations with those whose families and friends were in their country of origin. With the closure of borders, students had to decide whether to stay in Finland or return home. According to the National Erasmus Plus report, more than half (56%) of exchange students stayed in Finland during the early phase of the pandemic (ESN Finland, 2020). Students who left Finland were offered the possibility to continue their studies online. However, exchange students who stayed in Finland were not eligible for the sub­ sidies or easing aid conditions to which Finnish students were entitled. Addition­ ally, a critical measure that was introduced in March 2020 was the closure of university facilities and the transition from face-to-face teaching to online distance education. This highlights the need to study international students’ social networks during a time when institutional facilities, classrooms, and casual meetings were restricted. Over the past 30 years, Finland has received more than 120,000 higher edu­ cation students from other countries participating in the Erasmus Plus program (EduFi, 2020), which is the largest student exchange scheme for higher educa­ tion and the flagship program of the EU in supporting education, training, youth, and sports in Europe (Souto-Otero et al., 2013, p. 70). Within a period of 30 years, student exchange programs have been institutionalized in the

148

Suvi Jokila et al.

universities’ activities. Throughout this time, international students’ integration into Finnish campuses and mixing with Finnish students have been a constant policy interest (MEC, 2009) and an issue recognized in research (Mendoza et al., 2022). In 2019, there were a total of 7,380 exchange students in Finnish universities, which then dropped to 3,717 students in 2020 (Vipunen, 2022).

Discussion of Methodological Approach The current chapter is part of the “International Students in Times of Crisis” research project (2020–2023). During the early phase of the pandemic, a com­ prehensive online survey was developed by researchers of the project that investigated international students’ experiences (n=192) in Finnish higher edu­ cation during the pandemic. In the survey, the respondents could indicate their interest in participating in the interviews and share their contact information. We contacted those who showed interest in participating in an interview in spring 2020 (n=43). The participants were exchange and degree students. For this chapter, we chose to focus on the eight semi-structured interviews with the exchange students. Six participants were recruited through the online survey described above, and two of the participants were recruited using the snowball sampling technique. The participants were all females who came from different countries to study in different programs. Six of them were citizens of the EU member-state. The field of studies included environmental science, psychology, education, communication, medicine, law, and economics. Half of them stayed in Finland during the pandemic, while the other half left. We chose to focus on exchange students due to the abrupt short-study period and the impact that the exchange study period has on students’ friendship networks. To ensure the reliability of the interviews, one pilot interview with no prior distribution of the questions was conducted (Neuman, 2012). The interview questions focused on the following topics: studies, financial situation, social life, well-being, and support. Mainly the topic of social life included questions rela­ ted to the topic of friendship, such as, “Has your social life changed since last summer? If yes, how? If not, why?”, “How has the student life during the fall been for you?”, “How have the communication and relations with friends in Finland been? What about outside of Finland?”. The interviews with exchange students were conducted in June 2020 via Zoom by three chapter authors. They were recorded with an external recorder and lasted approximately 20 to 50 minutes, with the average being 35 minutes. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, the transcripts were anonymized, and pseudonyms were given to each participant. The interviews have been analyzed for the current chapter with abductive content analysis (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014), combining theory- and data-based analysis. The analysis follows abductive reasoning that “emphasizes the search for suitable theories to an empirical observation” (Kovács & Spens, 2005, p. 138). The transcripts were read several times throughout the analysis process. After the initial reading, we noticed how the development and mobilization of

Maintaining and Mobilizing Network Capital

149

friendships were important in the interviews. We then turned our attention to how these social relationships were discussed. While reading and performing the initial coding of the interviews, we simultaneously started to read earlier literature on mobility, international students, and friendships. We found the network capital (Elliot & Urry, 2010) concept helpful in understanding the pandemic experiences of international students and employed it as a starting point for the abductive analysis. All interviews were transferred to the NVivo program, where we identified and analyzed different forms of maintaining and mobilizing friendship networks.

Discussion of the Findings Based on the analysis, we have divided the findings section into three subsec­ tions a) to stay or leave the host country, b) maintaining and developing friendship networks, and c) mobilizing friendship networks. To Stay or Leave the Host Country? In this section, we discuss how the networks of exchange students affected their decision to stay or leave Finland and how they discussed evolving friendships during this time-space frame. When the interviews of the exchange students were conducted in spring 2020, the semester was coming to an end, and major decisions on staying or leaving had already been made by the students. These decisions were shaped by differences in institutional and national regulations between the host and sending universities. Because of the relatively calm pan­ demic situation in Finland, with a low number of cases, from the Finnish per­ spective, the students were given the possibility to decide to stay or leave. Because the studies were online and social gatherings were restricted, study life was not the same anymore; thus, half of our interviewees decided to leave. The choice of staying or leaving was influenced by the social context as the interviewees considered the choices that their exchange friends made and the prospects for being social in the near future. The following extract shows how, after careful consideration, Sofia decided to return home as her Erasmus friends left Finland: It was a tough decision to go home. We got really good information from [name of the university]. The students from [home country] were called to come back, and there were only a few people left, and, like, I didn’t really have friends in Finland at that point, like, of course, all my Erasmus friends, but they needed to go home, and I didn’t want to stay there on my own, so I decided to go home. So it was not about the university itself but more about the people who left. Even the short-term temporary friendships (Robertson, 2018) that were just about to develop were significant in making the decision to stay or leave.

150

Suvi Jokila et al.

The students’ decisions to stay or leave affected their exchange experience. Most interviewees reflected on their exchange time as an experience they did not fully actualize as the imagined experience they expected. A significant aspect of the imagined experience was the exchange of student friendships and the lost opportunity to develop them: Yeah, I think that this kind of situation has altered my exchange experi­ ence. Some of my friends in my hallway already left [city in Finland] in March or something, so not many of them are left in here. So that affected the interaction between us because they had already got back home, so it limited the exchange experience between students (Jessie). This further highlights the social aspects of studying abroad and the role of face-to-face meetings (Elliot & Urry, 2010; Nada et al., 2018). Likewise, it provides food for thought when discussing the future opportunities for virtual mobility and the experiences that non-physical mobility may produce. Exchange students have various motives for mobility; one is to experience something dif­ ferent from everyday life. Kortegast and Kupo (2017) have shown that students define short-term studying abroad as a particular experience that can be enhanced by within-country travel, like in the Finnish case, a trip to Lapland (an example of which caused public discussion after some students contracted the virus during a trip). Maintaining and Developing Friendship Networks This section discusses how the pandemic transformed the maintenance and development of exchange students’ friendship networks. We show how the disruption in having face-to-face meetings (Elliot & Urry, 2010) enabled by university classes and social activities with other exchange students affected their study abroad experiences. Linda noted that after the university closed, there was no equal place for mundane meetings: I think the major change is that I didn’t go to the university anymore because this was like the connection point for every exchange student, and of course, you sometimes saw other exchange students in the dorm, but you were more on your own than before because you didn’t have this place to go to see other people and eat together and plan the rest of the day together. Linda’s quote also highlights the significance of face-to-face meetings as a form of socializing. Places such as universities hold a significant status in organizing casual meetings and social relations (Massey, 2005). Similarly, McFaul (2016) noted that, in international student mobility periods, friends are made during socialization, for example, at events, parties, and lectures. As shown in the next extract, meeting friends and socializing became harder.

Maintaining and Mobilizing Network Capital

151

I think the effort to meet people was getting more difficult, or you needed more effort to meet people because, as I said, when you don’t have this place where you go to meet others and then talk about what you do later that day, you need to communicate via WhatsApp or, yeah, just your mobile phone; if you don’t do this, you would be kind of lonely because then you don’t see people (Linda). The interaction also moved to digital spaces, which has also been significant in friendship formation, as shown by Sinanan and Gomes (2020). Also, content-wise, Camille’s experience shows that the interaction with fellow exchange students began to focus on study-related issues compared with the pre-pandemic time. We were calling, and it was mostly because we had courses in common, so we were calling to discuss the course because, most of the day, we were not understanding nothing because it was like online, so we had a lot of ques­ tions we were discussing of the courses; then, when we had to do the essays and everything, we were also calling. We were not talking only about this, but it was the purpose of our calls. Being in a particular geographical place, especially during the pandemic, had an impact on how the friendships had a chance to develop (Bunnell et al., 2012). Considering the COVID-19 measures in Finland, some students kept meeting in informal gatherings. As reflected by Linda in the following extract, the exchange students lived their lives in their mobile bubbles. Although the pandemic situation in Finland was relatively calm, the situation elsewhere was already different: First of all, I really didn’t know what to do and didn’t realize that this could be the end of my exchange now because when I now compare the situation in Finland to the situation in [home country], it’s totally chill, so I didn’t like really feel or see it in my surroundings, and it was just so many exchange people stressed and talking about it all the time and booking flights and leaving. However, when you go to the city and take a walk, you can’t feel it at all, so it kind of didn’t feel real. Simultaneously, these informal meetings for those who stayed provided emo­ tional support by creating a shared and supportive atmosphere: I think I wasn’t much worried because, you know, Erasmus people are usually easier going and everything, so this whole atmosphere let us go through more easily through this pandemic, but I think it was a bit hard that I knew that my friends and my family are more worried about me (Robin). Our interviewed students also maintained friendship networks with friends when they were back home or outside of Finland, hence exercising and building on their mobile lives (Elliot & Urry, 2010):

152

Suvi Jokila et al. I didn’t expect that my experience in Finland would be like this. In my earlier plan, because I’m in Europe, I had a chance to visit my other friends who also stayed in Europe, but because of the coronavirus situation, I cannot travel anywhere and just stay in Finland. Maybe that’s the thing that I feel (Jessie).

Following Elliot and Urry (2010), we can also see that some of the interviewed exchange students maintained their friendship networks during their studies by planning to meet each other in other (European) countries. Mobilizing Friendship Networks This section focuses on how network capital was mobilized during the pan­ demic. For some students, the unexpected return home also required finding a place to stay. Thankfully some students found a place to stay at their friends’ houses. Thus suddenly, the friendship networks back home were mobilized to overcome the unexpected situation: Yeah, right now, of course, because I went home early I can’t go back to my normal apartment because I rented it to somebody else who is now living in my apartment, so I’m living in my friend’s house, and because I came back home, the university starts in April in [home country]; it got postponed, so I was able to take online courses in my home university, but I took some online courses from Finland, so it was like a mixture of [home country] and Finnish courses (Sofia). Employing this network capital (or what some would argue to be social capital, as noted by Martin, 2017) in friendship networks developed prior to the pan­ demic, the social capital turned into economic capital during the pandemic. Even though during the pandemic, mobility brought disadvantages (Martin, 2017) to exchange students, the networks and friendships eased the situation: I think the part of not having a place to live, I think I’m not the only one. I think the people who don’t have their families support or their friendships support back home, so, for them, it’s pretty hard because they had to stay in Finland and also finance a room because, now, I can stay at my friend’s house, but others are paying two rents at the same time for paying to Fin­ land and in Germany or Austria or whatever (Sofia). The sudden change in the already temporary migration created different spaces for students where they needed (if possible) to rely on social networks back home.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have analyzed exchange students’ friendship network devel­ opment and mobilization during the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland.

Maintaining and Mobilizing Network Capital

153

Empirically, we analyzed eight interviews with EU and non-EU students. Theoretically, we have used network capital (Elliot & Urry, 2010) with cri­ tical remarks by Martin (2017). We have shown how the COVID-19 pandemic shaped friendships by channeling the decision-making of the students and by helping them develop networks and mobilize the networks in their unexpected return home. We recognize educational institutions and student activities as focal components facilitating mobility and producing network capital (Elliot & Urry, 2010; Martin, 2017), hence contributing to the reproduction of net­ work capital, which then supported students’ during the pandemic while was also limited by the possibilities in accessing it. We argue that international students were unable to gain network capital in a similar way as prior pan­ demic due to the closure of university facilities and limited possibilities to socialize. As Sinanan and Gomes (2020) have found, the benefits of the study abroad take place locally and are time specific. This also supports Nada et al.’s (2018) study of the significance of out-of-classroom activities facilitating studying abroad. The pandemic also showed the transverse significance of friendships. In Thorson et al.’s (2022) study, they showed that students became closer to their friends from a distance, while we also see that the network capital gained prior to the pandemic was mobilized to return home— to have a place to stay. Despite the limited number of interviewees and over-representation of female respondents, we managed to show that exchange students’ experiences were significantly shaped by the already established social relations, but because of the pandemic, network capital was not accessible in the same manner. After the outbreak of the pandemic, the decision to stay or leave Finland was related to other exchange students’ decisions to stay or leave. The imagined exchange experience—especially related to social networks—did not actualize because of the pandemic, and for many respondents, it seemed like an interrupted experience. What we found is that the essential characteristics that enable mobile lives (including organized meetings internationally) were disrupted during the pandemic, in this way altering studying abroad. For the development of social networks, educational institutions, and other out-of­ class places and activities facilitating the development of the network capital (Elliot & Urry, 2010) among international students are critical. This will be further emphasized in the next chapters of the current volume. Restriction in accessing such places and activities because of the pandemic hindered the possibilities for social gatherings in Finland and meetings with friends. Then again, many of the respondents were able to mobilize their network capital when moving back to their home country/city by staying at a friend’s place. In the future, it is important to study the many nuanced ways friendships during an exchange time contribute to the overall study abroad experience. The most important is that the contacts among the mobility participants are preserved, and the networks are getting larger and larger. One of the solutions might be the distance internationalization extensively discussed in the next part of this book.

154

Suvi Jokila et al.

References Belford, N. (2017). International Students from Melbourne Describing Their Cross-Cultural Transitions Experiences: Culture Shock, Social Interaction, and Friendship Development. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 499–521. Brown, L. (2009). An ethnographic study of the friendship patterns of international students in England: An attempt to recreate home through co-national interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(3), 184–193.. Bunnell, T., Yea, S., Peake, L., Skelton, T., & Smith, M. (2012). Geographies of friendships. Progress in Human Geography, 36(4), 490–507. Cuzzocrea, V., & Krzaklewska, E. (2022). Erasmus students’ motivations in motion: understanding super-mobility in higher education. Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-022-00852-6. EduFI (2020). Erasmus+ for higher education. https://www.oph.fi/en/education-developm ent/erasmus/erasmus-programme-higher-education. Elliot, A., & Urry, J. (2010). Mobile lives. Routledge. ESN Finland (2020). Student exchanges in time of crisis: Country report on the impact of COVID-19 on student exchanges. https://esnfinland.eu/sites/default/files/pages/esn_ finland_-_report_covid-19_.pdf. Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2005). Abductive reasoning in logistics research. Interna­ tional Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(2), 132–144. Kortegast, C., & Kupo, V. L. (2017). Deconstructing underlying practices of short-term study abroad: Exploring issues of consumerism, postcolonialism, cultural tourism, and commo­ dification of experience. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 8(1). 149–172. Loima, J. (2020). Socio-Educational Policies, and COVID-19 – A case study on Finland and Sweden in the Spring 2020. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 8(3), 59–75. Martin, F. (2017). Rethinking network capital: hospitality work and parallel trading among Chinese students in Melbourne. Mobilities, 12(6), 890–907. Massey, D. (2005). For space. SAGE. McFaul, S. (2016). International Students’ Social Network: Network Mapping to Gage Friendship Formation and Student Engagement on Campus. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 1–13. MEC. (2009). Strategy for the Internationalisation of Higher Education Institutions in Finland 2009–2015 Publications of the Ministry of Education, Finland (p. 23). http:// urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-485-720-8. Mendoza, C., Dervin, F., Yuan, M. & Layne, H. (2022). “They Are Not Mixing with Others”: Finnish Lecturers’ Perspectives on International Students’ (Mis-)Encounters in Higher Education. ECNU Review of Education, 5(1) 89–115. . Moisio, S. (2020). State power and the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Finland. Eur­ asian Geography and Economics, 61(4–5),598–605. Nada, C. I., Montgomery, C., & Araújo, H. C. (2018). “You went to Europe and returned different”: Transformative learning experiences of international students in Portugal. European Educational Research Journal, 17(5), 696–713. Neuman, W. L. (2012). Basics of social science research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Pearson. Pazil, N. H. A. (2019). Familiarity as a Family: Close Friendships Between Malaysian Students and their Co-National Friends in the UK. Journal of International Students, 9(3), 896–911.

Maintaining and Mobilizing Network Capital

155

Qi, J., & Ma, C. (2021). Australia’s Crisis Responses During COVID-19: The Case of International Students. Journal of International Students, 11(S2), 94–111. Rienties, B., & Nolan, E. M. (2014). Understanding friendship and learning networks of international and host students using longitudinal Social Network Analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 165–180.. Robertson S. (2018). Friendship networks and encounters in student-migrants’ negotiations of translocal subjectivity. Urban Studies, 55(3), 538–553. Sinanan, J., & Gomes, C. (2020). ‘Everybody needs friends’: Emotions, social networks, and digital media in the friendships of international students. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(5), 674–691. Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., De Wit, H., & Vujic´, S. (2013). Barriers to international student mobility: Evidence from the Erasmus program. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 70–77. Tavory & Timmermans. (2014). Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. The University of Chicago Press. Thorson, A. R., Doohan, E.-A. M., & Clatterbuck, L. Z. (2022). Living Abroad During COVID-19: International Students’ Personal Relationships, Uncertainty, and Man­ agement of Health and Legal Concerns During a Global Pandemic. Journal of Inter­ national Students, 12(3), 654–673. Urry, J. (2012). Social networks, mobile lives, and social inequalities. Journal of Trans­ port Geography, 21, 24–30. Vipunen. (2022). Tutkinto-opiskelijoiden kansainvälinen liikkuvuus (Degree students’ inter­ national mobility). https://vipunen.fi/fi-fi/_layouts/15/xlviewer.aspx?id=/fi-fi/Raportit/Tut kinto-opiskelijoiden%20kansainv%C3%A4linen%20liikkuvuus%20-%20vuosi.xlsb.

13 Assessing the Quality of International Student Mobility in Spain in the Time of COVID-19 A Study of International Students’ Reflections on their Cross-Cultural and Linguistic Competencies Mostafa Boieblan

Introduction As mentioned in the first chapter of the current book, in 1996, the European Commission set three prime objectives for international mobility programs: (1) to enhance students’ educational, linguistic, and cultural competencies; (2) to culti­ vate a framework of cooperation between institutions; (3) to help produce profes­ sionals who can function effectively in multicultural contexts. Indeed, students’ participation in these programs has been reported to be one of the most rewarding experiences students may benefit from during their studies because it provides them with an ideal context to acquire, inter alia, social, cross-cultural, linguistic, and academic competencies (Baumgratz & Shaw, 1993; Almeida, 2020). As such, this experience helps them make significant headway into being highly competitive in a multicultural environment (Byram et al., 2001; Chen & Starosta, 2007). Nonetheless, the learning outcomes, as envisaged in the context of European higher education cooperation, were seriously threatened due to the COVID-19 outbreak. In this respect, because of the government-regulated and restrictive lockdowns to curb the spread of the virus, educational institutions changed their academic teaching paradigms from regular to online. Therefore, the implementa­ tion of digital platforms, such as MOOC, Moodle, Zoom, and others, to dis­ seminate course instructions hastened during the lockdowns, had paved the way for a new teaching and learning environment with challenges and opportunities for staff and students alike. Teaching staff urgently needed to learn or update their digital skills to meet the demands of this new scenario, among which was to manage synchronous and asynchronous internet resources that fit student’s needs—e.g., to design online courses which include chat rooms, discussion forums, and a suitable virtual space to deposit teaching material (Boozer Jr & Simon, 2020). On the students’ side, though the challenge was also to acquire digital skills quickly, the most daunting experience was developing independent learning path­ ways (Ghazali, 2020). DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-16

Assessing the Quality of ISM in Spain 157 The abrupt shift in course instruction mode has always sparked a growing body of research into the effects of remote teaching on the quality of students’ learning process during the lockdowns. For instance, exploring gender as an essential key variable in studying abroad, Anderson et al. (2006) reported that female students’ experience in international mobility programs might differ from that of males because of the gender stereotypes of the host country. In other research, students’ knowledge and experience before they participated in an international mobility program (Murphy-Lejeune, 2001); academic goals, e.g., degree- or credit-seeking students (Ballatore & Ferede, 2013); personality (Miao & Harris, 2012); and motivation (Krzaklewska, 2008), have been pinpointed as playing a crucial role in the quality of international mobility programs. Recently, anxiety, stress, and isolation have been among the most commonly reported aftermaths of changing face-to-face lectures to online mode (Koris et al., 2021). Nevertheless, while the COVID-19-induced lockdowns impaired the quality of learning experiences of local and mobile students alike, the latter may be even worse off as they also seek cultural immersion—one of the main goals pursued by this student cohort in the host country. That is, the implementation of technology in course instructions during the lockdowns might cater to curricular contents but not quite to the cross-cultural and linguistic competencies international students seek in the host country. In particular, digital platforms used for teaching and learning during the lockdowns have been assessed in light of their potential to cater to the needs of the curricula. They have been argued to yield statistically significant results affirming students’ high level of satisfaction with their learning experiences (Boozer Jr & Simon, 2020). In addition, the extent to which they cater to students’ extra-curricular needs such as cross “cultural awareness” (Byram, 1997), especially among students in mobility programs, has also been addressed in the literature, albeit not extensively. For instance, a study by Koris et al. (2021) used the Affec­ tive-Behavioural-Cognitive model (Ward et al., 2001) to explore the Erasmus stu­ dents’ perception of their learning experience during the lockdowns, the results of which reveal that these students were satisfied with their academic achievements but not quite so with their competence in the culture of the host community. Yet, an understanding of how this shift might have affected students pursuing different degrees still needs to be completed. That is, we hypothesize that stu­ dents from the Humanities might have different needs from those of Engineer­ ing: while the former might need a more immersive experience as their goal is the mastery of the language of the host country, the latter might be more focused on acquiring subject-specific concepts set by the curriculum. Therefore, in the current chapter, we survey Engineering and Humanities student cohorts to explore the following questions: 1

2

How do these students perceive the impact of COVID-19 on their learning outcomes in terms of cross-cultural and linguistic competencies during their stay in the host country? Do Humanities and Engineering students evaluate digital distance learning differently?

158

Mostafa Boieblan

Discussion of Methodological Approach The inclusion criteria of this chapter were that participants were enrolled in an international mobility program and were in Spain when the authorities forced the lockdowns on 13 March 2020. Before taking part in the survey, a ques­ tionnaire on demographic information was administered to participants who met the inclusion criteria. We had 52 participants in total; thirty of them were males and twenty-two females. They represent nine nationalities, of which six were European (Italian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, French, German, and Russian) and three non-European (Algerian, Moroccan, and Tunisian). Twelve percent of participants had been in an international mobility program in Europe before. Based on the rationale behind the participants’ stay in the host institutions, they can be divided into two groups: a. credit seeking through the Erasmus exchange program (36.4%) enrolled in one-to-two semesters-long programs; and b. degree-seeking (63.6%). They were doing subjects in Engineering or Humanities; 45.5% reported that the subject instructions were in English, and 54.5% had the class instructions in Spanish. During the lockdowns, they lived alone or shared an apartment with other international students. The survey was administered to them when the lockdowns were over; some were already back in their home country. The survey consists of ten questions written in English, most of which are open-ended questions to allow participants to provide complete accounts of their learning experience in the host country. Participants were informed that they could leave any items unanswered or abandon the task at any time and that their responses would be stored and used for research purposes only. An advance consent form was signed by participants who, then were provided with the link to the survey on 23 March 2022.1 Before the principal analysis, the data were stratified by participants’ major to allow for a fine-grained assessment of whether international students’ academic background is influential in their perception of the mobility program during the COVID-19 lockdowns: 30 parti­ cipants pursuing Engineering (57.7%) and 22 Humanities (42.3%). Then, an inductive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was conducted on participants’ responses to identify recurrent themes: Thematic analysis of the data is the following: Phase

Process

1. Familiarization 2. Coding

Reading the data thoroughly. Identifying and collating semantic contents across the data. Identifying potential themes for the analysis. Refining and reorganizing themes to get a thematic map of the data. Run and write a detailed analysis of each theme. Final analysis—interpreting the data.

3. Generating themes 4. Reviewing themes 5. Defining and naming themes 6. Writing up

Assessing the Quality of ISM in Spain 159

Discussion of the Findings An inductive thematic analysis indicates that the most recurrent themes are as follows: 1) cultural immersion through (a) interaction with local and mobile stu­ dent populations and (b) implementation of the local language; 2) digital distance learning; 3) pre-departure and post-arrival orientation programs; 4) long terms bonds with other students. Cultural Immersion: Interacting with Local and Mobile Student Populations One of the recurrent themes is the lack of cultural immersion: participants from Engineering and Humanities reported that they had very limited social interactions in the host culture during the COVID-19 lockdowns. As one participant said, “I barely had any meaningful interaction with local students” (p#12). Another one stressed the importance of cultural immersion: “It is not worth going to another destination to study if you cannot live the local culture” (p#43). “I wanted to practice my Spanish and speak with people, but no one wants to contact anyone” (p#49). Some participants considered their learning experience poor due to the lack of interaction with other international students. Five respondents argued that they could not interact with other mobile students to know about their cultures and/or exchange with them the experience of living in the host country, which hinders their chief goals in participating in an international student mobility program. These participants also highlighted that their experiences in the host country were unsuccessful due to the lack of face-to-face interaction with local students and that the lockdown placed significant constraints not only on their cultural immersion in the host country but also on their academic goals. Participant #33, for instance, explained that “the lack of interaction with locals and not making friends spoilt the whole experience of studying abroad, and understanding the course could have been much better”. Cultural Immersion: Learning and Practicing the Local Language Most respondents contend that one of the main goals of enrolling in the inter­ national mobility program was learning and practicing Spanish. However, because of the lockdowns, some participants, predominantly from the class of Engineering had to adapt to the new situation by prioritizing other academic goals over learning the local language: “I wanted to learn Spanish. I prefer to study in a real class, not online. Though I study Mathematics, and I should not care too much about Spanish, particularly because the instructions were in English, I believe learning the local language is a plus for me to get a job in a multinational enterprise” (p#38). Similarly, another respondent (p#39) com­ mented the following: “to learn Spanish was one of my top priorities. I think anyone who goes to a new country to study wants to learn and practice the local language. When the lockdowns were forced, I decided that learning

160

Mostafa Boieblan

Spanish should be my secondary goal”. Another participant also prioritized her goals: “It was difficult to get in touch with other students without going to the university and spending some time in the canteen or cafeteria to learn and practice the language” (p#48). “[…] Learning a language is much better in person, interacting with professors and other students” (p#51). Other respon­ dents made similar observations: “It was a problem for me to learn Spanish because it was impossible to directly interact with local students” (p#1). “We learned and practiced Spanish online only. I prefer in-person classes to under­ stand and practice with colleagues and teachers without screen barriers. It was difficult to understand people speaking Spanish through Zoom. A lot of helpful communication features, such as body language, were missing” (p#55). Conversely, though highlighting the inconvenience of learning a language without engaging in a real-life context, participants pursuing Humanities should have prioritized other goals over learning the local language. One participant mentioned the following: “[…] I knew that I was not going to learn Spanish as much as I had planned, but I wanted to make the most of my stay to learn Spanish” (p#24). Digital Distance Learning The analysis yielded mixed results for the theme “digital distance learning”. Online teaching mode was assessed by participants in terms of two aspects: academic and cross-cultural achievements. Those assessing their learning experience in light of cultural competence reported that this teaching mode placed significant constraints on their objectives, whereas others, predominantly from Engineering (70% of this student cohort), asserted that this teaching mode produced the desired learning outcomes. For instance, one of the participants states the following “[…] in my doctoral study in Mathematics, there is not a lot of difference with a pandemic or without it, but for other specialties in which students need to go to the laboratory to carry out experiments, the pan­ demic situation is worse” (p#7). Nonetheless, other participants from this cohort affirmed that online teaching mode significantly hindered their learning outcomes. One claimed that “[This mode] was hard and might have impaired my learning process” (p#21). Similarly, another participant said this: “[…] I could have learned and worked more in the laboratory to get better results in a short time with the help of my colleagues and instructors” (p#1). Reflections provided by Humanities students also produced mixed results insomuch as online teaching mode was a good substitution for face-to-face classes, albeit with fewer participants (30%) subscribing to this view. For instance, one participant (p#12) pointed out that online teaching mode boosted her level of English: she claimed that, being on camera during Zoom sessions, she felt she was the center of attention whenever the instructor asked questions to students. As she put it, “[…] whenever the instructor asked us questions, I felt obliged to respond, which meant that I actively participated in developing online sessions. Had these sessions been face-to-face, I would not have

Assessing the Quality of ISM in Spain 161 improved my English-speaking skills”. Additionally, three more participants who learned English at the host institution provided similar reflections in that their online English course was entertaining and fruitful. Conversely, other partici­ pants from this cohort who were instructed in Spanish claimed that online teaching mode did not help them improve the local language: “[…] I wanted to learn Spanish and attended an online language course, but it was not enough because I needed to communicate with people and practice my Spanish in real-life situations” (p#8). Similarly, a student argued that “online classes cannot be a substitution to the traditional mode: online classes miss a lot of details that stu­ dents need to acquire especially in an international cultural context” (p#11). Other participants from this cohort stressed that classroom teaching is essential for international students because they must interact with local stu­ dents. Moreover, participants mentioned that digital distance learning is not enough and should be supplemental to the traditional teaching mode. “Before the pandemic, we used complementary learning platforms such as Moodle; but now, this and other platforms have become essential for our studies and seem to be used even after lockdown” (p#19). Pre-Departure and Post-Arrival Orientation Programs The greater part of participants (92%) argue that they did not receive any pre­ departure orientation program in their home institution to help them understand the socio-cultural norms of the host community; 5% reported that they did receive such programs, but their awareness of the Spanish culture was predominantly built through watching some Spanish TV Channels and videos on YouTube; and, only 3% admitted not to attend them because they deemed pre-departure orientation programs as they found them either unnecessary or they had no time to attend. One participant argued that having an orientation session program could help understand Spanish culture (p#2). Another one asserted the following: “Both my home and host institutions should have offered us an orientation program to ease our integration and adaptation to the host community” (p#8). Similarly, partici­ pant 13 said that he was in Portugal as an exchange student before coming to Spain. The program offered an orientation session in the home institution with a particular emphasis on Portuguese culture. In contrast, participant 6 admitted to joining a cultural program that seemed reasonably short in time: “The session lasted 40 minutes, and the speaker tried to explain various aspects of the Spanish culture. As the program was short, I decided to get the necessary information on my own”. In a similar vein, other participants claimed that joining an orientation program before relocating to another country would have made a big difference. In particular, they pointed out facing insurmountable obstacles with paperwork on their arrival and did not know how to proceed at each stage: “Lockdown was difficult for all students, but for me, as a foreign student, this was particularly difficult. As I did not speak much Spanish, I had to translate all the forms and documents before I filled them out” (p#39). Another student (p#22) indicated the paperwork difficulty was aggravated by the lockdown.

162

Mostafa Boieblan

Overall, the participants’ opinions on the pre-departure orientation program split: while some students find it crucial, others believe that orientation sessions on various issues should be constantly organized during the study abroad programs. “During the COVID-19 lockdown, international students need more help and guidance throughout their stay abroad” (p#4). “The first lockdown was forced abruptly, and there was no room to react in any other way. Now, I would expect programs introducing international students to the Spanish culture to be available because we are two years into the COVID-19 pandemic” (p#10). Long Term Bonds with International and Local Students Another common theme of concern reported by participants is their creation of bonds with local and international students. For the question of whether they still have contact with any students they knew during their stay abroad, 45 partici­ pants (86.5%) reported that they do not keep in touch with their former class­ mates. This is in line with the findings in Chapter 12 that mobility during the pandemic reduced the friendship between the students. These participants also argued that making friends was an insurmountable challenge as they had minimal interactions with other students: “[…] I was in Madrid for four months and did not make one single friend. How could I make one if all my interactions with other students were through Zoom?” (p#43). Another participant also high­ lighted the lack of interaction among students: “We were asked to keep our microphones muted during Zoom sessions and activate them only if we needed to ask questions to the instructor” (p#33). “The lockdowns were a new experience to us and everyone, and making friends became of the least importance. I know it is important to know people and to maintain social bonds with them in the future, but the situation was weird. Honestly, I do not think anyone was worried about making friends” (p#49). Another participant said the following: “I never created any permanent bonds with my fellow students outside the classes, and I don’t keep in touch with anybody from that time because there were no real occasions where we could befriend each other” (p#13). In contrast, seven participants from Humanities (13.5%) reported having made friends and are still in touch with them through WhatsApp groups and emails after returning to their home country: “During the online sessions on Zoom, we had a chance to form discussion groups through the Rooms-Breakout option in which we were four to five students debating an issue proposed by the instructor. Doing this kind of activity helped me a lot to know my classmates better and have a close relationship with them” (p#12).

General Reflections Several studies, including those reflected in this book, have explored how the COVID-19-induced lockdowns hindered the quality of learning among students (Marinoni et al., 2020), while others have particularly examined how interna­ tional students in mobility programs experienced such lockdowns (Koris et al.,

Assessing the Quality of ISM in Spain 163 2021). This chapter investigated the effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns on students enrolled in international mobility programs in Spain in 2020. Results of previous research, also mentioned in part one of the current volume, have consistently found that studying abroad has excellent benefits on students’ aca­ demic, personal, socio-cultural, and professional competencies (Teichler & Maiworm, 1997). However, the COVID-19 lockdowns significantly constrained the quality of international mobility programs. Hence, inductive thematic ana­ lysis revealed that the first subtheme of cultural immersion is interacting with local and international students. Though participants pursued different goals during their international mobility programs, they all reported minimal cultural immersion because of the lack of interaction with local students. This accords with Almeida’s (2020, p. 161) claim that “recreational and leisure activities can facilitate integration in the host culture by giving sojourners opportunities for socializing with hosts”. Some participants also highlighted the importance of interacting with other international students and building social networks with them for a meaningful cultural immersion. As Bochner et al. (1985, p. 690) put it, “the multicultural network consists of bonds with noncompatriot interna­ tional students, and its function is recreational as well as providing mutual support based on a shared foreignness”. The second subtheme of cultural immersion concerns learning and practicing the local language also discussed in chapter four with respect to traditional mobility. Participants whose primary goal was to learn and practice Spanish were not satisfied with their level of acquisition of this language; they had to prioritize their goals, and thus learning Spanish became of the least importance. The fact that Spanish courses were held online did not motivate participants to achieve this goal: they contended that they needed real-life context to learn the language. This finding fits into the theory that language acquisition is insepar­ able from its socio-cultural contexts (Byram et al., 2001). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that these participants provided a different attitude toward learning English online: some sojourners affirmed that this teaching mode boosted their level of English. This might be due to the fact that these partici­ pants were used to studying English in their home countries without its socio­ cultural context. In response to the adequacy of digital distance learning for achieving the goals set for a stay abroad, participants who studied Mathematics and assessed digital platforms for their potential to cater to academic achievements provided positive answers. In contrast, those participants pursuing Humanities degrees, who predominantly assessed these platforms in the survey in terms of their potential to provide a proper context for developing cross-cultural competence, deemed such platforms totally inadequate for their needs. However, it is to note here that those who received course instructions in English did not consider these platforms deficient; rather, some participants ascertained that these plat­ forms boosted their English level. That is to say that educational platforms are more welcome to foster cultural and linguistic awareness for learners of English rather than the learners of any other language and culture. As Taghizadeh and

164

Mostafa Boieblan

Ejtehadi (2021) suggest, to tackle this issue, instructors need to implement var­ ious interaction tools based on learners’ needs, personality traits, and the facilities available to help construct a thriving online learning community, where students will have a better chance to experience the culture of the target language. Online teaching also facilitates international students’ use of technology in their learning process. Applications such as Moodle and Kahoot were widely used during the lockdowns, and participants pointed out that the use of these applications should be maintained as a teaching tool after the lockdowns are over. However, this does not mean they agree to remote learning as a substitute for in-person learning but as a complementary tool integrated into traditional teaching methods. Participants’ reflection on orientation programs showed that only 5% assured having received pre-departure orientation programs though they also pointed out that they were insufficient to help them cope with the challenge of studying abroad. Yet, other participants were not offered such programs, or did not have time to attend them, or did not consider them necessary. However, none of the participants received post-arrival orientation programs because most cultural activities on campus were canceled during the lockdowns. As our analysis shows, the lack of such programs has negatively impacted international students’ cross-cultural and linguistic competencies (cf. Koris et al., 2021). Another theme across the chapter is long-term bonds among local and interna­ tional students. Social networking was also an important goal pursued by students surveyed in this chapter. Long-term cross-cultural friendships are crucial for boosting international relations as these students might hold critical positions in decision-making institutions (Ward et al., 2001; Teichler & Janson, 2007). As such, all participants reported that at the beginning of their sojourn, they were eager to interact with local students and build long-term bonds with them; but later, most of them gave up this goal as it was impossible to have any meaningful social interactions with local students. As a result, only 5% assured that they were able to make friends and get in touch with them through WhatsApp groups and emails after returning to their home country. This goes in line with the Finnish context that we earlier discussed in the previous chapter.

Conclusion The creation of the European labor market brought about new challenges and opportunities for European students, among which is to develop social, aca­ demic, and professional skills to interact in a multicultural environment. To rise to these challenges, European higher education institutions worked in col­ laboration with each other to implement international mobility programs. However, the quality of such programs was impaired due to the spread of COVID-19 in 2020 across the EU member states and beyond. Accordingly, educational institutions had to switch teaching from regular to online mode by implementing MOOC, Moodle, Zoom, and other platforms.

Assessing the Quality of ISM in Spain 165 In this chapter, we explored international students’ reflections on their study abroad in Spain. We considered their level of achievement in linguistic and cross-cultural competencies and revealed that students’ satisfaction regarding international mobility programs during the lockdowns significantly differed based on their degrees and their goal set prior to moving abroad. Remarkably, these students also sought other goals instead of those based on subject-specific contents, one of which was cultural immersion in the host community (i.e., interacting with local and other international students as well as learning and practicing Spanish). Due to the lockdowns, some of these goals were abandoned or partially obtained, which might have negatively influenced the whole experience of studying abroad. Therefore, it might be necessary to integrate specific programs for international students in tandem with subject-specific content. A subject on the culture and language of the host country to enhance the mobility experience of international students might be crucial in this regard. The COVID-19 outbreak and lockdowns were indeed an unusual experience, yet, from now on, educational institutions should be ready for any hardships and act in accordance with the situation. Finally, COVID-19-induced lockdowns caused an abrupt shift from traditional to online distance learning models, which, in turn, created new opportunities and challenges for international students. As a result, distance internationalization has become especially relevant in the research on international mobility programs. As noted by some of the participants, the learning experience of international stu­ dents in the host country might have been more meaningful had they been offered pre-departure online internationalization sessions to help them develop inter­ cultural awareness before relocating. Indeed, other participants acknowledged the importance of such sessions as complementary to traditional mobility, even after the lockdowns were lifted.

Note 1 Survey link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/15JCbAO3QZDAVlpaX6i7jryKqWvk8LS7 FyNc-Dy5vUjw/edit.

References Almeida, J. (2020). Understanding student mobility in Europe: An interdisciplinary approach. Routledge. Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., Rexeisen, R. J., & Hubbard, A. C. (2006). Short-term study abroad and intercultural sensitivity: a pilot study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(4), 457–469. Ballatore, M., & Ferede, M. K. (2013). The Erasmus Programme in France, Italy, and the United Kingdom: Student Mobility as a Signal of Distinction and Privilege. Eur­ opean Educational Research Journal, 12(4), 525–533. Baumgratz, G., & Shaw, G. (1993). Mobility in Higher Education: Cross-Cultural Communication Issues. European Journal of Education, 28(3), 327–338.

166

Mostafa Boieblan

Bochner, S., Hutnik, N., & Furnham, A. (1985). The friendship patterns of overseas and host students in an Oxford student residence. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125(6), 689–694. Boozer Jr, B. B., & Simon, A. A. (2020). Teaching Effectiveness and Digital Learning Platforms: A Focus on Mediated Outcomes. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 24. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence: Revisited. Multilingual Matters Ltd. Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (2001). Developing intercultural competence in practice (Vol. 1). Multilingual Matters Ltd. Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. J. (2007). Intercultural Communication Competence: A Synthesis. In M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & Y. Jing (Eds.), The Global Intercultural Communication Reader (pp. 235–258). Routledge. Ghazali, F. A. (2020). Challenges and Opportunities of Fostering Learner Autonomy and Self-Access Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 11(3), 114–127. Koris, R., Mato-Díaz, F. J., & Hernández-Nanclares, N. (2021). From real to virtual mobility: Erasmus students’ transition to online learning amid the COVID-19 crisis. European Educational Research Journal, 20(4), 463–478. Krzaklewska, E. (2008). Why study abroad? An analysis of Erasmus students’ motiva­ tions. In M. Byram & F. Dervin (Eds.) Students, Staff, and Academic Mobility in Higher Education (pp. 82–98). Cambridge Scholars Press. Marinoni, G., Van’t Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on higher education around the world. IAU Global Survey Report. https://www.iau-aiu.net/ IMG/pdf/iau_covid19_and_he_survey_report_final_may_2020.pdf. Miao, S. Y., & Harris, R. (2012). Learning and personality on study tours abroad. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 17(4), 435–452. Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2001). Student mobility and narrative in Europe: The new stran­ gers. Routledge. Taghizadeh, M., & Ejtehadi, A. (2021). Investigating pre-service EFL teachers’ and tea­ cher educators’ experience and attitudes towards online interaction tools. Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.2011322. Teichler, U., & Janson, K. (2007). The professional value of temporary study in another European country: Employment and work of former ERASMUS students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4),486–495. Teichler, U., & Maiworm, F. (1997). The ERASMUS experience: Major findings of the ERASMUS evaluation research project. Office for Official Publications of the Eur­ opean Communities. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Routledge.

14 Student Engagement Before and After the Global Pandemic A Case of International Students in a Pre-Sessional English for Academic Purposes Programme (PEAP) Hieu Kieu After-COVID Universities and Their Students The COVID-19 pandemic has divided the world of universities into two categories—before and after COVID-19 (hereafter BC and AC) (Barnett, 2020). The AC universities are moving to a new hybrid approach to teaching and learning with a combination of on-campus and online learning, raising indirect and longerterm intellectual, social, and financial issues. One of these approaches is the peda­ gogical question of engaging students in the new delivering mode, either online or blended. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, students engaged differently depending on their characteristics. Learning and teaching at universities have long adopted technological elements in teaching. However, in the AC context, the uncertainty accelerates the “how” and the “what” of technological adoption to connect stu­ dents to the educational processes; and the “why” in the pedagogical rationale for designing the student learning experience. The recent review by Li et al. (2021) stated that students’ technological approaches vary among cultures. Using the four categories of Hofstede (1983) in cultural characteristics of nations, Li and colleagues identify the differences between students’ and teachers’ levels of technological engagement. These four categories are students’ and teachers’ cultural perspectives based upon (1) power distance, (2) uncertainty avoidance, (3) individualism-collectivism, and (4) masculinity-femininity. Students from a power distance culture, for exam­ ple, tend to follow teachers and do what teachers encourage them to do, including using virtual learning environment-related activities, while this might not be as likely for students from a low-level power distance culture. Another example is the case of students with low uncertainty avoidance being char­ acterized by feeling uncomfortable facing an uncertain or unknown situation. As such, new learning and technological adoption most affected students from this culture zone. Besides the younger generations, often known as digital natives, curriculum developers should pay attention to students’ digital cap­ abilities from the low certainty avoidance culture. The AC universities might have adopted an extensive range of new practices and delivery formats in DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-17

168

Hieu Kieu

teaching and learning over a short period of time, but learners’ characteristics and cultural-related elements persist. As such, for a digitally engaged program, pedagogical approaches should consider the digital competence development for all students bearing in mind the established cultural influences. In an international classroom, students are not necessarily from a mono­ cultural region but a mix of different backgrounds and preferences in learning and teaching. The AC universities equalize students regardless of their cultural differences in the way of “staying at home” to learn, with the absence of the physical campus. As such, technological adoption style has a direct influence on their engagement. Despite these differences, students today are no longer necessarily “just students”. Often, they live and learn with their fluidity of identities, negotiating among who they are in various contexts. They can be carers, non-carers, EFL (English as First Language), ESL (English as Second Language), post-21, and the like. Each of them might have different answers to the questions: 1 2 3

How does the AC teaching and learning influence their experience? What are their perspectives on technological adoption in delivering their programs? Will the technological adoption in the delivery motivate or demotivate their learning?

Students migrating to the university realm, regardless of different profiles, per­ sonally and academically, can be compared to migrants in their ways of becoming and integrating into a new country. The capacity to adapt to new practices is directly linked to their motivation and engagement in the new learning and residing space. Successful learners at university go hand in hand with their capacity to fit into the program requirements—ways of doing, thinking, and fulfilling tasks. Unfortunately, due to pedagogical uncertainty and curricula, AC teaching and learning practices have undermined the “ways of being a student”. The social aspect of learning has been altered toward a hybrid nature, both online and face-to-face. What students might have imagined about their learning in the BC practices remains unchanged. As Barnett (2017, p. 10) suggests, in addition to “a will to learn’, being a student in the 21st century is a will to engage and a preparedness to listen and explore in ‘a pedagogy of strangeness”. Adding to all these components of a BC world, for the AC students, the curricular concern of what to learn, how to engage with strangeness, and “the knowing, acting, and being” of a genuine education has been undermined by the interference of the uncertainty pedagogically and technologically. In addition to the ways of being and becoming AC university students, and having a sense of belonging are not only externally influenced by pedagogy, curriculum, and personal commitment but also by students’ digital identities and their inclination to connect with others digitally. As such, from the BC to the AC teaching and learning prac­ tices, the expansion of technological adoption in a hybrid manner has brought

Student Engagement and Global Pandemic

169

along digital challenges in both pedagogical and curricular matters, directly influencing student engagement.

Student Engagement Student engagement is one of the critical determinants of student success and positive learning experience (Zilvinskis et al., 2017; Dumford & Miller, 2018; Knobloch et al., 2018). Engaged students are reported to achieve learning satis­ faction, critical thinking, and degree attainment (Webber et al., 2013; Flynn, 2014). At the institutional and national levels, student engagement is used as a metric to measure educational quality and effectiveness in surveys such as the National Student Survey in the UK (NSS) or the National Student Survey of Engagement (NSSE) in the US. Klem and Connell (2004, p. 35) define student engagement as “a psychological investment in the process toward learning, or understanding specifically in the areas of interest, attention, and effort students spend on the work of learning”. This definition draws attention to the psycho­ logical dimension of student engagement, illuminating educators’ sustaining efforts to motivate and engage students. The idea of “a psychological invest­ ment” resonates with Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory refer­ ring to three basic psychological needs in terms of autonomy, competence, and relatedness to facilitate maximum engagement and motivation. Taking these three elements into the context of higher learning at the AC universities, this article interprets each element as below: 1

2 3

[Autonomy] The need to be an active learner—taking control of what to learn, how to learn it, and how to measure the distance between my cur­ rent and desirable performance. [Competence] The need to make progress and to be acknowledged for such progression. [Relatedness] The need to connect to the persons, the content, and the environment.

These three elements are directly and indirectly linked to the willingness to learn. More importantly, they contribute to sustaining such willingness by incorporating both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of students (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The sense of competence intrinsically relates to the self-belief in the capability to succeed, and having autonomy can empower students to take their minds beyond the fear of being right or wrong. The sense of relatedness that students develop with different members of the learning community can help nurture their capacity to aspire (Appadurai, 2004) —navigating their worlds in the right direction. Student-Centeredness One pedagogical approach embracing these triangular autonomy, competence, and relatedness concerns is student-centered. According to Tangney (2014),

170

Hieu Kieu

student-centeredness is defined as centralizing students, giving them the agency to insert their ideas, and often learning-oriented. This approach directly impacts student metacognitive skills and has proved to increase student engagement and self-efficacy (Minton, 1991; Tangney, 2014). It brings into play Ryan and Deci’s (2000) three elements in the psychological investment in teaching (see Figure 14.1). However, the centrality of this approach still implies the role of the person who decides to centralize or not to centralize, or what to centralize and how to centralize. As such, the process of students’ higher learning remains trapped in the binary interpretation of autonomy: to be allowed to do something or have the right to do something. Students from different cultures, as in Hofstede’s (1983) categories, might react differently to the distributed classroom power in student-centeredness. In AC universities, student-centeredness is more difficult with unplanned changes in the education process (Varga-Adams et al., 2021). Both students and teachers did not expect and plan for changes of such scope in their practice. The newness and uncertainty of the entire protocol of (1) stu­ dent-to-teacher, (2) student-to-student, and (3) student-to-material interactions requires unplanned adaption. This new protocol partially undermines the core of AC universities’ learning and teaching activities. However, a new set of rules and principles is required to engage students via a student-oriented pedagogy. Either in the BC or AC universities, the student-centered approach is criti­ cized for the fact that it gives students so much freedom. Students might not know what to do with the pedagogical freedom and associate their formal curriculum in the same way as YouTube videos or Spotify podcasts. In other words, giving students so much freedom is closely linked to the pitfall of losing the connection from the educator’s side. For the AC students, the over-freedom also means the puzzlement of what to do with this freedom when the constancy of a learning environment is no longer physically there for them to turn to. In the formal education space, like university-related programs, learning is structured in a way to train a set of specific skills rather than a mere provision of the endless fascination of knowledge, discovery, and liberation. The autonomy or the freedom granted to students, either in student-centeredness or in other novel teaching methods, is a conditional or limited freedom. To be accurate, such Autonomy

Competence

Student - centered approach

Relatedness

Figure 14.1 The student-centeredness inside the three psychological needs

Student Engagement and Global Pandemic

171

autonomy is considered structured freedom, the freedom which is structurally granted for learners to achieve their learning target and graduate. Still, higher education is higher education; in a way, as Barnett’s (1990) argument, what makes higher learning higher is the open-ended relationship between students and knowledge. Such open-ended nature allows students to insert themselves to create and interpret realities, theories, and knowledge in their unique ways. It also implies the multiple interests students can develop while studying and become independent learners who receive structured guidance from their educators. These interests should not only be molded into the curriculum but celebrated in a stu­ dent-centered approach. The hybrid offering mode (online and on-campus) in the AC world requires a new layer for such structured freedom. On the one hand, freedom should remain freedom, particularly maintaining the higher in higher learning; on the other hand, the structured factor requires the new pedagogical concern of embracing the high level of virtual engagement when the physicality of the learning place is no longer something taken for granted. The virtuality of the learning space in the AC practice also creates a new pitfall of freedom and engagement—whether freedom undermines engagement or engagement takes away freedom. Active Learning In addition to student-centeredness, another pedagogical approach incorporat­ ing Ryan and Deci’s (2000) psychological investment is the active learning fra­ mework (Chi, 2009). In this framework, Chi (2009) proposes three types of active learning, including active, constructive, and interactive activities within the classroom to engage students. � � �

Active: Do something, often physical Constructive: Produce output beyond given information, discovery learning Interactive: Dialogue with other students or teacher

Chi (2009) distinguishes the differences between active, constructive, and interactive elements in learning activities. These learning activities could be about doing something (active), producing learning outputs and new ideas (constructive), and initiating dialogue (interactive) refers to the dialogue. With the active element, learning activities are engagement oriented, such as identi­ fying, paraphrasing, and repeating certain elements of students’ prior knowledge. The constructive elements raise the learning activities at a higher level where students are involved in self-constructed activities, for example, explaining con­ cepts, planning, and predicting outcomes. Unlike the active elements, the con­ structive requires students to create individually by connecting to their prior knowledge. Finally, the interactive element is considered by Chi (2009) as the highest level of active learning, where students create or participate in the instructional dialogue to create something new together or finish certain areas of their curriculum; examples can be revising errors from feedback.

172

Hieu Kieu

Like student-centeredness, an active learning framework generates a positive learning experience where students can critically engage in authentic activities (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Wiggins et al., 2016). Using the examples from my practice in teaching Pre-sessional English for Academic Programmes (PEAP), this article links three fundamental psychological needs of students (autonomy, competence, relatedness) to the student-centeredness and active learning framework via the examples of student-bubble workshops where stu­ dents were granted the choice and freedom to personalize their curriculum content. Examples of these workshops will be looked at in greater detail later.

International Students in the Pre-sessional English for Academic Purposes Programmes (PEAP) In administrative terms, the definition of international students in the UK by UUKI (Universities UK International) is “someone who is not domiciled in the UK but resides temporarily in the UK to study” (Kieu, 2021, p. 136). Interna­ tional students contribute significantly to the UK economy each year, with about £20.3 billion in 2015–2016 (HEPI, 2018), generating income for research, higher education institutions, and residents and adding diversity and richness to UK universities and communities. However, their economic importance tends to overshadow the recognition that they deserve. Like other student cohorts, the capacity to fit in goes hand in hand with a suc­ cessful learning experience for international students. However, unlike different student cohorts, international students whose English is their second language (ESL), such requirement is closely linked to their language capacity or English capacity. In the Anglo-American academic environment, the newness of concepts, practice, and frames of thought can single out some students. In this case, English is not just a means of communication but links to the inner perception of self, engagement, and belief in their chance to succeed (self-efficacy). For ESL interna­ tional students, learning goes beyond nationalism but inhabits cultural and lin­ guistic differences; particularly, learning becomes cosmopolitanism (Rizvi, 2009). Students will learn from these differences and develop comparative views of the learning matter. For students whose English requirement is not up to the standard, the Pre-sessional Academic English programs (PEAP) and the intensive academic English courses are designed to give ESL international students another opportu­ nity to fulfill the entry-level requirement (obtaining unconditional offers). These programs are the first formal educational spaces for international students at UK universities. The PEAP is characterized by its intensiveness and density of content allocation to deliver this requirement. At the PEAP at Midlands Russell Group University (a public research university in Nottingham, England), the courses are categorized into four-week, six-week, and ten-week courses. Students’ progression is measured against three criteria: genre, criticality, and language. �

Genre requirements are associated with academic convention (e.g., referencing, quoting, paraphrasing, synthesizing);

Student Engagement and Global Pandemic � �

173

Criticality is associated with the quality of thinking (e.g., evaluating sources, pushing the argument further, questioning and suspecting claims); Language is based on academic English-related requirements (e.g., structuring and expressing grammar and lexis).

Imagine learning all these within the span of four to ten weeks for firsttime international students in the UK. Imagine being somebody who only uses English as a subject at school or university (learning grammar, voca­ bulary, pronunciation) and now sitting to fulfill all these requirements within such time? Will there also be a space for the student-centered approach and active learning to deliver all these criteria within a limited time? How can the tutor maintain the balance between delivering the course curriculum to help students fulfill their assessment tasks and evidence of having met the learning outcomes while nurturing engagement and academic enjoyment? Do tutors need to compromise the former for the latter or vice versa? Does one aspect take precedence over another, and the engagement gets squeezed out, or should they be inextricably linked? With the AC practices, how will the teaching, learning, and engaging paradigm shift for these ESL first-time international students?

Personalizing Curricular Content Under the generic curriculum of Academic English in these pre-sessional pro­ grams, each student might develop a preference for specific content and perso­ nal engagement, which enhances learning. Within one group, some students might be more familiar and comfortable with one curricular content area than others. As such, to bring out the social aspect of learning, giving students chances to peer support one another might bring psychological satisfaction in terms of the need to take control (autonomy), to be acknowledged (compe­ tence), and to belong and connect with others (relatedness). One way to do so is to let students personalize their curricular content. Using the COVID-19 lockdown language teaching in 2020 in the UK in one HEI, setting up a study­ ing bubble is one way to bestow students the academic freedom to take control of their learning, and teach each other. This idea originated from my practice at the pre-sessional Academic English course at a Midlands Russell Group Uni­ versity,1 which has proved its pedagogical advantage in my class in (1) bringing students together (Ryan and Deci’s relatedness and Chi’s constructive and interactive), (2) letting students exercise their structured curriculum freedom (Chi’s interactive—integrating new and old knowledge within and across bub­ bles), and (3) exercising the sense of competence intellectually and socially (Ryan and Deci’s competence and student-centeredness). Students can choose their study content based on the suggestive essential readings or coursework content constructed in their bubbles. Each bubble can organize its team in task allocation (e.g., what to read, by when). Seminars and workshops can be run in a cross-bubble and student-led format, particularly cross-teaching among

174

Hieu Kieu

student study bubbles. The bubble practice runs with the underlying principle of student autonomy, and active learning to (1) give the student a choice of what they want to learn; (2) let them actively construct and deliver their chosen content to the group. This practice is a combination of in-bubble and cross-bubble activities. There will be a session for all students to come to terms with their bubbles’ regulations and expectations for running these activities. The tutor’s role is to facilitate and suggest alternative practices if needed. Based on Chi’s (2009) framework of three active learning types (see below), the nature of these in-bubble and cross-bubble activities is allocated as � �

In-bubble: active and constructive Cross-bubble: interactive

In the summer of 2020, I ran the bubble format with the PEAP students within a five-week course. My class was divided into three bubbles (nine students in total), with three self-selected members among the students as leaders. The bubble self-selection method might work well with a group of students who are familiar with one another. However, students of this group formation style tend to spend more time socializing than working. As such, the better-chosen option is the tutor-assigned grouping to maximize group diversity and performance. Following the bubble formation, a series of four cross-bubble sessions were run based on Jonson’s (2005) K-W-L technique. Please see Tables 14.1 and 14.2. � � �

K: What I know W: What I want to know L: What I have learned

Within five weeks, the cross-bubble workshop ranged from How to present yourself academically to Academic writing, where students creatively inserted their approaches and interpretation of the curricular content.

Table 14.1 Example of a bubble’s K-W-L approach Academic writing—preparing for the position analysis paper Bubble 1

K What I know

W What I want to know

L What I have learned

Zhang, Nasime, Van (pseudo names)

My title, argu­ ment, position

– – – –

– Empirical, logical, anecdotal evidence – Referencing styles – What’s good, what’s bad, and what’s relevant

Search for sources Cite my sources Evaluate my sources Building a good paragraph

Student Engagement and Global Pandemic

175

Table 14.2 Four steps of the bubble practice Step 1 Forming the Bubbles

Complete the K-W-L

Justify for the W

Members to get to know each other

Step 2 Preparing for the cross­ Bubble workshops

Bubbles - forming a cross-Bubble workshop agenda: con­ tent, time, activities

Bubbles– agreeing on “ground rules”: e.g., speak like an expert, be confident.

Tutor – Briefing on thinking behavior questions (Goulding, 2018) (clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fair­ ness, significance) for questions and answers purposes

Step 3 Running the cross-Bubble work­ shop – 20 minutes + questions and answers

Tutor Allocating of tasks: which bubble to deliver the content, which bubble to ask which questions (e.g., Bubble to ask What, Why, How, Otherwise questions)

Step 4 Reflecting on “This is what we have learned”

Connecting the dots: other bubbles: how this related to your prior knowledge

Internalising the matter: how this personally related to your learning experience

Future-orienting: will this matter still be relevant in your lifelong learning journey?

Student Evaluation and Tutor Reflections During a five-week PEAP course in 2020, students noted the following positive feedback: � � � � � �

I’ve never spoken that much English before. It was different! I thought pre-recording the sessions would be less risky, but it was good to gain confidence and ‘teach’ each other on Teams. I was confused at first, but after we met with our bubble members online, we knew what to do, and we enjoyed it. After leading a session, I feel very confident. Quite empowered because everyone was so attentive and professional. I thought we were left on our own, but it was fun when we came up with something from the group.

From a tutor’s perspective, this Bubble teaching has brought to life the novelty of student teachers—their interpretation of the teaching method. It also allows tutors to position themselves as an observer within their classroom and criti­ cally reflect on how they teach and how their students learn. However, this Bubble teaching could have been more engaging if the tutor ‘had known’ the students more. By actually “knowing” each student, the tutor could give them personalizing feedback and encouragement fitting into their areas needing

176

Hieu Kieu

improvement. Moreover, the structured freedom should have been carefully planned as there would always be a pitfall of students “being lost in transla­ tion”. For example, in hindsight, instead of letting students decide their K-W-L, the tutor could also have prepared the guided materials, including PowerPoint slides, for students to use or adapt in their initial cross-bubble sessions. Unlike the approach where students see the curriculum as a singular format, the personalizing curriculum in this bubble approach enables students to con­ struct their plural format of what a curriculum should be or their “ought to” curricula and deliver them to their peers. By giving students the right to create and teach what they have learned, we will be surprised by the plurality and newness of their intellect and contributions, particularly with international students whose languages, contexts, and experiences are rarely explored. The K-W-L practice enables students to connect the dots: where they come from and what they are doing now, which boosted the confidence of international stu­ dents. By finishing the Pre-sessional EAP courses, they would not feel that they were starting their journeys empty-handedly but equipped by the K—their prior knowledge, practice, and competence that they have been enriched throughout their holistic education journey, regardless of their home country or in the UK.

Conclusion This chapter discussed student engagement in the uncertainty of the AC uni­ versities where the question of how to teach (pedagogical concerns) has been undermined socially and pedagogically. To engage students, understanding their basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essen­ tial, but embracing all these factors into a practical pedagogy takes work. Giving students either too little or too much freedom might cause need frus­ tration leading to disengagement and demotivation (Jang et al., 2016). This chapter proposed one way to tap into the psychological needs and engage stu­ dents by giving them structured freedom, particularly by combining the studentcentered approach and active learning framework where student autonomy is structurally granted in a flexible pedagogy. To demonstrate this structured freedom, a case of personalizing curricular content for ESL international stu­ dents in the Pre-sessional Academic English program was provided. This example was taken from my deliberative pedagogical space for students to channel their prior knowledge and experience fitting into our curriculum. When English is not the mother tongue, the open-ended relationship between ESL international students and knowledge is undermined linguistically and intellec­ tually. In many cases, limited English capacity is quickly associated with limited intellectual capacity, which needs to be corrected. Teaching international stu­ dents academic English is not just about stuffing students with a new language and academic convention (content-oriented) but also about being voice-valuing (student-centered). Finally, for lecturers and students, teaching and learning are professions of the not-yetness. Whether the place of learning is online or on campus, the physicality

Student Engagement and Global Pandemic

177

of learning and the community’s intellectuality are the places to nurture capacities to aspire (Appadurai, 2004) and enrich the pool of possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986) for students. Having the agency take greater control of their learning is my suggestion to increase student engagement in the AC universities.

Note 1 The Russell Group comprises 24 research-intensive UK universities with a shared commitment and focus towards research and providing an outstanding teaching and learning experience.

References Appadurai, A. (2004). The capacity to aspire. Culture and public action, 59–84. Barnett, R. (1990). The idea of higher education: McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Barnett, R. (2020). BC and AC, and higher education. 11 May 2020. https://ronaldba rnett.co.uk/my_blog.php. Barnett, R. (2017). Being a student in the twenty-first century—and the inadequacy of skills. ISQ Meeting, Brisbane, Wednesday, 5 July 2017. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin, 3, 7. Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Edu­ cation, 30(3), 452–465. Flynn, D. (2014). Baccalaureate attainment of college students at 4-year institutions as a function of student engagement behaviors: Social and academic student engagement behaviors matter. Research in Higher Education, 55(5), 467–493. Goulding, C. (2018). Discerning student thinking: a practical theoretical framework for recognizing and informally assessing different ways of thinking. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(4), 478–492. Harrison, N., & Waller, R. (2018). Challenging discourses of aspiration: The role of expectations and attainment in access to higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 44(5), 914–938. Haugh, M. (2008). The discursive negotiation of international student identities. Dis­ course: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 29(2), 207–222. HEPI (Higher Education Policy Institute) (2018). Change is coming: how universities can navigate through turbulent political times. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploa ds/2018/06/Policy-Note-7-Paper-June-2018-2.pdf. Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International studies of management & organiza­ tion, 13(1–2), 46–74. Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and instruction, 43, 27–38. Jonson, K.F. (2005). 60 Strategies for improving reading comprehension in grades K-8. Corwin Press.

178

Hieu Kieu

Kieu, H. (2021). International Students in the UK and a sketch of their Englishscapes. In T. Mammadova (Ed.) Cultural Diversity in Cross-Cultural Settings: A Global Approach (pp.135–151). Cambridge Scholars. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher Support to Student Engagement and Achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273. Knobloch, J., Kaltenbach, J., & Bruegge, B. (2018). Increasing student engagement in higher education using a context-aware Q&A teaching framework. In International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 136–145). ACM. Li, N., Zhang, X., & Limniou, M. (2021). A country’s national culture affects virtual learning environment adoption in higher education: a systematic review (2001–2020). Interactive Learning Environments, 1–19. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954. Minton, D. (1991). Teaching Skills in Further and Adult Education. Palgrave Macmillan. Rizvi, F. (2009). Towards cosmopolitan learning. Discourse: Studies in the cultural pol­ itics of education, 30(3), 253–268. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. Tangney, S. (2014). Student-centered learning: a humanist perspective, Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 266–275. Varga-Adams, T., Bennet, S., Sharpe, R., Alexander, S., & Littlejohn, A. (2021). The Choices that Connect Uncertainty and Sustainability: Student-Centred Agile DecisionMaking Approaches Used by Universities in Australia and the UK during the COVID­ 19 Pandemic. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 16(1), 1–16. Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success and satisfaction. Journal of college student development, 54(6), 591–611. Wiggins, S., Chiriac, E. H., Abbad, G. L., Pauli, R., & Worrell, M. (2016). Ask not only ‘what can problem-based learning do for psychology?’ but ‘what can psychology do for problem-based learning?’ A review of the relevance of problem-based learning for psychology teaching and research. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(2), 136–154. Zilvinskis, J., Masseria, A. A., & Pike, G. R. (2017). Student engagement and student learning: Examining the convergent and discriminant validity of the revised national survey of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 58(8), 880–903.

15 Internationalizing Nursing Education Programs with COIL A Case Study of Pandemic Policy Analysis Janet H. Davis, Gemma Delicado Puerto,

Kyle Rausch, Megan Cris-an Sijo James,

Janessa Marie Rojas, Juan Manuel Rodríguez Tello

and Jesus M. Lavado-Garcia

Introduction As previously mentioned, the global coronavirus pandemic has drastically impacted higher education. This has been especially salient for institutions’ internationalization efforts, which often include education abroad programming. For the academic year 2019–2020, the total number of students from the United States who studied abroad for academic credit declined by 53% to 162,633 stu­ dents (Institute of International Education, 2022a). To ensure students could still participate in international education activities and develop cultural competencies during the pandemic, international educators had to look to alternative virtual exchange approaches such as Globally Networked Learning and Telecollabora­ tion while their mobility activities were grounded. Collaborative Online Interna­ tional Learning (COIL) has been one pedagogical approach that has helped institutions meet this aim. It extends authentic intercultural and transnational learning opportunities to students within the curriculum of college and university classrooms. Through co-developed and co-taught modules, COIL supports the development of 21st-century workforce skills and provides opportunities for applied learning experiences. Purdue University Northwest, located in Northwest Indiana, is part of the internationally-respected Purdue University system and enrolls approximately 8,500 students: 60% of its undergraduates are first-generation college students. A survey was sent to all 1,726 currently enrolled College of Nursing under­ graduate and graduate students in the winter of 2020 to inform future education abroad program design. The results indicated that Western Europe was a des­ tination of high interest and that family responsibilities were a barrier to international travel. Based on these results, a short-term spring break 2021 nursing education abroad program was developed with a university partner, the Universidad de Extremadura. The Universidad de Extremadura is a Spanish public university located in the region of Extremadura in the Southwestern area of Spain and at the border with DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-18

180

Janet H. Davis et al.

Portugal. It is the only university in a region of one million inhabitants. It was founded in 1973 by the Ministry of Education and Science of Spain. Currently, the Universidad de Extremadura offers 64 Bachelor’s Degrees and 32 Master’s Degrees in many different fields of knowledge and has around 25,000 students. This insti­ tution has branch campuses in the following locations: Badajoz, Cáceres, Mérida, and Plasencia. Each campus has different degrees and programs of study. The institution has a long relationship with Latin American Universities. Also, it joined together with the University of Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Balearic Islands, La Rioja, Navarra, Oviedo, Zaragoza, and the Basque Country, in forming the Group G9 of Universities. The College of Nursing was founded in 1971, and in 1978 joined the Universidad de Extremadura. In 2017, the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation of Spain (ANECA) awarded the College with the AUDIT accreditation for quality. The faculty in the College publishes scientific articles in the health sciences field at an international level. The Universidad de Extremadura has collaborated with Purdue University for more than 23 years in study abroad programs. It hosted visiting Purdue nursing students in hospitals for short periods of time for years. Following the university pandemic travel ban for all international programs in the spring of 2020, the authors changed direction from an on-site to a virtual international experience through the use of COIL. This change fits with the Purdue Uni­ versity Northwest strategic plan goal: create “virtual internships”, project-based learning, and micro-internships that allow students to work online with part­ ners throughout the country and the world. Although COIL has been in use for well over a decade, the pandemic has spurred more institutions to leverage it to continue international education while travel was paused or limited. The SUNY COIL Center (2022) explains that “COIL connects students and professors in different countries for colla­ borative projects and discussions as part of their coursework. These collabora­ tions between students and professors provide meaningful, significant opportunities for global experiences built into programs of study. COIL enhances intercultural student interaction through proven approaches to mean­ ingful online engagement while providing universities a cost-effective way to ensure their students are globally engaged”. The partnering authors were familiar with COIL and collaborated through best practices. Collaborative Online International Learning Best Practices While there are many forms a COIL course may take, dependent upon a pro­ ject’s learning objectives, there are some recommended best practices. A faculty member may seek to implement a COIL project as part of an existing course; however, designing a well-thought-out COIL project still takes time. Therefore, sufficient planning time is essential. A general rule of thumb is to begin plan­ ning at least one semester prior to when one intends to offer the COIL project, although projects that consist of many modules or activities or last longer may need a longer lead time.

Nursing Education Programs and COIL

181

COIL projects should benefit all partners involved. In early planning calls, each faculty member should clarify what learning objectives they are seeking to meet with the COIL project. Using the backward design, learning activities and assignments should be designed to meet the aims of each faculty member’s respective objectives. This helps to avoid a colonial and transactional mindset whereby one partner must cater to the needs of another. The roles of each faculty member must be clearly mapped out at the onset of a project. Who will be responsible for setting up the technology? Who will be responsible for trou­ bleshooting? Who will be responsible for certain aspects of each COIL activity or assignment? These are but a few questions to ask as the COIL project is developed. Additionally, setting realistic expectations, both for the faculty and the students, is imperative. Make sure everyone has a good understanding of the time commitment that will be expected, as well as quantifying, when possible, the expected level of engagement and appropriate mediums. For instance, will all engagement need to take place in a central online space, or can students elect to use the modality that is most convenient for them? Many online tools can help faculty facilitate an effective COIL project. Course learning management systems such as Blackboard and Canvas can be robust online platforms to host the projects, but guest access may need to be negotiated for students from a partner institution. Free web-based platforms such as Google Drive and apps like WhatsApp can provide cheap and easy access for a wide variety of users, but there may be issues related to data protection or even access in some locations. Consider the objective of each individual activity and try to identify the best platform to achieve it. As an example, threaded discussions would not work as well in an app like WhatsApp as they would in a proper discussion board component on a platform such as Blackboard. These con­ siderations can matter greatly down the road when trying to review and assess student work and track engagement. As with any international partnership, attention should be given to the differences in access to resources that may exist. Broadly speaking, United States-based urban institutions may have access to better technology than institutions in more rural settings. Assumptions about access to internet connections cannot be made on either side. A careful assessment of resour­ ces available to all partners and students should be made so that a realistic work plan can be developed. Increasingly, grants for COIL projects are becoming available and may serve as one resource to help ensure access to resources for all parties.

COIL Globally The nursing literature includes several examples of successful COIL programs. An early example of a COIL intercultural communication competencies course involved nursing students in the United States and construction students in Mexico mutually developing an assisted living facility (Buckley & Catano-Bar­ rera, 2018). After completing a COIL experience between nursing students in

182

Janet H. Davis et al.

the US and the Philippines, students expressed valuing shared learning with peers in another country and reported gains in intercultural competence (de Castro et al., 2019). A COIL project between the University of Iceland and the University of Minnesota was embedded into graduate courses in nursing administration and leadership (Bragadóttir & Potter, 2019). COIL courses require substantial colla­ boration between partners. The further development of international exchange programs through web-based meetings in the post-pandemic era is recommended (Jung et al., 2022). The literature advises faculty to be aware of the considerable time investment required in organizing and coordinating COIL (Bragadóttir & Potter, 2019). It is important to point out that this COIL project was developed during the lockdowns and restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic. It resulted in a touched generation, defined by Monforte-Royo and Fuster (2020, p. 2) as coronials: … all those students who came of age as nurses during the COVID-19 outbreak, in a year that marked the 200th anniversary of Florence Night­ ingale’s birth and which had already been designated as the International Year of the Nurse and the Midwife by the World Health Organization. All those students, now nurses, who accepted the challenge of caring for COVID-19 patients, families, and society, and who learned to care in a time of coronavirus. Martin-Delgado et al. (2021) describe the experiences of final-year nursing stu­ dents who joined the healthcare workforce during the first wave of the COVID­ 19 outbreak in Spain prior to completing their training. They indicate the way they were affected by the shortage of resources, the fear of contracting or spreading the virus, and seeing patients die alone. However, the impact of these experiences was buffered by their willingness and sense of moral duty to help and by their ability to see the situation as a learning opportunity. The case study conducted for this chapter was undertaken during a period of the global crisis that altered and changed the normal educational development of under­ graduate nurses: lockdown, suspension of classes and clinical practice, fear of contagion, and social pressure on nurses.

Discussion of Methodological Approach Three senior students, two from Purdue University Northwest and one from the Universidad de Extremadura enrolled in the special topics independent study Collaborative Online International Learning Policy Analysis course during spring 2021. The area of intersection for the students emerged around the impact of COVID-19 on their clinicals. The course was developed based on this shared interest. A standard format syllabus organized the COIL course description, the objectives, the expectations for participation, and the final policy analysis summary paper. In the course, the students explored the reci­ procal relationship between emerging practice and policy by comparing: How

Nursing Education Programs and COIL

183

universities have managed/coped with student clinical practice in hospitals and other health organizations during the Coronavirus pandemic. The student learning objective was: to compare and contrast nursing structures and pro­ cesses that influence the formation of student clinical policy in the United States and Spain. The three students first met on Zoom as a group with the two nur­ sing faculty members for an orientation to the COIL course. Following that meeting, the faculty members met separately with their students, following a set schedule. At these sessions, the students reported on their activities, and the faculty provided guidance on the policy analysis. The students independently arranged their group Zoom meetings to fit with their schedules. Below is what we obtained as a result of this inquiry.

Internationalizing Nursing Education The students first researched the structure and processes for becoming a licensed professional nurse generalist for their international policy compar­ ison. To become a Registered Nurse (RN) in the United States, the student must first graduate from a state board of nursing-approved program. Boards vary in program clinical practicum hours requirements. The graduate must pass the national licensing exam, the NCLEX-RN, and meet additional state-specific nursing board licensure requirements. In the United States, the Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree generally requires four years of schooling. It prepares nurses for leadership roles and graduate study by providing a broad range of general studies, science, and nursing. They are prepared for the synthesis of theory and research by providing care to the individual, the family, and the community to adapt to the changing nature of healthcare and nursing roles. The Purdue University Northwest BSN graduate is prepared to demonstrate patient-centered care that is compassionate and coordinated care and minimizes risk based on respect for patients’ preferences, values, and needs. The graduate practices teamwork and collaboration to achieve quality patient care. Using technology to manage knowledge and support decision-making supports inte­ grating Evidence-Based Practice to deliver optimal health care. Additionally, the graduate tests change to continuously improve the quality and safety of healthcare systems. The Purdue University Northwest College of Nursing BSN consists of 120 total credits: 43 credits in the humanities, arts, and sciences coursework and 77 credits for the nursing major core. The nursing courses with a required clinical practice component are community health, foundations of the practice, maternity, mental health, pediatrics, physical assessment, and three adult medical/surgical courses. The College of Nursing undergraduate student Clinical Practicum Policies are broad in scope and include Essential Abilities Standards for practice, clinical attendance, uniforms, drug testing, patient con­ fidentiality, social media rules, and Bloodborne Pathogens training certification. They reflect the board of nursing, faculty, and clinical facility practice and legal standards.

184

Janet H. Davis et al.

The regulatory framework that regulates the nursing profession in Spain is conditioned by Spain’s membership in the European Union, in which a common space was created for the free movement of professionals among the Member States. For this reason, the university nursing degree in Spain is subjected to what is provided in Directive 2005/36 / EC. In particular, for nurses responsible for general care, it has been established that it includes at least three years of studies or 4,600 hours of theoretical and clinical training. This European stan­ dard includes the training that a nurse responsible for general care must receive in any state of the European Union. For Spain, these standards have been incorporated through Royal Decree 1837/2008. The Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Nursing at the Universidad de Extremadura has a total of 240 ECTS1 credits (60 credits per year) and four modules. The first module of 60 ECTS relates to basic science: human anatomy, biochemistry, biophysics, pharmacology, psychology, statistics, and fundamentals of nursing. The second module includes 78 ECTS and offers: the history and philosophy of nursing, nursing through the cycle of life (nursing of women, child and teenager nursing, adult and aging nursing, and palliative care), ethics, legislation and management, community nursing, mental health nursing and education and promotion of health. The elective module allows students to select two out of these courses: emergency room nursing, work health, statistical methods, or communication techniques. Finally, the clinical practice module offers 84 ECTS together with a BA final project of 6 ECTS. The BA in Nursing at the Universidad de Extremadura responds to the profile of a nurse currently required by society. Not only does it allow graduates to be trained with all the theoretical and practical knowledge to carry out the job successfully, but it also promotes the development of key skills to be a professional with ethics, a critical spirit, leadership skills, and capable of making decisions, ready to work in a team and with skills to be successful in this context. The main competencies that must be acquired by nursing students are generally regulated by the Spanish board of education by establishing requirements for official qualifications. These compe­ tencies include: being capable of providing technical and professional health care appropriate to the health needs of the people they serve; planning and providing nursing care aimed at individuals, families, or groups oriented towards health out­ comes, and evaluating their impact through clinical and care practice guidelines; know and apply the foundations and theoretical and methodological principles of nursing; design care systems aimed at individuals, families or groups, evaluating their impact and establishing the appropriate modifications; base nursing interven­ tions on scientific evidence; understand ethical implications of healthcare in a changing world context; and, work with an interdisciplinary team. The BA in Nursing graduate exercises the regulated nursing profession in different settings. These include public or private health centers and hospitals, non-profit organizations, army forces, mutual insurance companies, occupa­ tional risk prevention services in companies, nursing homes, daycare centers, and disability care centers. The nurse can take on a teaching role in school nursing, university teaching, and occupational training centers. Additionally,

Nursing Education Programs and COIL

185

with a BA, the nurse might participate in research or become a manager, directing health and socio-health resource centers and units. Hospitals are clinical facilities primarily hosting nursing student practicums. In the United States, hospitals are the major employer of RNs. Students also have practicums at skilled nursing facilities, outpatient settings, home care, hospice, and public schools. The financing of nursing services at these sites comes from three major sources. Private, voluntary employer-provided health insurance is an employer-paid contribution to employee health costs, basically a substitute for cash wages. Private health insurance benefits vary by plan. Med­ icare is the uniform policy national health insurance program for the aged and disabled. Administered by the Federal Government, it is the single largest health insurer in the United States. Medicaid is public health insurance for the impo­ verished aged, disabled, and children. It covers preventative, acute, and longterm care services for 25 million people (Rector & Stanley, 2022). In Spain, the health system is predominantly public. The Spanish Constitution (1978a) provides in article 43: “The right to health protection is recognized”. In addition, it declares that the public powers must organize and protect public health through preventive measures and the necessary benefits and services, with a mandate to the legislator to establish the rights and duties of all in this regard. The Autonomous Communities have competencies over health (Spanish Con­ stitution, 1978b), so that they are responsible for the organization and operation within their territorial scope. For its part, the Spanish Government assumes the function of coordination of all the Autonomous Communities on this matter. In addition, the State is responsible for guaranteeing jurisdiction over foreign health, which affects the surveillance and control of health risks derived from the import, export, or transit of goods, as well as international passenger traffic. Likewise, everything that affects international regulations corresponds to the State Govern­ ment. In relation to COVID-19, it has generally assumed the management of the acquisition of vaccines and certain medicines in coordination with the Autono­ mous Communities. Coordination between the national and regional govern­ ments has generally been good, as an example, the resilience of the Spanish health system against the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (Legido-Quigley et al., 2020). Spain has two clearly differentiated healthcare models in relation to the provi­ sion of services. Public Healthcare covers, very broadly, all sectors of the popu­ lation. In general, all active workers linked to Social Security, pensioners, recipients of public subsidies, minors protected by the Administration, as well as the spouses and descendants of all these groups. Furthermore, it has spread to other different population groups, including foreigners. In general, private health centers work due to interested parties’ private health insurance. It is generally understood as a tool to enrich individual universal coverage of Public Healthcare.

Pandemic Policies In the United States, COVID-19 facility clinical restrictions began in March 2020. All host clinical facilities suspended practicums along with patient visiting

186

Janet H. Davis et al.

hours. Purdue University Northwest administrators and faculty prepared stu­ dents by discussing that clinical rotation for the women’s health class would be changed to a virtual simulation (V-SIM). The V-SIM consisted of multiple clinical scenarios regarding a pregnant patient with complications. This sophisticated type of simulation is used throughout the clinical courses as a practice experience. The community health practicum was online using a virtual simulation product called Sentinel-City®. Its scenarios involved virtually asses­ sing community health needs and evaluating areas for community health improvement. A faculty member held a scheduled clinical debrief each week on the Sentinel-City® assignments. For an adult medical/surgical class, the can­ celed clinical rotations were replaced with case studies, each requiring a detailed nursing plan of care. A care plan took approximately seven hours to complete, which is equivalent to the course’s practicum day in-person clinical hours. In the fall of 2020, students had two days of pediatric rotation at a hospital. Students were not allowed to be assigned to patients that were under droplet precautions, had a positive COVID-19 test result, or were on neutropenic pre­ cautions. Students were required to wear goggles in any room. Masks needed to be changed every time a student went in and out of the room for contact pre­ cautions. The hospital then again canceled nursing practicums due to increasing coronavirus cases in the community. For another adult medical/surgical course in spring 2021, students were allowed to return to the hospitals every week. Goggles were required when the student was on the practicum unit. COVID-19­ positive patients were not assigned to a student. The policy adaptations made by the College of Nursing promoted the students’ learning. New competencies and skills acquired during this time included cluster­ ing care, continuous monitoring, and constant Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) usage, including an N95 mask. Care was clustered to minimize physical contact with patients to prevent further transmission of the virus. Continuous monitoring was a crucial step toward preventing further complications for patients with COVID-19. PPE was used constantly while dealing with COVID patients. The shortage of PPE caused students to be more cautious about how to conserve what was being used. For example, the N95 went from disposing of the mask right after it was worn to putting it in a paper bag to be used for the next five days. During the month of March 2020, a state of alarm was announced in Spain. The Spanish government adopted exceptional measures aimed at slowing down the spread of the virus. People had to stay in their homes isolated, except for workers in essential services (health, public order, food, strategic factories). Under these conditions, all face-to-face academic activities that took place inside or outside the Universidad de Extremadura were suspended. Conse­ quently, all health sciences student internships that should be carried out in health facilities were suspended. The solution that was widely improvised was that the teaching was carried out online, that is, the teachers gave their classes and tutorials remotely, and the students could follow them from their homes. The position held by the academic authorities was that the crisis should not affect students from concluding their studies.

Nursing Education Programs and COIL

187

A specific problem arose with the external internships of students who required practical training in health facilities, such as nurses. This is of funda­ mental importance because the degree requires this training to complete the studies, which was especially worrying for the final year students. For this reason, as an exception, the clinical practices were considered passed if the student had completed 80% of the 2,300 hours required to achieve the degree. Students needed to be trained in specific protocols to prevent and transmit COVID-19, especially the training focused on PPE. Nursing students in years 1– 3 of the BA who could not finish their compulsory clinical practice due to the lockdown were allowed to finish them during the following school years. In Spain, some states implemented a voluntary initiative allowing final-year nur­ sing students to join the nursing workforce, which was stretched to its limits by the rapid spread of the virus, to attend to the most urgent needs. These con­ tracts implied supervision by other nurses and remuneration for these students. During the 2020–2021 academic year, a territorial crisis management model was adopted. Thus, while in some Autonomous Communities, students have continued to receive theoretical training remotely, in others, there has been regular attendance at all classes with rigorous security measures to prevent infections. The Universidad de Extremadura has opted for this model, teach­ ing all theoretical classes in person. In relation to clinicals, their development is conditioned by the decisions of the health authorities, although, in general, they have been allowed to take place in hospitals and care institutions. In the case of the Universidad de Extremadura, internships have been carried out normally in the most complicated pandemic periods during the last semester of 2020 and the first of 2021. However, precautions have been taken so that students do not participate directly in the care of COVID patients, preventing them from accessing the areas where they were hospitalized. In addition to this measure, students do not participate in techniques that generate aerosols. Students must show complete vaccination and have periodic COVID-19 PCR tests and antigen tests. Throughout the time working with one another, the students stated they learned how to work with an international partner, refine communication skills, and stay organized throughout the duration of the project. The students used WhatsApp, a free downloadable application, to communicate with one another about timelines, required material to be discussed, and changes that could be made to the project. This app made it significantly easier to work around time changes between the United States and Spain. Zoom was another form of communication they used for team meetings. It allowed the group to look at the entire project as a team to make corrections. Through three Zoom meetings, the students were able to “see” one another and work together on improve­ ments for the project. Zoom was also used throughout the semester for meet­ ings with the two nursing faculty members, one from each university, supervising the course. Two of the students were bilingual, which facilitated communication. The COIL policy analysis paper was uploaded to Google Docs for shared access.

188

Janet H. Davis et al.

Learning in these extreme conditions is unique. In addition to the social interest in completing the training of future health professionals in situations of authentic health emergencies, from the academic point of view, there is out­ standing enrichment of the knowledge that students acquire on pathologies that have been unknown until very recent times. Thus, the specific training of nurses has increased significantly and experimentally. Some topics of special interest in daily clinical practice, such as the correct use of masks and other (PPE) are now highlighted. The nursing students that collaborated in this COIL were able to share, despite physical and geographical distance, valuable experiences and protocols to combat a new pandemic.

Conclusion This COIL project also allowed the students to share their fears of not being able to finish their university degree at a time when society pressed and required their presence in the first line of hospitals. They went through a challenging experience that shows the critical demand of promoting opportunities for reflection and implementing adequate support and training strategies which are crucial for building a nursing workforce that is capable of responding to future health crises in our increasingly globalized world. In response to the challenges of the pan­ demic, nurse educators quickly adapted and ensured students continued to receive quality clinical training while facilitating the development of critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and sound judgment through online learning. Communication was the students’ biggest challenge when working on this project. Due to the language barrier, there were some miscommunications about information that needed to be gathered in addition to deciding the next scheduled meeting. Staying organized became an essential aspect because of the senior semester time demands and also working with the time differences between the United States and Spain. The group advised other students taking on a COIL project not to hesitate to ask for clarification on what is expected and to always make time to have meetings throughout the semester to see the progress that is being made with the project. Knowing that they were able to conduct this project as undergraduate students made the students excited for future international projects. The collaboration between Purdue University Northwest and the Universidad de Extremadura provides a case of international collaboration to ensure students graduate with a global experience that can shape their future personal and pro­ fessional paths. Throughout the pandemic, students learned how vulnerable nur­ sing is internationally when it comes to unplanned change. However, by sharing good COIL practices and clinical protocols, along with sharing professional and personal fears, they not only learned at a professional level in the nursing field but also learned how to become adaptable and resilient in a global pandemic and post-pandemic environment with frequent changes in clinical policies. As the pandemic moves from a pandemic to an eventual endemic status and mobility programs resume, the field of education abroad can benefit from

Nursing Education Programs and COIL

189

developing hybrid programs that make use of principles of COIL and virtual exchange. For example, through the use of technology, students could be introduced to their counterparts and/or hosts before traveling abroad. This could help deepen relationships and prepare both groups for the cultural inter­ actions they will have once on site. Furthermore, after traveling abroad, stu­ dents can continue processing the experience through follow-up calls or assignments with their new international peers, teachers, and mentors. COIL, then, marks another tool in the modern international educator’s toolbelt and one that might improve longstanding critiques of the accessibility of traditional international education activities. Since COIL uses technology to bring two or more groups of students and professors together to engage in learning activities, it removes the necessity of travel. It can be a more accessible modality of international education, representing a safe and lower-cost alternative to tradi­ tional mobility programs. This is why, the next part of this book is dedicated to distance internationalization and online mobility, i.e., the emerging form of academic mobility to aid traditional mobility in many senses.

Note 1 The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) is a tool of the European Higher Education Area for making studies and courses more transparent. It helps students to move between countries and to have their academic qualifications and study periods abroad recognized (European Education Area Quality education and training for all: https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/inclusi ve-and-connected-higher-education/european-credit-transfer-and-accumulation-system).

References Bragadóttir, H., & Potter, T. (2019). Educating nurse leaders to think globally with inter­ national collaborative learning. Nordic Journal of Nursing Research, 39(4), 186–190. Buckley, J., & Catano-Barrera, A.M. (2018). Identification of the need for a nursing view/ perspective in the construction of an assisted living facility in the United States: A case study from the COIL NCC-UASLP in Nursing & Construction. 2018 SUNY COIL Conference Proceedings. https://issuu.com/sunycoilcenter/docs/2018_coil_conference_p roceedings. de Castro, A.B., Dyba, N., Cortez, E.D., & Pe Benito, G.G. (2019). Collaborative Online International Learning to prepare students for multicultural work environments. Nurse educator, 44(4), E1–E5. Institute of International Education. (2022a). “Fields of Study of US Study Abroad Stu­ dents, 2000/01–2020/21”. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. http://www.opendoorsdata.org. Institute of International Education. (2022b). Open Doors annual releases. https://op endoorsdata.org/annual-release/. Jung D., de Gagne J.C., Choi, E., & Lee, K. (2022). An online international collabora­ tive learning program during the COVID-19 pandemic for nursing students: Mixed methods study. JMIR Medical Education, 8(1), e34171.

190

Janet H. Davis et al.

Legido-Quigley, H., Mateos-García, J.T., Campos, V.R., Gea-Sánchez, M., Muntaner, C., & McKee, M. (2020). The resilience of the Spanish health system against the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Public Health, 5(5), e251–e252. Martin-Delgado, L., Goni-Fuste, B., Alfonso-Arias, C., De Juan, M., Wennberg, L., Rodríguez, E., Fuster, P., Monforte-Royo, C., & Martin-Ferreres, M. L. (2021). Nursing students on the frontline: Impact and personal and professional gains of joining the health care workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(3), 588–597. Monforte-Royo, C., & Fuster, P. (2020). Coronials: Nurses who graduated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Will they be better nurses? Nurse Education Today, 94, 104536. Rector, C., & Stanley, M.J. (2022). Community and public health nursing (10th ed). Wolters Kluwer. Spanish Constitution [Constitución Española]. (1978a). Art. 43. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 29 de diciembre de 1978, núm. 311, pp. 29313 a 29424 (Spain). Spanish Constitution [Constitución Española]. (1978b). Art. 148. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 29 de diciembre de 1978, núm. 311, pp. 29313 a 29424 (Spain). SUNY COIL Center. (2022). https://coil.suny.edu/.

Part III

Emerging Distance Internationalization as a new paradigm of International Academic Mobility Part Three, “Emerging Distance Internationalization as a new paradigm of International Academic Mobility,” juxtaposes the traditional context of academic mobility with a newly emerging digital one. A concept of distance inter­ nationalization though a relatively familiar one has been on the ear since the outbreak of the pandemic. Due to this, the chapters are tightly linked to the previous ones, when general challenges experienced within COVID-19 gradually move to the difficulties encountered in virtual settings. The authors promote technology-based mobility as a supplementary form of a traditional mobility exchange and a new form of international academic mobility. While some chap­ ters review the distance internationalization in the sense of globalization of higher education, others prepare the stakeholders for literacy practices, intercultural sensitivity, and virtual peer support. The current part will also shed light on cutting-edge terms like internationalization at home (IaH), internationalization at a distance (IaD), and internationalization abroad (IA). Additionally, different forms of short- and long-term mobility formats, including hybrid mobility, videoexchange formats, collaborative online international learning, and others, pro­ mote the internationalization of education in different corners of the world. Finally, the authors reveal the pros and cons of the issue and suggest best prac­ tices to incorporate this new format into the traditional international academic mobility domain.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-19

16 Globalization of Higher Education A Review of Emerging Distance

Internationalization

Muhammad Muftahu, Wan Qun and Wang Ting

Introduction As forces of globalization strengthen socio-economic and cultural ties between nations, international higher education has emerged as a fundamental linkage point. The internationalization of higher education, whose primary objective and form is to enable the mobility of students and academics, has entered a new phase of “globalized internationalization” that is congruent with the global knowledge society. Numerous managers of institutes of higher education are advocating the internationalization of their students with increasing zeal. Widespread usage of the term “internationalization” is to foster the global competitiveness of higher education. Understanding internationalization’s char­ acteristics and new meanings on different levels has become increasingly crucial. Jane Knight (2015) defines the “internationalization of education” as the process of incorporating international, cross-cultural, or global viewpoints into the mis­ sion, function, or distribution of higher education. Knight contends that globali­ zation is altering the higher education landscape. Globalization promotes the internationalization of the world, and discussions on globalization and inter­ nationalization and the recent rapid expansion of cross-border higher education activities reinforce the trend to include motivations, purposes, and other factors in the definition of internationalization of higher education. In 2004, she defined “go global”, further encouraging the globalization of all activities in higher edu­ cation. These actions may be divided into two categories: “internationalization at home” (IaH) and “internationalization abroad” (IA). Internationalization abroad (IA) emphasizes the mobility of students and academics. Some students, for instance, relocate to another nation to get degrees or credits. The behavior of studying abroad in the broadest sense consists of students temporarily moving to another nation and experiencing good or unfavorable changes in a foreign cul­ ture, language, or educational environment (Jindal-Snape & Rienties, 2016). Bengt Nilsson (2003) invented internationalization at home (IaH), also known as “internationalization in place”. He characterizes it as “an education-led arena where they performed all foreign affairs-related activities except for pupils studying abroad”. It aims to “give all students a chance to adopt the international idea and the impact of cross-border culture during their school years to develop DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-20

194

Muhammad Muftahu et al.

their skills and qualifications in response to fluctuating demand in a globalized society” (Nilsson, 2003, p. 3). Internationalization at a distance (IaD) was proposed by Ruslan Ramanau in 2016. He discovered that most students take online international management courses in their home country, which overlaps and is not entirely consistent with internationalization at home and abroad, as international online learners continue to reside in their home country with little or no exposure to the edu­ cation or culture of other nations. This blurs the distinction between domestic and worldwide internationalization. Mittelmeier et al. (2019) investigate the experiences of 1,141 students in a global remote learning setting in greater depth. Proposed is a more extensive definition of ‘distance internationalization’ encompassing all forms of transna­ tional education, including students, their respective professors and staff, and services supplied by physically separated but technologically linked institutions. The so-called internationalization of higher education denotes that the inter­ national flow features of higher education resources, including the flow of aca­ demics and students, are becoming increasingly pronounced (Knight, 2012). With the international flow of resources for higher education, higher education is becoming a significant business and a significant manifestation of a nation’s comprehensive national power. Student mobility is highly beneficial in the internationalization of higher education since it demonstrates the strength of higher education and reflects a country’s cultural impact. In recent years, spur­ red by the economy of information and the demand for high-tech skills, many students have sought higher education overseas. The velocity, frequency, and breadth of the influx of international students are growing, and the driving power of the influx is accelerating globally. The increasing trend and features of international student flow create a new worldwide network of student devel­ opment and allow nations to increase their global influence and reap economic rewards, attracting various scholars’ research. A thorough review of the litera­ ture is a benchmark to provide the following characteristics of the inter­ nationalization of higher education.

The Number of International Students is Huge and Shows a Trend of Continuous and Rapid Growth As mentioned in the first part of the current book, there are more than 500,000 overseas students globally, a 67% increase from a decade ago. According to forecasts by the OECD, the number of overseas students will reach around 8 million by 2025. This suggests that the number of overseas students will increase by around 60% over the following decade. The increase in the number of international students enrolled in higher education in OECD nations reflects the global development trend of international students. The number of overseas students in global education fields, such as high yardage, grew by 50% between 2005 and 2012 (OECD, 2016). From 2013 to 2014, international student flows in OECD nations climbed by 5%, with Belgium, New Zealand, and Poland seeing

Globalization of Higher Education

195

growth rates of over 20%, significantly higher than the average growth rate. Around 3.3 million international students were enrolled in higher education in OECD nations in 2015, and this number continues to rise (OECD, 2017). According to data, the number of Chinese students studying abroad in 2017 reached 6,084,000, up 11.74% from the previous year. China remains the world’s largest supplier of students studying abroad. Approximately 482,000 international students attended Chinese universities in 2017, making China the most significant destination in Asia for international students (The Ministry of Education, 2018). Globalization continues to expand, and “international education has become an increasingly essential educational program (experience) in terms of students’ global learning and development, intercultural competence, intercultural maturity, and intercultural sensitivity” (Braskamp et al., 2009, p. 101). Erasmus had high expectations for Europe (see Chapter 2). The EU has made substantial investments to attain a 20% student mobility rate by 2020 and build more cross-cultural skills for the global economy (Matherly & Tillman, 2019). The student attrition rate, however, remains below 5%. This indicates that more than fostering international mobility alone is required to internationalize edu­ cation. Because participation in student mobility initiatives is expensive and time-consuming, cross-border mobility is a privilege that many low-income students cannot afford.

The Destination Countries of International Student Flows are extensive, but the Distribution is Seriously Uneven The EU integration process encourages the movement of international students between EU nations. In 2015, the EU area was home to 1,52 million overseas stu­ dents. Approximately 82% of students from EU nations decided to study in other European nations. The Netherlands has 57% of international students from out­ side Europe, whereas Germany has 42% (OECD, 2017). China continues to be the most significant supplier of international students, accounting for 39% of all international students in OECD higher education. India is the second-biggest source of international students, with 50% choosing to study in the United States, accounting for nearly 9% of the overall international student population in the United States (OECD, 2017). Asia has become the most significant supplier of international students for the United States and other OECD nations, significantly contributing to the exponential rise of the international student population.

Mobility Costs and Social Networks are Primary Factors Affecting International Student Mobility Education is commonly viewed as an investment, and all investments have asso­ ciated costs and rewards. The cost-benefit analysis will impact students’ decisions over which education to pursue. In a broad sense, distance encompasses several variables, such as geographical distance, border, regional time difference, topo­ graphic features, the language used, colonial country, and historical association, so

196

Muhammad Muftahu et al.

the flow cost caused by distance itself possesses economic and psychological char­ acteristics. These elements, like gravity, influence the development of bilateral connections and exchanges between two nations and the cost of international stu­ dent mobility. MOOCs and online courses will alter the education sector and the flow of international students due to the Internet application to education. In addition, a pre-existing social network comprising family, friends, and community networks has a significant role in determining where students choose to study (Perkins & Neumayer, 2012). Emerging immigrant groups, particularly those with high levels of education, have developed solid social circles that can give sufficient information resources and a sense of survival and significantly lower the cost of data collection and identification from the beginning. This developing immigration network also influences the international student flow pattern.

Educational Quality and Academic Reputation are Fundamental Driving Forces Affecting International Student Mobility When choosing a study destination, the quality of higher education and aca­ demic reputation are the most crucial considerations for international students. Access to quality higher education is the primary factor motivating students to study abroad. Students from all over the world went to Germany and France to study in the 19th century, primarily due to the international influence on the quality of education in Germany and France. According to a poll conducted by Hobson (cf. Li & Wang, 2023), in education among foreign students, the “stu­ dent satisfaction rate” (36%) and “good teaching quality evaluation” (22%) were the top indications of a university’s excellence. When choosing an educa­ tional institution, “good quality education” (32%), “affordable tuition” (25%), and “university ranking” are the essential aspects to students (19%). Interna­ tional students prioritize “teaching quality” (30%) while selecting an institution (Li & Wang, 2023). Students are more concerned with the quality of instruc­ tion, academic reputation, and recognition of foreign degrees in the worldwide job market. According to the QS World University Rankings these years (Quacquarelli Symonds, 2022), the world’s primary destination countries are home to the finest higher education institutions and are the most popular des­ tinations for international students.

Students’ Cross-Cultural Education and Learning Mobility are Increasingly Frequent As a significant manifestation of the internationalization of education, the international mobility of university students can increase the internationaliza­ tion level of students and create favorable conditions for transnational coop­ eration and multicultural understanding between universities and nations. The European Union, for instance, has implemented several policies and programs for the internationalization of higher education, including the Erasmus Pro­ gramme, the most popular scheme for international student mobility in the EU

Globalization of Higher Education

197

(López-Duarte et al., 2022). Some programs and initiatives have fostered the regional integration of European higher education and facilitated its progressive globalization. As a result of the forces of globalization, international higher education is through a period of continued development, characterized by a closing collaboration and exchange in the fields of global culture and education and an influx of international students. Increasingly, via various forms and methods, students’ international awareness extensively discussed in Chapter 9, global perspective, and cross-cultural competence are becoming the core content of the internationalization of higher education.

From Internationalization Abroad to Domestic Internationalization IaH aims to introduce advanced knowledge and experience from other countries into domestic classrooms by making the curricula of the students’ home countries more international so that more students can enjoy internationalized learning sce­ narios without moving abroad and reap the benefits of cross-cultural experience without monetary or material constraints. For example, colleges can provide for­ eign and local students with cross-cultural learning opportunities and international community programs. These international activities of local education help stu­ dents develop international understanding and cross-cultural skills and prepare them to operate in a more globalized world, reflecting Bernd Wächter’s (2003, p. 7) argument that IaH “tries to go beyond mobility, introducing the internationaliza­ tion of the curriculum and higher education structure”. Foreign education has become an increasingly essential educational program (experience) in terms of global learning and development, cross-cultural competence, cross-cultural maturity, and students’ cross-cultural sensitivity as a result of the expansion of globalization (Braskamp et al., 2009). There are great expectations for Erasmus programs in Europe. The European Union has spent considerably to attain a 20% student mobility rate by 2020 and generate more cross-culturally literate talent for the global market. However, the student churn rate remains below 5%. This indicates that encouraging cross-border mobility alone is insufficient to meet the objective of inter­ nationalizing education. Cross-border mobility is inaccessible to many lowincome students due to the exorbitant financial and time commitments required to participate in student mobility programs. Since it is difficult for most students to go outflow, more and more educational researchers and policy systems believe that local curriculum should be developed in accordance with the international trend, which can make the local curriculum possess richer diversities of culture collision and blending of knowledge flow. In this way, the students can flow to other countries without going there, which means that they do not need to spend money or exert effort to adapt to the new environment. However, at the current level of international education develop­ ment, the implementation of the internationalization of the domestic curriculum is dependent on the academic staff’s ability to develop, provide, and evaluate courses so that students who are unable to participate in cross-border migration

198

Muhammad Muftahu et al.

can benefit from university teachers and administrators who have participated in such migration. It is impossible to grow such professionals overnight, and estab­ lishing a worldwide curricular system requires a great deal of accumulation and improvement. In this context, the revolutionary changes in network communica­ tion and information technology provide a brand-new concept for the inter­ nationalization development of China’s higher education, allowing students to participate in transnational education via distance learning mode and complete the improvement of local-global literacy via virtual cross-cultural communication. This new kind of internationalization in education focuses on the massive online distribution of courses and technology to assist students in learning across regio­ nal borders. Stay in your own country while attending a foreign institution of higher education. This version combines Knight’s (2004) binary classification of the internationalization of higher education, blurring the distinction between local and international education. Learners at a distance constitute the ‘third class’ in the evolution of international education, meaning that the inter­ nationalization of education is no longer categorized solely by the place where students reside. With the continued advancement of global connectivity technol­ ogy, this new form of education internationalization is evolving rapidly to address the challenges and inadequacies the current form cannot address.

Build on Meaningful Cross-Cultural Interaction and Support Development with the Inclusive Technological Revolution The emergence of Internationalization at a distance (IaD) muddies the line between domestic and worldwide internationalization. Jenna Mittel-Meier et al. (2019) examined 1,141 students’ experiences in an international remote learning setting and offered a broader concept of “distance internationalization”. All aspects of transnational education—students, their personnel, and the services supplied by institutions—are geographically separated yet technologically sup­ ported. In the research of IaD, the differentiation between the two groups was mainly based on a continuous evaluation of whether the experience of interna­ tional education at a distance differed from earlier IaH learning experiences. Through IaD learning, students may acquire knowledge and concepts without physically moving. Technology can make cross-cultural communication more accessible and comfortable, removing distance and time barriers to students’ access to cross-cultural experiences. Despite the limitations of objective factors such as the lack of international students and foreign teachers and the lack of promotion of mixed-class teaching, all students use the Internet to acquire rich knowledge and information, communicate and interact with teachers from dif­ ferent countries, and collaborate with students from all over the world to complete specific tasks. With the aid of a sophisticated communication net­ work, students may study from foreign professors and students from all over the world, resulting in a worldwide grid growth of learning materials. Unlike IaH, distant internationalization emphasizes the contact between stu­ dents from diverse languages and cultural backgrounds. It is primarily guided

Globalization of Higher Education

199

by the social culture and interaction theory of language acquisition to encou­ rage interaction between language learners and native speakers at a distance and create a genuine cross-cultural communication experience with other lan­ guage users. In contrast to many kinds of virtual learning focusing on the direct transmission of knowledge via video lectures and online material, IaD intends to employ online learning activities and information technology programs to strengthen interpersonal relationships and intercultural communication. This type of virtual learning communication is a collaborative learning strategy in which knowledge acquisition and cultural contact are built via interaction and negotiation between students. With the fast growth of network technologies such as video and visual communication, new and more effective long-distance communication and connection methods have evolved, supporting the inter­ nationalization of higher education worldwide. Learners use the Internet to acquire knowledge and information, interact and collaborate with teachers and other scholars and students worldwide, and form long-distance international education, which means that, at least in theory, distance and time are no longer barriers for any students to engage in cross-cultural contact. IaD possesses the features of the technological revolution and the characteristics of the technol­ ogy-supported globalization of education. It differs from conventional online learning in that it emphasizes the development of international literacy, knowledge, and skills. However, the engagement medium has shifted from face­ to-face to the Internet. This innovative learning approach brings together geo­ graphically dispersed learners through an Internet-based platform to complete one immersive, cross-cultural, and virtual team project after another. These people interact across geographies and time zones on shared duties, cultural exposure, and multidimensional approaches to work. By learning, doing, and utilizing, students develop a better sense of control over their education and practical experience, improving their future professions (Duus & Cooray, 2014). As more firms and corporations utilize this virtual form to construct cross-cultural teams, learners must acquire appropriate cross-cultural abilities through virtual practice throughout learning to transition from highly educated learners to scarce talents on the global market.

Online Intercultural Cooperative Learning Model for Distance Education Internationalization The internationalization of higher education narratives is frequently nuanced and multilayered. Martin Haigh (2014) classifies Internet e-learning as one of the eight interdependent stages of internationalization in higher education. The scholar believes that the current period is the era of Internet learning. All learners can be connected via the Internet, regardless of whether they participate in online learning or online gaming (Haigh, 2014, p. 14). The collaboration between online learning and global courses maximizes the internationality of participants, combines the virtual flow of global students with the opportunities of the Internet world, and provides a new learning practice mode for long-distance internationalization,

200

Muhammad Muftahu et al.

namely, the online cross-cultural collaborative learning mode. Educational organized online collaborative learning among students from diverse cultural backgrounds or geographic locations is being implemented in various methods to meet various teaching objectives and learning contexts. These most recent developments in global higher education are already reflected in new technologies. This multidimensional online connection gives students a new form of cultural studies knowledge than textbooks, traditional course materials, and other offline resources. In contrast to objective factual information, learners may gain a vast quantity of subjective and individualized knowledge from their peers throughout the globe. For instance, in 1989, France, Germany, Spain, Ireland, and Belgium collaborated with colleges and uni­ versities to develop a SPACE e-learning course. The students learned about the role of Spanish Latin American culture or German national central right­ eousness, the collisions between Latin American culture and modernilization, and what national pride means in the German context (Bijnens et al., 2006). These encounters, which are not part of the curriculum, are especially bene­ ficial for helping students understand how features of a culture are regarded inside that culture and what events and persons of national significance are stored in the “national memory” of other cultures. This model of collaborative learning not only allows students to engage in ‘pure’ foreign language practice but also collaborate in different subject areas, allowing students to develop language and cultural skills while learning subject content and providing them with different cultural perspectives on specific subject areas (O’Dowd et al., 2016).

Discussion of Some Practical Recommendations It is evident that distance internationalization enables more students to receive international education because of its low cost and no need for cross-border mobility. Students and teachers from diverse languages and cultural back­ grounds can interact with each other through an internet platform, which can be independent of location and time (De Kraker et al., 2007). Distance inter­ nationalization highly depends on information communications technology (ICT) development. Yang et al. (2022) pointed out that Internet-based educa­ tion has also exposed many quality problems. As we stated above, a funda­ mental factor affecting international student mobility is the quality of education and academic reputation; therefore, how to guarantee teaching quality becomes a crucial issue of distance internationalization. Incorporation of Technology Promoting websites should be considered first to make distance inter­ nationalization be recognized and accepted by more teachers and students, especially its high teaching quality. With the development of modern ICT, dis­ tance internationalization can be realized through various forms, including communication via social media, synchronous and asynchronous online

Globalization of Higher Education

201

discussions, online forums for discussing intercultural learning topics, and online tutorial group projects (Mittelmeier et al., 2019). Online education is a complicated process, which can be better if these technologies can be incorpo­ rated. Mittelmeier et al. (2019) found that despite accessing more online support resources, students and teachers participating in distance internationalization experienced more technological difficulties. Accessing technology successfully becomes a crucial factor for the success of distance internationalization. HEIs should donate endeavors to support technology development and train their students and teachers to be familiar with modern technologies. Implementation of Specific Curricula Distance internationalization can be in the form of joint online teaching and joint degree program with domestic and foreign higher education institutions, i. e., a combination of domestic and foreign curricula with multi-campus learning resource services, which need some support from Higher Education institutions. HEIs should improve the system of mutual recognition and conversion of learning achievements to support the development of distance internationaliza­ tion (Yang et al., 2022). For example, in an online joint seminar, discussed in Chapter 21, teachers and students from different HEIs with different cultural backgrounds communicate using ICT support. MOOCs, as a successful dis­ tance internationalization, also attract millions of learners from all around the world. European Association of Distance Teaching Universities also offers a typical education of distance internationalization, which can provide “the crea­ tion of virtual learning communities, virtual projects, the involvement of many universities simultaneously in a project or course, and the facilitation of inter­ national collaborative learning and teaching” (Ruiz-Corbella & Álvarez-Gon­ zález, 2014, p. 168). Preparation of Teachers and Staff As mentioned in Chapter 9, for instructors to successfully integrate online cross-cultural communication into everyday classroom activities, communica­ tion activities need to be respected and acknowledged by universities and edu­ cation officials. Colleges and universities can construct suitable cross-cultural teaching curricula and equip instructors with technical, online, and offline teaching training. Educators should prioritize the acquisition of abilities in longdistance international collaborative teaching and search for dependable crosscultural communication partners for their professional development. In their article, “The Importance of Good Relationships for the Long-Term Sustainability of the Global E-Learning Environment”, Starke-Meyerring and Wilson (2008) underline the significance of solid partnerships to continue the global e-learning environment. They emphasize “robust” growth, which refers to partnerships focused on and led by faculty members who share a vision, method, and practice. Therefore, the only way for the mixed distance

202

Muhammad Muftahu et al.

cooperation exchange to be repeated year after year and eventually become an essential part of the school curriculum and the work practice of instructors is to build a reliable and stable cooperative connection between the parties involved. It would benefit universities and government departments to develop collaborations with professors who have prior experience teaching in another country. This would make it simpler to achieve the goal of working together. Teachers participating in a distance internationalization program should focus on improving students’ linguistic, technological, and cultural abilities. However, they should also focus on improving the teachers’ corresponding abilities and cultivating their awareness of different online practices in different international contexts. This also focuses on improving students’ language abil­ ities (O’Dowd et al., 2019). Therefore, teachers need to do online intercultural interaction activities on their own to explain to students how to communicate with learners from various cultural backgrounds and how to grasp the inter­ active information presented. At the same time, teachers should enhance their abilities to carry out long-distance international courses, as well as be able to exchange and discuss their teaching experiences with teachers from other countries. In other words, it is a critical way to improve teachers’ global com­ petitiveness. Teachers can benefit from the promotion of long-distance interna­ tional teacher-related training workshops and teacher exchange seminars by sharing their perspectives and experiences on how different classes communicate and what concerns and problems they may have. They can also use the infor­ mation collected to plan subsequent teaching guidance based on the information shared jointly (O’Dowd et al., 2009).

Conclusion In conclusion, it is essential to encourage the widespread use of various technology and apparatus. For more students to experience transnational learning and improve their international literacy, national education departments, major higher education institutions, and social elites should step up their efforts to facilitate the long-distance internationalization of technology and equipment in students’ class­ rooms. In the next chapters, we will see how some of these recommendations are implemented by the colleagues from different geographical settings, and how these practices work in reality.

References Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium, 1–60. Bijnens, M., Boonen, A., Kristensen, R., Mendoza, A., Michielsens, C., Olivari, E., Remience, J., Reynolds, S., Vandeborne, G., Bijnens, H., Boussemaere, M., Rajago­ pal, K., Op de Beeck, I., & Van Petegem, W. (2006). European Cooperation in Edu­ cation Through Virtual Mobility. A Best-Practice Manual. EuroPACE ivzw.

Globalization of Higher Education

203

Braskamp, L. A., Braskamp, D. C., & Merrill, K. (2009). Assessing Progress in Global Learning and Development of Students with Education Abroad Experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18(1), 101–118. de Kraker, J., Lansu, A., & van Dam-Mieras, M. C. E. (2007). Competencies and Competence-Based Learning for Sustainable Development. In J. de Kraker, A. Lansu, & R. van Dam-Mieras (Eds.) Crossing Boundaries. Innovative Learning for Sustainable Development in Higher Education (pp.103–114). VAS Verlag für Akade­ mische Schriften. Duus, R., & Cooray, M. (2014). Together we innovate Cross-cultural teamwork through virtual platforms. Journal of Marketing Education, 36 (3), 244–257. Haigh, M. (2014). From Internationalisation to Education for Global Citizenship: A Multilayered History. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1), 6–27. Helm, F., & Acconcia, G. (2019). Interculturality and language in Erasmus Virtual Exchange. European Journal of Language Policy, 11(2), 211–233. Jindal-Snape, D., & Rienties, B. (2016). Understanding multiple and multidimensional transitions of international higher education students. Multidimensional Transitions of International Students to Higher Education: New Perspectives on Learning and Instruction (pp.1–16 ). Routledge. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of studies in international education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, J. (2012). Student mobility and internationalization: Trends and tribulations. Research in Comparative and International Education, 7(1), 20–33. Knight, J. (2015). Updating the Definition of Internationalization. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3. https://htmldbprod.bc.edu/prd/f?p=2290:4:0::NO:RP,4:P0_CON TENT_ID:99928. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). Learning Cultures on the Move: Where are we heading? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 4–14. Li, Y., & Wang, C. (2023). Foundation programmes and international student satisfac­ tion: cases from the United Kingdom, Australia, and China, Compare. A Journal of Comparative and International Education. doi:10.1080/03057925.2023.2207212. López-Duarte, C., Maley, J. F., & Vidal-Suárez, M. M. (2022). International mobility in higher education: students’ attitude to international credit virtual mobility programs. European Journal of Higher Education, May, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235. 2022.2068637. Matherly, C., & Tillman, M. (2019). Linking learning abroad and employability. Internationalization and employability in higher education (pp. 11–24). Routledge. Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Rogaten, J., Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2019). Inter­ nationalization at a Distance and at Home: Academic and social adjustment in a South African distance learning context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 72(June), 1–12. Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalization at home: Theory and praxis. European Associa­ tion for International Education Forum, 12, 3–6. O’Dowd, R., Sauro, S., & Spector‐Cohen, E. (2019). The Role of Pedagogical Mentoring in Virtual Exchange. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 146–172. O’Dowd, R. (2017). Virtual Exchange and Internanationalizing the Classroom. Training Language and Culture, 1(4), 8–24. O’Dowd, R. (2016). Emerging Trends and New Directions in Telecollaborative Learn­ ing. Calico Journal, 33(3), 291. OECD. (2016). Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris.

204

Muhammad Muftahu et al.

OECD. (2017). Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Quacquarelli Symonds. (2022). QS World University Rankings: Top global universities.

https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings. Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2012). Geographies of Educational Mobilities: Exploring Unevenness, Difference and Changes in International Student Flows. SSRN Electronic Journal, 180(3), 246–259. Ramanau, R. (2016). Internationalization at a distance: A study of the online management curriculum. Journal of Management Education, 40(5), 545–575. Ruiz-Corbella, M., & Álvarez-González, B. (2014). Virtual mobility as an inclusion strategy in higher education: Research on distance education master degrees in Europe, Latin America and Asia. Research in Comparative and International Education, 9(2), 165–180. Starke-Meyerring, D., & Wilson, M. (2008). Learning Environments for a Globally Networked World. In Designing Globally Networked Learning Environments. Brill. https://doi-org.tue.80599.net/10.1163/9789087904753_002. The Ministry of Education. (2018). Studying abroad in 600000 for the first time, highlevel talents backflow trend obvious. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/ s5987/201803/t20180329_331771.html.2018-2003-30/2018–2007–12. Versteijlen, M., Salgado, F. P., Groesbeek, M. J., & Counotte, A. (2017). Pros and cons of online education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the Netherlands. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 28, 80–89. Wächter, B. (2003). An Introduction: Internationalisation at Home in Context. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 5–11. Yang, Q., Shen, J., & Xu, Y. (2022). Changes in International Student Mobility amid the COVID-19 Pandemic and Response in the China Context. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 15(1), 23–40.

17 On Technology-Based Mobility Harnessing Intercultural Experiences during Virtual Student Mobility Yovana S. Veerasamy

Introduction The academic purpose of internationalization within higher education institutions (HEIs) rests on infusing intercultural competence into educational outcomes. On campuses, internationalization activities have long taken place in person. These activities have generally included: education abroad, international student recruitment, international scholar exchanges, curriculum globalization, foreign language instruction, personnel training on internationalization, cross-border transfer of education credentials, international institutional partnerships, and branch campuses abroad (e.g., Altbach & Knight, 2007). Using a dualistic dichotomy, Knight (2004) categorized these activities into internationalization at home (IaH) activities, where students obtain an international and intercultural experience without leaving their home campus, and internationalization abroad (IA) activities, where students travel abroad. In the 21st century, technological advances have led campuses to expand their service delivery to offer virtual or online courses to students worldwide (Henry et al., 2014). Some of these activities take place fully virtually or in a hybrid manner. To this end, internationalization activities using technology have increased, taking various forms. However, the inclusion of technology to deliver courses across borders and the evolving gamut of internationalization activities using technology do not fall clearly within the binary categorization of IaH and IA (Madge et al., 2009). In 2016, Ramanau coined the term Internationalization at a Distance (IaD) to describe the third category of technology-based inter­ nationalization activities. Expanding on Ramanau’s work, Mittelmeier et al. (2019, p. 2) define IaD as “all forms of education across borders where students, their respective staff, and institutional provisions are separated by geographical distance and supported by technology”. The most common forms of education across borders include international student mobility, namely the mobility of international students and the mobility of students enrolled in study abroad programs (Choudaha & Chang, 2012). In general, international students travel abroad to enroll at an institution, to complete an entire program of study, or for degree mobility (King et al., 2010). Study abroad experiences, however, are offered for qualifications in differing DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-21

206

Yovana S. Veerasamy

forms and at varying program lengths (an activity, a module, a semester, an academic year). For King et al. (2010), the term credit mobility describes traveling abroad to enroll at an institution to complete part of a program. Graduates also travel for career mobility, namely to teach at the under­ graduate, postgraduate, or doctorate level or to obtain any other qualifica­ tion. In the case of academic mobility, students either enroll for classes at a university, engage in work placements or undertake internships; or become temporary teachers or language assistants within a framework of credit mobility. Lastly, in the case of voluntary mobility, students travel abroad for a variety of personal reasons. Yet, we may claim that technology has impacted this entire space. Although IaD activities are sui generis, some technology-based or virtual activities permeated through study abroad programs before the pandemic (e.g., virtual pre-departure activities). As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded in 2020, travel restrictions accounted for study abroad programs migrating rapidly to the ether; virtual student mobility (VSM) offered an alternative to physical mobility worldwide (UNESCO, 2021). Largely, this occurred by adopting existing virtual student mobility models that foster international collaboration, namely a form of technology-based internationalization activity. As IaD inte­ grates campus offerings, the terminology used to describe activities within this growing field is varied and leads to confusion. Clarity around VSM terminology and scope can alleviate confusion to better situate these activities within IaD. In its scope, this chapter is confined to one type of IaD activity, namely VSM models used in lieu of study abroad programs within HEIs during the pan­ demic. I share terminology used to mean VSM, characterize dominant VSM models, and analyze participant experiences with developing intercultural com­ petence during virtual collaborations.

International Student Mobility and IaD ISM involves international students, namely students who “received their prior education in another country and are not residents of their current country of study” (OECD, 2022, para. 1). Within this category, there are two groups of students. The first group includes international students who cross international borders in pursuit of full academic qualifications. This group of students has been impacted by IaD through virtual fairs, namely, technology has been used by HEIs and organizations to recruit international students, especially during the pandemic (Helms, 2017; Lee & Cheng, 2022). The second group of students includes students enrolled in study abroad programs. These students cross international borders for a short period of time in pursuit of partial fulfillment of their academic qualifications. Study abroad programs have grown into the most common model of outbound student mobility evolving beyond academic semesters abroad to include internships abroad, service learning abroad, and research abroad to become known as Education Abroad (Helms, 2017).

On Technology-Based Mobility

207

Technology-Based Mobility Education Abroad experiences have typically involved physical displacement or outbound student mobility. With the development and proliferation of technology, education abroad programs have embraced technology to provide students with intercultural experiences, and the term virtual mobility has come to describe such experiences (Stansfield et al., 2009). Moreover, virtual mobility is a general term for technology-based mobility. Using technology to enhance or provide students with academic information is not new, however, advances in technology such as the Internet, have taken this experience fur­ ther. Focusing on using the Internet as a leading source of technology to offer education abroad experiences, many terms have been used to describe virtual mobility or technology-based mobility. These terms have included Virtual Mobility, Virtual Student Mobility, Virtual Exchange, Global Digital Exchange, and Collaborative Online International Learning, each having its own characteristics and requirements. Virtual Mobility (VM) According to Stansfield et al. (2009), virtual mobility is an activity that offers access to academic courses abroad, allowing learners and instructors to communicate through information and communication technologies (ICT) such as the Internet. It is the precursor of Virtual Erasmus in Europe (Ubachs & Brey, 2009). Specifi­ cally, virtual mobility uses ICTs to obtain the benefits of physical mobility while bypassing travel. According to the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU), “virtual mobility offers access to courses and study schemes in a foreign country and allows for communication activities with teachers and fellow students abroad via the new information and communication technologies” (EADTU, 2004). As such, Virtual Mobility describes a broad gamut of activities. Virtual Student Mobility (VSM) VSM is one type of Virtual Mobility activity, namely, VSM is the use of ICTs to create a cross-border collaboration that enhances intercultural understanding and knowledge exchange. These activities can take place in a fully ICT-supported environment and/or as a complement to physical mobility (UNESCO, 2021). Virtual Exchange The European Union uses the term Virtual Exchange (VE), which they describe as a practice, supported by research, that consists of sustained, technologyenabled, people-to-people education programs or activities in which con­ structive communication and interaction take place between individuals or groups who are geographically separated and/or from different cultural back­ grounds, with the support of educators or facilitators. Virtual Exchange

208

Yovana S. Veerasamy

combines the deep impact of intercultural dialogue and exchange with the broad reach of digital technology (Erasmus, n.d.). Global Digital Exchange For the Stevens Initiative (2019, p. 3) the term Global digital exchange is an aca­ demic modality where learners and instructors use technology: for synchronous or real-time communication, sending written or recorded messages asynchro­ nously, or some combination of both methods; connecting young people in dif­ ferent countries; facilitating the learning experience with trained educators; and, maintaining sustained communication over weeks or months so participants can build trust and understanding. Many programs involve projects requiring parti­ cipant collaboration through small online groups, other programs emphasize cross-cultural dialogue, and several programs combine projects and dialogue. Collaborative Online International Learning In the United States of America (US) Collaborative Online Intercultural Learning, or its acronym COIL, is more commonly used to denote technology-based mobility and is defined as an approach that brings students and professors together across cultures to learn, discuss and collaborate as part of their class. Professors partner to design the experience and students partner to complete the activities designed. COIL becomes part of the class, enabling all students to have a sig­ nificant intercultural experience within their course of study (COIL, n.d.).

What do the Terms have in Common? 1 2 3 4 5

All five terms rely on technology, especially the Internet, as part of ICT to reach students. Students interact with learners abroad while staying in their home country. Educators are involved in facilitating student interactions across borders. Student interactions and collaborations are embedded within a course (short- or long-term). Technology-assisted interactions and collaborations are graded as part of a course of study.

To avoid confusion, the term VSM will be used throughout this chapter to denote VE/COIL a combination of two of the above-described typologies. Acceleration of VSM during the Pandemic “as Trans-Border Mobility Became a Nearly Illegal Act” VSM has expanded exponentially over the years, and as the pandemic disrupted higher education activities worldwide, including international student mobility, virtual student mobility was adopted in response (UNESCO, 2021).

On Technology-Based Mobility

209

As discussed in the second part of this book, in Europe during the pandemic, short-term mobility programs such as Erasmus Plus were canceled due to travel restrictions, visa office closures, and cancellations of study applications and entry tests. The 2020 IAU Report on Regional/National Perspectives on the Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education revealed that “as trans-border mobility became a nearly illegal act” as a result of the pandemic, two-thirds of higher education institutions saw their outbound student mobility impacted (IAU, 2020, p. 11). However, physical mobility persisted among 65% of stu­ dents, out of which 2.4% attended classes remotely, while 25% of students canceled their enrollment (IAU, 2020, p.11), causing institutions to consider hybrid programs. In 2020, VSM was not part of European classroom experi­ ences, yet because of the pandemic, “the European Commission allowed virtual exchange in (partial) replacement of physical exchange under the Erasmus+ mobility program” (IAU, 2020, p. 12), cautioning: While there is widespread agreement that virtual mobility cannot and should not replace physical mobility, there is the question of whether it can be exploited more systematically or strategically to complement physical mobility and serve as an additional option for exchange and collaboration. (IAU, 2020, p. 12) In the US, during the pandemic, one-third of HEIs in a survey of 234 institu­ tions called for canceling outbound student mobility to affected areas or areas designated Level 3 by the Centers for Disease Control (Martel, 2020). Looking at education abroad programs in China, Martel (2020, p. 8) noted that in Spring 2020, 94% of study abroad programs were canceled or postponed; 20% in the US. This was also revealed in Chapter 10 of the current volume. HEIs that canceled programs with China did not have “an alternative” for their students while 48% placed their students in alternative countries. Nevertheless, putting safety first in the US, HEIs made sure: that international students overseas are able to continue their studies suc­ cessfully, and that their study abroad population has options for alternative study… At the same time, U.S. higher education institutions remain com­ mitted to internationalization and are including ways to adapt to work with students, whether through online classes or finding alternatives to study abroad placements to provide students with global opportunities. (Martel, 2020, p. 10) Moreover, the American Council on Education worked with governments, non­ governmental organizations, and HEIs locally and abroad to train U.S. HEI personnel on Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) in rapid response to the pandemic to maintain global learning in curricula (ACE, 2020) and argued that “VE/COIL is a viable means to ensure U.S. higher education institutions and their Japanese partners are well positioned to move forward

210

Yovana S. Veerasamy

with their plans to continue and even reinvigorate global learning and connection” (ACE, 2020, para. 1). In times of crisis, VSM was used as an emergency measure to keep international education alive at HEIs worldwide and grew exponentially during the pandemic (Stevens Initiative, 2021). Regardless of the digital divide, government agencies, organizations representing higher education interests, and HEIs leveraged tech­ nology to help students collaborate across cultures to develop intercultural and global competence—valuable 21st-century learning outcomes. Strategic advantages of Virtual Student Mobility For King et al. (2010), factors that dictate why VSM has increasingly become part of ISM relate largely to economics, convenience, scientific advancements, the nature of technology, and the proliferation of internet connectivity as part of the human experience in the 21st century. In Europe, the vision of VSM for member countries rested on democratic principles. VSM has long been seen as a democratizing agent that offers students access to the benefits of physical mobility while staying at home. Additionally, the vision has also been driven by tenets of inclusion. VSM and its reliance on technology provide students who would otherwise be excluded from physical mobility due to economic chal­ lenges, physical impediments, or in the case of adult students, family and pro­ fessional commitments, access to intercultural learning while staying at home. Also, courses with a VSM experience were designed to provide flexibility, breadth, variety, personalized content, and specialized opportunities for stu­ dents (Ubachs & Brey, 2009). Lastly, students who have VSM experiences are more likely to study abroad (Lee et al., 2021). For many students worldwide, the cost has made travel abroad experiences prohibitive (King et al., 2010; Helms, 2017). New trends in ISM reveal that stu­ dents prefer to study closer to home (Choudaha & Chang, 2012), and any form of virtual offering help with this trend. More relevantly, VSM offers an environmen­ tally sustainable model in education (UNESCO, 2021). During the pandemic, VSM provided an in-time solution for intercultural learning as nation-states adopted local and international lockdowns. As a result, over 60% of HEIs worldwide increased VSM offerings during the pandemic (UNESCO, 2021). Shortcomings of VSM and the Digital Divide VSM varies in typology, scope, and aim; this blurs clarity in the field and has led the Stevens Initiative (2021) to posit that little is known about virtual exchange programs’ quality. During non-pandemic times, scholars have encouraged using VSM in addition to physical mobility when permissible (King et al., 2010). As a stand-alone, UNESCO warns against VSM being “seen as an inferior experience to ‘traditional’ physical mobility” (UNESCO, 2021, para 4). In 2020, the European Commission found that many Educators were neither familiar nor experienced with distance and online learning prior to the

On Technology-Based Mobility

211

pandemic. The European Association of Distance Teaching Universities ‘(2020) report surveyed HEIs in 60 countries and revealed a lack of innovative instruc­ tional approaches to promote learner autonomy, stimulate motivation, and nurture engagement. Such concerns relate to the quick response VSM experi­ ences offered during the pandemic. Also, the pandemic brought to light the pervasiveness of digital divides within and between countries, and VSM’s reli­ ance on technology hampered equitable access to intercultural learning (UNESCO, 2021; Stevens Initiative, 2021). In 2022, VSM was dominated by the global north with the U.S. being “over-represented… whether as the country where the program originates or as the home country of a key partner in a virtual exchange program” (Stevens Initiative, 2021, p. 12). When looking at VSM programs offered worldwide between September 2020 and August 2021, 75% of VSM programs originated in the US, and 11% originated in Europe (Stevens Initiative, 2021).

Discussion of Methodological Approach It is common knowledge that culture plays a significant role during the inter­ action between people. VSM typologies take cross-cultural interactions to the virtual space and the virtual space is not immune to the impacts of cultural differences and their related complexities (Hollema, 2020). Looking specifi­ cally at how cultural differences pose challenges in virtual teams, namely in teams with members located in different countries connected through tech­ nology, Hollema (2020, p. 29) states that when sitting in their own countries, participating in multicultural teams, ‘geographical distance can create the conditions to be even more impactful’ on cultural differences. This scholarpractitioner uses three distinct pillars when analyzing the impact of cultural diversity on global virtual teams (1) culture within the team, (2) culture between locations (3) culture outside the team. Although Hollema’s model is premised on experiences within the business world, it offers strategies to guide HEIs engaged in VSM, and the three pillars provide an appropriate lens to analyze VSM participants’ intercultural and global competence experiences when collaborating virtually. Utilizing a qualitative research, the current chapter analyzes data from documents (Braun & Clarke, 2006) on virtual intercultural experiences between members located in different countries as they collaborated during VSM. Reflection essays from 48 undergraduate students (25 males and 23 females) were analyzed. Using purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), data were collected during COVID-19 from participants enrolled in short-term VSM programs between the US and European HEIs, and between the US and Japa­ nese HEIs. The VSM programs lasted between four to six weeks in 2021 and 2022. Relying on Hollema’s three pillars to guide pioneering analysis of VSM participants’ virtual intercultural experiences, the current chapter sought to answer the following research question: how do participants experience cultural differences virtually during VSM? From the data set, text segments were used to

212

Yovana S. Veerasamy

capture emerging codes. The first round of analysis used open coding and then moved to lean coding (Creswell, 2013). Emerging codes were then sorted, arranged, and categorized under themes. To ensure dependability, trustworthi­ ness, and triangulation, alternative data interpretation explanations were con­ sidered, codes were reallotted, and themes were reviewed (Creswell, 2013). As a result, we came up with four dominant themes reported below. Visibility of Cultural Differences in Virtual Spaces Participants acknowledged experiencing cultural differences in the virtual space stating that they had “to accept or understand, without denying, that there are cultural differences between each other’s country” (p#5). Cultural differences were apparent “in the way of thinking about the same topic” (p#8). Most participants stated that they learned “what life and culture are like in different countrie”s (p#19). Another participant said: “I was able to hear directly the thoughts of local people and learned that the problems occurring in different countries are different” (p#11). Similar to in-person interaction, in the virtual space, participants had time to self-reflect and draw conclusions on their cultural attitudes: “I realized I had my own stereotypes and prejudices and tried to improve them” (p#9). Rhythm in Virtual Collaboration Most participants welcomed the opportunity to use technology to reach across countries and appreciated the opportunity “to interact with people from different countries… even though it was online” (p#2). The majority reversed the experience that Participant 32 shared, namely “to be able to collaborate on video and share my opinion”. Technology allowed participants “to continue conversations online” (p#13). Although participants were not accustomed to the online intercultural interaction, which was “unusual” (p#26), most stated, “getting to know and speak with [my foreign] peers was the most enjoyable part” (p#16), and “everyone made their own adjustments” (p#26). Many understood that “this involves understanding and adapting to the differences we have in language, the way we look at profes­ sional topics” (p#28), and in the middle of a pandemic “online is the only way we could exchange our thoughts, and I believe that this type of communication is inferior than talking face-to-face” (p#30). For others: Working with students from other countries was challenging due to the time difference. I found that I sometimes would miss a lot of communication or progress on the paper while I was sleeping. Due to the conflicting time zones. (p#27) Geographic Location in Virtual Collaboration Participants remained aware of their physical geographical location and their accompanying cultural differences as they interacted virtually. As Participant 15

On Technology-Based Mobility

213

put it: “It is easy to cooperate even though there is a difference in language and culture” and Participant 7 “felt that communication with people from other countries is greatly influenced not only by language but also by the background of each country”. For another, new skills needed to be learned to optimize virtual cross-cultural collaborations: I think the most problematic section is the communication… I gained experience in how to collaborate with team members from different coun­ tries, which helped me in managing my interactions with them. (p#30) Outlining their challenges, some offered the following: “It is difficult because we have different languages, cultures, personalities, and I think we can overcome the difficulty if we understand that” (p#10). Similar to in-person discussions, virtual environments offer insights into the potential of global collaboration when seeking solutions to societal concerns and resources “[…] is certainly a field in which students, scientists, and researchers should constantly work and develop new ideas” (p#28). Technology, Adversity, and Resourcefulness Challenges did surface for participants, and many shared thoughts on what taints virtual collaboration. They also shared preferences in technology and showcased their resourcefulness in overcoming adversity. Participant 7 “found it difficult to interact on Flipgrid because of individual differences and waiting for replies”. Group work showcased the repercussions of non-participation in class activ­ ities—"no reply or delayed reply from my collaborator meant I could not finish my task” (p#9). Also, group work comes with accompanying pitfalls—"I failed to complete my presentation because the collaborator dropped out” (p#11). Lack of participation also showed its impact—“the person with whom I was colla­ borating stopped returning my video calls, some people never posted anything after the first video meeting which made it difficult to participate in class” (p#15). In addition, working across time zones posed challenges: “the only negative experiences I had involved the time differences between my peers and me” (p#31). Technology platforms added to challenges: “Slack, in our case, did not prove to be the best choice. There were misunderstandings, miscommunication and delayed reactions” (p#28). Yet others found their sweet spot: “our commu­ nication method was WhatsApp, and we all worked on the paper together through a Google Docs sheet, which worked very well for us” (p#27).

Discussion of the Findings Travel restrictions during the pandemic prompted some HEIs worldwide to adopt a model of VSM in lieu of study abroad programs. Regardless of typol­ ogy or namesake, one main aim of such programs was to provide students with

214

Yovana S. Veerasamy

an international or intercultural experience. In the US, VSM was offered across academic disciplines allowing students to collaborate across cultures. While, on the whole, this provided a positive experience for most participants, some par­ ticipants did share a clear preference for in-person travel abroad experiences. This chapter revealed that within the virtual space, participants did not lose sight of cultural differences: within the team, between locations, and outside the team. Also, students’ geographical locations and technological preferences remained at the forefront of their minds as they collaborated virtually. Participants experienced cultural differences within the virtual teams and cultural challenges that surfaced in person during virtual collaboration across cultures. During in-person interactions, when sojourners step into a new cul­ ture, they experience culture shock. Similarly, in the virtual space in their first pillar, Hollema (2020) established that team members bring their culture to the virtual space allowing for culture shock to occur. In this light, participants recognized that their teammates had differing perspectives, cultures, and ways of life attributable to their country. Thus, the participants’ countries provided a starting point for difference awareness. Participants remained cognizant of this fact and reported learning about other countries during their collabora­ tions. In Hollema’s (2020, p. 51) second pillar, when team members switch off their cameras, they “work in different environments or local systems and cul­ tures”. This creates distance between team members. Similar to Hollema’s findings on virtual teams, between locations, participants “used abstract description for […] remote colleagues” referring to team members by country instead of by their name (Hollema, 2020, p. 47). More so, as per Hollema’s third pillar, participants had personal assumptions and expectations relating to work ethics, participation during assignments, and working regardless of time differences. Yet, participants demonstrated intercultural awareness as they reflected on their own attitudes and biases and embraced looking at issues from different perspectives as they would during physical interactions. In brief, VSM did provide participants an opportunity to develop intercultural competencies of adjustment, patience, open-mindedness, and tolerance. While non-culture-related adjustments to time zones proved challenging for most participants, intercultural collaboration offered exposure to the knowledge required when working in a global context. Virtual exposure allowed partici­ pants to look at topics from a global perspective empowering the participants to develop global competence (Program for International Student Assessment, 2018). Participants placed local issues in a broader global context allowing students to develop cultural understanding and global knowledge while enga­ ging globally. This provided an opportunity to develop intended global learning outcomes (Tiven et al., 2018). Participants called for collaboration across nation-states to find solutions to common issues involving resources; thus, VSM empowered students to look at issues through a new lens and eased collabora­ tion across cultures to burst symbolic internationalization. As an IaD experi­ ence, VSM provided meaningful cross-cultural learning experiences valued by students (Ramanau, 2016).

On Technology-Based Mobility

215

Finally, this chapter was based on countries located in the global north where access to the Internet was not a major challenge, yet technology platforms used to connect participants posed a non-culture-related challenge. While VSM does not prescribe the use of a particular technology platform, HEIs have their own learning management systems (LMS). To stay connected, participants experi­ mented with existing known technologies and Apps that suited their group preferences. For example, while WhatsApp was not part of the platform used by the HEIs, participants were free to communicate with their group using the App. As such, participants leveraged and used technology resourcefully to reach their peers and complete assignments.

Conclusion Virtual student mobility expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and technology helped keep international education alive during lockdowns. As one type of IaD, VSM became part of ISM based on circumstances, con­ venience, affordability, and existing technology. In the context of education in emergencies, VSM participants welcomed the opportunity to reach across countries virtually. In the virtual space, they experienced cultural differences, remained cognizant of their geographic location, and used technology resour­ cefully to complete their assignments. Although VSM is perceived as inferior to traditional physical mobility, and the digital divide excludes strata of par­ ticipants, VSM nonetheless promotes successful integration of cross-cultural collaborations for the development of intercultural and global competence in education – outcomes that need continued optimization to bridge cultural divides and to foster global collaboration for our mutual well-being and co­ existence.

References Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motiva­ tions and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. ACE (2020). Rapid response Virtual Exchange/ COIL initiative sustains global learning during the pandemic. https://www.acenet.edu/News-Room/Pages/Rapid-Response­ Virtual-Exchange-COIL-Initiative-Sustains-Global-Learning-During-Pandemic.aspx. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Choudaha, R., & Chang, L. (2012). Trends in international student mobility. World Education News & Reviews, 25(2). https://wenr.wes.org/2012/02/wenr-februa ry-2012-trends-in-international-studen-mobility COIL Center, State University New York. (n.d.). https://coil.suny.edu/. Creswell, J. W. (2013).Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage. EADTU (European Association of Distance Teaching Universities). (2004). Task force on virtual mobility. Position Paper. http://www.eadtu.nl/default.asp?hId=4&mmId=46.

216

Yovana S. Veerasamy

EADTU (European Association of Distance Teaching Universities). (2020). Report Covid-19 responses by Higher education in Europe. https://empower.eadtu.eu/images/ EADTU_Report_Covid_responses_by_Higher_education_in_Europe.pdf. European Commission. (2020). Communication on the digital education action plan 2021–2027 (SWD, 2020, 209 final). https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital/ education-action-plan. Erasmus (n.d.). https://evolve-erasmus.eu/about-evolve/what-is-virtual-exchange/. Helms, R. (2017). Mapping internationalization. American Council on Education. http:// www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Mapping-Internationalization-on-U-S-Campuses.aspx. Henry, T., Pagano, E., Puckett, J., & Wilson, J. (2014). Five Trends to watch in higher education. The Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2014/p ublic-sector-five-trends-watch-higher-education. Hollema, S., T. (2020). Virtual Teams Across Cultures: Create Successful Teams Around the World. Interact Global. IAU (2020). Regional/National Perspectives on the Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Educa­ tion. https://www.iau-aiu.net/IAU-Global-Survey-on-the-Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Higher­ Education-around-the. King, R., Findlay, A., & Ahrens, J. (2010). International student mobility literature review. HEFCE. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2010/rd2010/rd20_10.pdf. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Lee, J., Leibowitz, J., & Rezek, J. (2021). The Impact of International Virtual Exchange on Participation in Education Abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education, 1–20. Lee, T. & Cheng, Y. (2022). International Recruitment: China Recruiters’ Experience during COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Comparative and International Higher Edu­ cation, 14(3A),104–120. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration, and informal learning at university: It is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155. Martel, M. (2020). COVID‐19 Effects on U.S. Higher Education Campuses Academic Stu­ dent Mobility to and from China. https://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Insights/Publica tions/COVID%E2%80%9019-Effects-on-US Higher-Education-Campuses-Report-1. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Mittelmeier, J., Rienties, B., Rogaten, J., Gunter, A., & Raghuram, P. (2019). Inter­ nationalization at a Distance and at Home: Academic and social adjustment in a South African distance learning context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 72, 1–12. OECD. (2022). International Student mobility. https://data.oecd.org/students/interna tional-student-mobility.htm. Program for International Student Assessment. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. https://www. oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf. Ramanau, R. (2016). Internationalization at a distance: A study of the online manage­ ment curriculum. Journal of Management Education, 40(5), 545–575. Stansfield, M., & Connolly, T. (Eds.) (2009). Institutional transformation through best practices in virtual campus development: advancing E-learning policies. Information Science Reference.

On Technology-Based Mobility

217

Stevens Initiative. (2019). Virtual Exchange Impact. https://www.stevensinitiative.org/ resource/virtual-exchange-impact-and-learning-report/. Stevens Initiative. (2021). Survey of the Virtual Exchange Field Report. https://www.ste vensinitiative.org/resource/2021-survey-of-the-virtual-exchange-field-report­ stevens-initiative/. Tiven, M. B., Fuchs, E. R., Bazari, A., & MacQuarrie, A. (2018). Evaluating Global Digital Education: Student Outcomes Framework. Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Ubachs, G., & Brey, C. (2009). From Virtual Mobility to Virtual Erasmus: Offering Students Courses and Services without Boundaries. In Mark Stansfield & Thomas Connolly (Eds.) (2009). Institutional transformation through best practices in virtual campus development: Advancing E-learning policies. Information Science Reference. UNESCO (2021). About virtual student mobility in higher education. https://www.iesalc. unesco.org/en/2021/01/20/about-virtual-student-mobility-in-higher-education/.

18 (Re)Imagined Communities and (Re) Invented Literacy Practices through Internalization at Home Malin Reljanovic Glimäng, Cecilia Magadán and Katarzyna Radke

Introduction Virtual Exchange (hereafter VE) offers one way to internationalize the curri­ culum without physical mobility (O’Dowd, 2022), and is an integral approach in the pandemic and post-pandemic context of higher education. VE is an established pedagogical method of connecting students from different geo­ graphical and cultural contexts in sustained online collaboration supported by educators in a way that “combines the deep impact of intercultural dialogue and exchange with the broad reach of digital technology” (EVOLVE Project Team, 2019, p. 20). Helm (2018, p. 6) highlights VE as: a reflective, experiential approach to education that aims to encourage participants to engage with difference, assess and interrogate information and perspectives, and explore and negotiate identities, their own and those of others, through online, intercultural interactions with distant peers. In the current chapter, we focus on VE project involving university students in Buenos Aires (Argentina), Poznan (Poland), and Malmö (Sweden). The theme of the VE project focused on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11 (making cities sustainable and safe), and the pedagogical aim was to engage students in collaboration to foster critical literacies. Students were grouped in international teams, and the main VE task was for each team to co-create a multimodal digital campaign promoting sustainable action within a chosen topic. Two questions provided a pedagogical starting point for VE participants: (1) How is UN SDG 11 addressed in your city? (2) What are some possibilities and challenges of implementing sustainability initiatives? While we, as VE tea­ chers, provided resources and scaffolding, there was no set body of literature for VE participants to read. Instead, each team explored their different local contexts, researched sustainability initiatives, and brought their examples for discussion in the online conversations. The six-week-long collaboration con­ cluded with a digital exhibition displaying students’ campaigns on diverse topics such as public transportation, recycling, and saving the bees.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-22

Internationalization at Home and Multiliteracies

219

Our chapter explores ways in which international collaboration through VE fostered students’ global awareness and the appropriation of critical multi­ literacies; in this sense, and inspired by Blommaert and Horner (2017, p. 6), we approach VE from a “mobility perspective on knowledge”. From this view­ point, we leave behind “conduit/transmission models of learning” to, instead, recognize “the agency of learners/knowers and the crucial role played by their concrete labor as knowers and learners in the production and reproduction, making and remaking of knowledge, as it travels in space and time”. Based on these ideas, we analyze data obtained during a 2021 transnational VE to answer the following research questions: 1 2

In what ways did VE on sustainability promote internationalization at home (IaH)? Which dimensions reveal students’ mobility/transformation of knowledge and worldviews?

After a brief review of the literature on IaH and VE and their links to a multi­ literacies approach, we discuss the methodological approach. We address our research questions around two main themes: (1) mobile discussions: from global themes to local concerns; and (2) mobile literacies and mobile technologies. To conclude, we discuss how IaH promotes decentered worldviews that ‘transport’ participants in their ways of saying and doing in the academic world. Internationalization at Home and VE Whereas internationalization in higher education has a long history (cf. Jones & de Wit, 2012), internationalization at home (IaH), broadly discussed in Chapter 16, is a more recent concept. de Wit (2016, p.71) clarifies the distinc­ tion by describing internationalization as “all forms of education across bor­ ders, including circulation of students”. In contrast, the scholar stipulates IaH as “curriculum-oriented activities that help students develop international understanding and intercultural skills and those prepare students to be active in a much more globalized world”. This description elucidates the integration of IaH into the curriculum through pedagogical activities aimed at scaffolding the development of international knowledge. The description resonates with our VE conceived as a joint pedagogical project (a) developed around international debates on sustainability issues and (b) integrated into each respective course (and discipline) at the three participating universities. Furthermore, IaH aims for inclusivity, whereas internationalization strategies focusing on physical mobility tend to result in a relatively small population of students able to go and study abroad (Jones & de Wit, 2012). This is high­ lighted in Beelen and Jones’ (2015, p. 12) definition of IaH as “the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments”. VE offers a means to bring international perspectives to all students in local

220

Malin Reljanovic Glimäng et al.

learning settings via online collaboration, which gained momentum during the pandemic when remote learning was suddenly a reality worldwide. However, as O’Dowd (2022) underscores, VE is not in competition with physical mobility, as the two approaches to internationalization offer distinctly different (com­ plementary) experiences. Both definitions of IaH cited above connect international perspectives with interculturality – a concept with a rich history in VE research (cf. Helm, 2018). We approach interculturality as a polysemic concept ‘with fluid and negotiable boundaries’ (Holliday, 2010, p. 1), describing relational self-other awareness emerging through dialogue and critical reflexivity. This involves awareness of the position from which we are speaking – our locus of enunciation; in addition, we use the term glocal to indicate the fluid interconnectedness between the local/global (Menezes de Souza, 2019). Following Helm’s (2018) definition, VE can offer a means to foster international and intercultural perspectives through negotiation and by way of interaction through multiple online modes. Thus, we invoke the lens of multiliteracies (New London Group, 1996) to analyze student perceptions in our data. A Theoretical Lens: Multiliteracies Almost 30 years ago, in 1996, the New London Group’s multiliteracies mani­ festo called on educators for a literacy pedagogy that would embrace not only “local diversity and global connectedness”, but also “the increasing multiplicity and integration of significant modes of meaning-making, where the textual is also related to the visual, the audio, the spatial, the behavioral, and so on” (New London Group, 1996, p. 6). This group of scholars envisioned how mul­ tiliteracies encompass increasing cultural and linguistic interaction between societies and through multiple modes of meaning. They conceived a pedagogy of multiliteracies as a complex integration of four factors: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice. Within the field of VE research, scholars introduce multimodal theories to study how computer-mediated communication calls for an understanding of the expanded semiotic repertoires involved in meaning-making in virtual learning spaces (Hampel & Hauck, 2006). Studies have also examined tasks that con­ sider the multimodal aspects of online communication as a medium for the expression of identity (e.g., Hauck et al., 2021). In our VE, the creation of multimodal campaigns prompted multiliteracies events on screens, in which intercultural and pedagogical practices were displayed—various languages in place interacting with multiple modes of communication. Hence, redrafting Heath’s (1983) notion of “literacy event”, multiliteracies events in VE emerge as those critical instances in which gen­ uine interactions and interpretative processes occur, usually throughout the co-construction of multimodal artifacts. Immersed in negotiations around the design of non-linear texts, participants find mobile meanings not only in

Internationalization at Home and Multiliteracies

221

the multiple semiotic resources but also from other worldviews in their sociolinguistic and literacy practices. Following Blommaert and Horner’s (2017) ideas, the notions of “lan­ guage” and “literacy” as “singular, universal, uniform, and stable” should be reconsidered as mobile and plural. Far from “a territorially bound imagined language”, “mobile people take along just the amount of linguistic resources they require, and during their journeys”, they design their “unique individual repertoires” (Blommaert & Horner, 2017, p. 9). Thus, in this movable world, literacies not only involve a set of plural languages and semiotic repertoires but also require a context of social practices in which they are signified. In this sense, multiliteracies are mobile.

Discussion of Methodological Approach and Findings The six-week VE was the second iteration of an interdisciplinary project between university students enrolled in communication studies in Argentina, tourism studies in Poland, and teacher education in Sweden. The VE involved 54 participants, 21 from Argentina, 21 from Poland, and 12 from Sweden, all divided into nine cross-cultural VE teams. Since urban sustainability provided an equally relevant global topic in the three disciplines, the project was designed around UN SDG 11. Students collected and exchanged local information about the topic while contribut­ ing their disciplinary knowledge and skills to the co-creation of campaigns. Throughout the VE, each group communicated online through their pre­ ferred (a)synchronous platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, Zoom, Messenger). Eng­ lish provided a shared language in the exchange; however, rather than focusing on language acquisition1 the project objective was to develop cri­ tical literacies, and therefore participants were encouraged to draw on a range of multimodal resources to make meaning with international peers. The VE was designed according to O’Dowd and Ware’s (2009) three-stage task sequence and involved students’ selection and use of different digital tools for purposes of (a)synchronous communication and co-creation of digital campaigns promoting sustainable actions. We focused on self-reported data from students’ e-portfolios. Designed as a weekly reflection tool, the e-portfolio included prompts for students to pro­ cess ideas and include multimodal examples – such as shared memes or screenshots of WhatsApp conversations—to create detailed descriptions of their experiences.2 Upon completing the project and consenting to share work produced in the VE for research purposes, students submitted the e-portfolio to the teacher at their home institution. The documents were anonymized and compiled as a data set. Overall, we had twenty-seven e-portfolios, nine from each institution. We numbered the participants 1–9 and added the first letter of the country where they study (e.g., A1 is student 1 in Argentina).3 We processed the data through qualitative content analysis (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009). This

222

Malin Reljanovic Glimäng et al.

entailed individual as well as collaborative work of (re)reading the materials closely, establishing and building a coding schema, and comparing findings. To answer the research questions, we identified the two themes each having two dimensions: 1

2

Mobile discussion related to (a) knowledge dimension: exploring the world, expanding worldviews; and (b) critical glocal dimensions: recognizing per­ spectives and reflexivity; Mobile literacies and mobile technologies related to (a) design of mul­ timodal campaign for a global audience (#multimodal_genres, #multi­ modal_language); and (b) critical digital dimension: becoming aware that technologies are not neutral.

Theme 1. Mobile Discussions from Global Themes to Local Concerns One dimension in students’ self-reported data concerns the construction of knowledge through exploring the world and exchanging ideas. A pattern that stands out in our data is that, whether they studied in Argentina, Poland, or Sweden, students generally had limited previous knowledge about Agenda 2030, and they perceived the topic of sustainability as difficult. S2 writes: “Regarding Goal 11, I had heard about it before, but only briefly”. Another student in Poland describes struggling to explain pollution in Poland to international peers: “We managed to present the most important information on this problem. However, it was really hard because of the specialistic vocabulary” (P8). Similarly, S3 researched conditions at home to explain how “recycling is regulated by law in Sweden”. Accordingly, sus­ tainability posed challenges not only in English but also in participants’ own languages. Constructing new knowledge through glocal, intercultural dialo­ gue (Menezes de Souza, 2019) became a “messy” but creative process of conflicting practices requiring students’ active engagement. In this vein, we understand VE participants’ meaning-making through the lens of design—a concept that “captures the role of human agency” and highlights how “social futures are always in the process of construction, even when in see­ mingly small ways” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2022, p.19). Despite (or because of) the challenges, VE generated rich opportunities for participants to gain international and intercultural perspectives. Resonating with Helm’s (2018) description of VE, our data highlight negotiation as a central aspect of the exchange. P7 reflects: “Due to the fact that we live in totally different places, each of us had a different view of the agenda and goal 11, so we had to discuss the most important problem and how to deal with it”. As Menezes de Souza (2019) underscores, glocal understanding entails seeing the tension yet interconnectedness between the local and the global. Another participant highlights the challenge of choosing one topic that was equally relevant in different international contexts: “Finally, we agreed to target the sustainable fashion side since clothing is something that

Internationalization at Home and Multiliteracies

223

connects the three countries, and we agreed on different details of the cam­ paign” (A2). Communicating ideas online was experienced as demanding; nevertheless, students recognize negotiation as a source of learning. P8 writes: “thanks to [different views] we expanded our knowledge”. For example, “before this meeting, I wasn’t aware of the problem with garbage in Buenos Aires”. From specific problems to broader insights about the world, students acknowledge how international VE called for an openminded approach to knowledge and learning. S4 captures the VE learning space as agentive: “Imagine your project, team members are the starting point of a blank canvas and let your interactions and work you do together be the paint. The picture will reveal itself” (S4). Furthermore, we identified a critical dimension in the data. Experiencing VE as a rich process, exposing different socioeconomic realities, A2 notes: “proposals that looked very viable in Poland and Sweden … we thought that in Argentina with 40% of the population below the poverty line, they are nothing more than a dream”. In contrast, a student in Sweden con­ templates privilege: This project has made me think of how privileged Sweden is […] and how we often tend to think less of other countries outside Scandinavia, and this Virtual Exchange has really made me aware of this “one-sided story” […] For example, the controversial abortion law in Poland or the economic issues in Argentina. Obviously, these issues do not define these countries […] This Virtual Exchange helped to break those preconceptions. When working together in an international setting, it’s easier to see your own country from a different perspective. (S2) We revealed that international exchange held the potential to foster critical consciousness and intercultural reflexivity (Holliday, 2010). Thus, glocal dialogue opened spaces for self-reflection and ways of discovering one’s locus of enunciation (Menezes de Souza, 2019). By collaboratively exploring real-world issues and sustainable development, students express that they gained, in the words of A6, “a broader perspective about reality”. A7 elaborates: I realized that the objectives raised [Agenda 2030 and SDG 11] are ques­ tions that concern each and every human being, not as coming from a specific country but as a community and human society [….]. It was from this that we all understood that this project is a humanitarian concern and that only through the exchange of proposals, projects, and ideas can a real change be achieved. Following the multiliteracies framework, the situated VE practice yielded immersion in learning-by-doing experiences and the construction of new

224

Malin Reljanovic Glimäng et al.

knowledge scaffolded by overt instruction in the form of project tasks and reflective writing. While critical framing and transformation are more challen­ ging pedagogical aims, our findings demonstrate that as a means to inter­ nationalize the curriculum, the VE on sustainability provided students with a step towards multiple viewpoints to read the world and understand the world in which they live. Furthermore, while we see epistemic transformation as an expanded and deeper understanding of the world and oneself, transformation is also the ability to transport knowledge and understanding from one context to another. One example is S2, who studies to become an English teacher and discovers the potential of using “Goal 11 in [my] future classroom, and make [my] own projects about it”. Theme 2. Mobile Literacies, Mobile Technologies Like Blommaert and Horner, we address mobility not as physical travel from one geographical site to another fixed locale but instead as a perspec­ tive that implies a shift away from “a stable, uniform knowledge—for example, academic literacy or a set of codified academic literacies—to be transmitted to students” (Blommaert & Horner, 2017, p. 6). Thus, from this mobilities paradigm, literacies entail the concrete labor of “(re)translation, re-imagination, reinvention, and recontextualization” (Blommaert & Horner, 2017, p. 12). Analyzing the role that multiliteracies play in IaH, two dimensions emerged from VE participants’ reflections on their experiences while developing multimodal campaigns to promote sustainable cities: (1) a shift in literacies and (2) a discovery about technologies. A Shift in Literacies The shift in literacies implied a turnaround from a written-only-literacy (well­ known by students through the academic genres most frequented in their cour­ ses) to mobile literacies (entailing the collaborative design of a multimodal campaign arranged around a word-free message for a global audience). This literacies dimension encompassed two different trending topics: #multi­ modal_genres and #multimodal_language. Regarding #multimodal_genres, students’ portfolios revealed contemplation on what it means to produce new collaborative genres in college environments; furthermore, it opened a discovery on the “regimes of literacy” (Blommaert, 2013): what are those genres “naturally” legitimated in certain disciplines, in different courses? While the essay world (i.e., a mostly written-only-literacy) surfaced as the academic genre familiar to all VE participants, the multimodal campaign project posed the challenge of saying things without words, signifying and communicating a message through an ensemble of other semiotic resources. As S4 states, “I learned that less is more in creating a campaign […] the more pictures, colors, sounds you used even in the simplest way, enhanced the whole experience. Further, the usage of our voices made it much more personal and

Internationalization at Home and Multiliteracies

225

authentic”. Thus, S4 highlights their agency as learners, materialized not only in the design of the text but also in the potential of using their language. Similarly, A7 feels empowered by performing an agent role as a designer, as it uncovers how media messages are produced: “… creating a campaign from the producer and not the receiver is something I have never experienced before. It was the first time that the initiative of a project was on my side, creating everything […] Being so used to seeing that every day on our social networks, I think we do not measure or value the process behind it”. But even when engaged in digital communication, some students feel more confident expressing their opinions in writing: “This week we decided […] to do our tasks in a writing way on Messenger. […] I think because of the writing form this week, we all had a chance to better present our opinions and everyone was heard. Again, when I started to tell them about the situation in Poland, it turned out that I wrote an essay!” (P3). The essay genre returns as the legitimate goal to be achieved, even if other multimodal resources (emojis, stickers) may have played a role in that conversational text. Concerning the various forms of interaction – and beyond an analysis of English as lingua franca – many students assign #multimodal_language a key role in giving them a chance to express their voices. S8 says: “I found my voice in this digital space. […] I’m not a talkative person, but this project made me feel welcome. In normal classes, I feel that you have to know a lot of stuff to talk about, but here the whole point was to interact and discuss to learn. It felt safe”. Feeling safe is also about being able to communicate feelings through a variety of semiotic resources not available in written-only mode, as S6 expresses: “One strategy that we have used is to use smileys. It commu­ nicates feelings that cannot be shown in text only”. Moreover, as A2 explains, collaboration was possible by making the most of all available modes and media: “As for the language, we also believe that we were quite collaborative with the difficulties that each one could have, and we looked for the resources to make ourselves understood, for example, to try to communicate the ideas we had regarding the design of the campaign we used Paint or Canva to graph it.” In sum, students’ reflections on #multimodal_language seem to confirm Blommaert’s ideas on collaborative and interactional scenarios like the one experienced in this VE: “In super diverse environments (both on- and offline), people appear to take any linguistic and communicative resource available to them – a broad range, typically, in super-diverse contexts – and blend them into hugely complex linguistic and semiotic forms” (Blommaert, 2013, p.8). A Discovery about Technologies Through this VE experience of IaH, participants expressed a revealing discovery about digital technologies: they found that “a set technology”—assumed as globally available—is in turn “mobile”, as different communities adapt them to their cultures of use. For instance, A1 remarks: “We talked about our university careers, the applications that each one of us usually uses (our international

226

Malin Reljanovic Glimäng et al.

partners hardly use WhatsApp, something that my classmate and I found very interesting because it shows how different the cultural codes of each country can be, even in something as ‘simple’ as WhatsApp)”. This awareness of digital technologies as socio-cultural and ideological artifacts is also expressed by P1: New technologies have many advantages, but there are also disadvantages. They have given us the opportunity to overcome the barrier of meetings in different time zones. […] The advantage of new technologies is that we […] could be in different places and talk even while traveling. Each of us got to know the new communication application because not all of us have used WhatsApp before. It was a good alternative to contact at any time. Communication through new technologies is associated with access to the Internet. Not always can everything work; however, we can encounter a problem related to the lack of Internet – which sometimes happened in our group. It is not worth being angry with someone who didn’t show up at the meeting because it didn’t have to be his fault and, unfortunately, problems related to technology. These students’ insights reveal that participants not only made use of digital technologies but—through their use in this VE—they also had a chance to critically reflect on their materiality. The difference between using and knowing what is being used leaves behind the neutrality of applications and platforms and, as P1 observes, the global reach of the Internet. Therefore, technologies are also glocal and mobile. As a situated practice, VE from home revealed opportunities for critical framing to relate the meanings of online tools to their social contexts and purposes. Mobility is, hence, not confined to traveling with backpacks, but it happens instead when unpack­ ing everyday beliefs when listening to other voices, and seeing your sur­ roundings from other angles.

Concluding Remarks In this chapter we reported a study of a transnational collaborative VE centered on the UN sustainable development goal 11 and aimed at furthering students’ critical literacies through the co-creation of multimodal digital campaigns pro­ moting sustainable glocal actions. Based on qualitative data content analysis of students’ e-portfolios, two main themes emerged from addressing our guiding queries: (1) mobile discussions: from global themes to local concerns; and (2) mobile literacies and mobile technologies. Following a mobility perspective on knowledge (Blommaert & Horner, 2017) and within the multiliteracies framework (New London Group, 1996; Kalantzis & Cope, 2022), students’ reflections showed that glocal dialogue held the potential for fostering critical consciousness and intercultural reflexivity. The situated VE practice immersed participants in constructing new knowledge by collaboratively exploring real-world issues around Goal 11 and learning-by­

Internationalization at Home and Multiliteracies

227

doing experiences through designing a multimodal campaign. Thus, our analy­ sis showed instances of epistemic transformation in which students reported gains of an expanded and deeper understanding of the world and themselves. Mobile discussions indicated that transformation is also the ability to transport knowledge and understanding from one context to another. Through a multiliteracies lens, two additional dimensions emerged: (a) a shift in literacies and (b) a discovery about technologies. The multiliteracies events in this VE fostered awareness of a shift in literacies. Students found glocal “regimes of literacies” (Blommaert, 2013) legitimated in similar educational settings across different countries, particularly with regard to academic genres and multimodal ways of saying in which other modes were as valuable as words. In their reflections, students highlighted the shared, international experience of a crossing from a written-only-literacy (the academic essay world) to mobile literacies (through an underexplored genre, such as a multimodal campaign); they thus discovered their agency in signifying and communicating knowledge, and in these new ways of saying—through their voices—they were challenged to design a message by composing an ensemble of semiotic resources (almost wordless). Also, through this VE, students voiced a revealing discovery about digital technologies: they expressed awareness of their materiality as socio-cultural and ideological artifacts. While making use of online tools to communicate inter­ nationally, students encountered how “a set technology”—assumed as globally available—could, in turn, be “mobile”, as different communities adapt them to their cultures of use. Again, VE as situated practice revealed opportunities for critical framing as participants related the meanings of online tools to their social contexts and purposes. In the light of a more global approach to be applied, some limitations regarding the corpus we used should be mentioned. Although we collected data from various sources during the VE, due to content-length constraints, we opted to focus on self-reported reflections. We are aware that their e-portfolios might contain biases (from selective memory to embellishment), and for this reason, interpretations cannot be generalized. Our findings suggest that, although challenging, a multiliteracies pedagogy in VE can be a promising horizon to internationalizing the glocal curriculum. Despite the emergence of virtual exchange widely discussed in the previous chapters, there will always be a need for future research to further explore VE as instances of IaH through more empirical transnational studies in different courses and at different educational levels and through comprehensive data collection methods that allow for their triangulation in analysis. As a postscript and in one of his latest contributions, Jan Blommaert expressed: … due to the COVID-19 crisis, immobilities became normalized in 2020. Online tools were the prescribed alternative. And while we now inevitably must realize that we live in an online-offline nexus, all of us have experi­ enced the limitations of a social system exclusively operating through

228

Malin Reljanovic Glimäng et al. online tools. […] It is good, however, to have gone through this experience. It is now part of our social imagination – we can imagine how life is under immobilization measures. (Blommaert, 2021, p. 272)

This was the precise scenario in which our transnational VE was implemented, so undoubtedly, IaH education allowed us to (re)imagine our communities and to (re)invent our literacy practices beyond our neighborhood. Since then and from now on, more research in this field will help us further understand how we live and learn in this online-offline nexus.

Notes 1 In fact, English was not a prerequisite for the Argentinean students’ course. 2 The students in Argentina wrote the portfolio in Spanish, and the texts were subse­ quently translated into English. 3 However, it is essential to note that in VE, the country of study does not necessarily correlate with students’ individual national identities.

References Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Europe Calling: A New Definition for Internationalization at Home. International Higher Education, 83, 12–13. Blommaert, J. (2021) “Postscript: Immobilities Normalized”. In A. De Fina and G. Mazzaferro (Eds.) Exploring (Im)mobilities: Language Practices, Discourses and Ima­ ginaries (pp. 270–273). Multilingual Matters. Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity (Vol. 18). Multilingual Matters. Blommaert, J. & Horner, B. (2017). Mobility and academic literacies: An epistolary con­ versation. London Review of Education 15(1). https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.1.02.

De Wit, H. (2016). Internationalization and the role of online intercultural exchange. In

R. O’Dowd and T. Lewis (Eds.) Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp. 150–172). Routledge. EVOLVE Project Team. (2020). The Impact of Virtual Exchange on Student Learning in Higher Education. EVOLVE Project publication. http://hdl.handle.net/11370/ d69d9923-8a9c- 4b37–91c6–326ebbd14f17. Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2006). Computer-mediated language learning: Making meaning in multimodal virtual learning spaces. JALT CALL Journal, 2(2), 3–18.. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press. Helm, F. (2018). Emerging identities in virtual exchange. Research-puplishing.net. https:// doi.org/10.14705/ rpnet.2018.25.9782490057191. Holliday, A. (2010). Intercultural Communication and Ideology. Sage. Hauck, M., Satar, M., & Kurek, M. (2021). Where multimodal literacy meets online language learner autonomy: “Digital resources give us wings”. In Language Education in Digital Spaces: Perspectives on Autonomy and Interaction (pp. 85–111). Springer.

Internationalization at Home and Multiliteracies

229

Jones, E., & de Wit, H. (2012). Globalization of internationalization: Thematic and regional reflections on a traditional concept. AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3, 35–54. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, W. (2022). Multiliteracies: Life of an idea. International Journal of Literacies, 29(2), 1–57. Menezes de Souza, L. M. T. (2019). Glocal Languages, Coloniality and Globalization from Below. In M. Guilherme & L. M. T. Menezes de Souza (Eds.) Glocal Languages and Critical Intercultural Awareness: The South Answers Back. (pp.17–41). Routledge. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–90. O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Com­ puter Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188. O’Dowd, R. (2022). Internationalizing Higher Education and the Role of Virtual Exchange. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Ltd. Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wild­ ermuth (Ed.) Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp.308–319). Libraries Unlimited.

19 Virtual Student Mobility The Case of an Action Research Project between Japan, China, and Spain Martin Parsons, Mikel Garant,

Mariolaía Ruiz Rodríguez and

Beatriz Martín-Gascón

Introduction One of the characteristic aspects of many English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning settings is that language learners have little opportunity to use English outside the classroom (Carrillo Castellón, 2001; Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009; Yeung, 2017). The obvious problems this causes are often exacerbated by traditional language teaching methodologies, which do not provide for the communicative input and output that is likely to stimulate motivation in learners (Muñoz, 2007). In a globalizing world in which English is increasingly used as a lingua franca, helping learners develop their linguistic abilities to fully take part in a global society is an important goal. One obvious solution is for EFL learners to travel to other countries where they will be able to use English in real-world settings. Gérard and Sanna (2017) point to the potential political advantages of students studying abroad, where they can learn about other cultures, develop a sense of common values, exchange ideas, or drive toward innovation. Mobility exchange programs could act as a catalyst for EFL learners to practice their linguistic skills abroad. However, as many times mentioned in this book, var­ ious factors, not least of which are time, distance, and financial constraints, as well as a limited number of slots for exchange students, make this difficult for many, but until recently, it had at least been a possibility for learners. This chapter will reflect upon the development of an ongoing action research (Burns, 2015) project which attempts to find ways to promote real interaction among students through virtual mobility exchange. The project suggests stu­ dent-produced videos as an effective tool to promote cultural awareness and cross-linguistic interaction among students of different L1s. A brief description of the development of the project will be provided in the chapter; however, the main focus will be on an exchange between students in Japan, China, and Spain during the latter half of 2021, in which students planned, scripted, and created short videos about the culture of their respective countries. One video from each country will be analyzed with reference to student feedback and reflective comments, and the results of student responses to pre- and post-project surveys of attitudes towards other countries represented in this project will be provided. DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-23

Virtual Student Mobility

231

In line with the technical and educational challenges students would face for the project, new academic possibilities are revealed as a result of the project implementation. For example, producing a video gives students access to more modes of expression than might otherwise be the case, offering them greater agency in their communication (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). It also opens up a broader space for educating students in such areas as digital literacy and the concept of copyright, both of which transcend boundaries. It was important that communication between students be culturally appropriate if it were to be successful, which represented another form of virtual mobility. We now live in a “global” environment, with peoples from all parts of the world coming into increasing in-person or online contact. It is very likely that when people from differing linguistic backgrounds interact, this interaction would take place in English, either between L1 and L2 speakers or between differing L2 speakers (Sung, 2014). Each person will bring with them their own linguistic and cultural backgrounds, in addition to their own preconceptions, which have the potential to result in misunderstandings (Deterding, 2013). As Kress (2010, p. 5) notes, globalization is not a simple change from one state to another, nor linear in its progression. It represents an array of technological, economic, and cultural shifts, which continue to evolve and often manifest themselves in changes in means of communication. For example, video is now one of the most trafficked forms of communication on the internet (Cisco, 2021), which makes it a viable alternative to traditional technologies for use in online intercultural exchanges such as this. This project represents an opportu­ nity for young people to gain insights into and awareness of the broader world by engaging with people, ideas, and imagery from different cultures. Utilizing resources such as moving and still images, the recorded voice, background music (BGM) and/or sound effects, and video editing techniques can open more space for student agency in making meaning of their own social and cultural environment.

Development of the Project The project described here began as a series of audio podcasts to give students access to authentic English artifacts outside their English classes. This evolved through several iterations following a reflective, action research-based approach (Burns, 2015; Dikilitas¸ & Griffiths, 2017) to encompass several small-scale pro­ jects employing podcasting technology and the affordances of the internet to give students greater opportunities to access English language input but to engage in exchanges of intercultural significance (Parsons, 2020). When interacting with people from different cultural settings, being aware of cultural differences and understanding how to speak and act in such situations is a skill or competence which will require nurturing. Foreign language educa­ tion can play a role in helping learners to develop their skills and competencies in this area (Byram & Wagner, 2018).

232

Martin Parsons et al.

In a review of the literature on online intercultural exchange, or virtual exchange (VE), since 2000, Lewis and O’Dowd (2016) found numerous positive studies, especially in the areas of L2 development, intercultural communicative competence, and learner autonomy. Large-scale VE collaborative interactions also found positive outcomes, including improvements in “knowledge of the other country or culture” (Stevens Initiative, 2022, p. 8). This project involved collaboration between students and teacher-researchers in three differing EFL contexts: Japan, China, and Spain. Twenty-four Japa­ nese, 26 Chinese, and six Spanish university students participated in the project, making videos about the culture of their country and exchanging them with one another via a purpose-built, password-protected website, as follows: 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

Students selected a topic of cultural significance related to their own coun­ try or region that they felt may be of interest to students in other countries. They then wrote a short script in English on the topic, which was slightly edited by their English teacher for general issues relating to intelligibility. Students either took or sourced (while trying to respect copyright laws) images to create a visual representation of their written script. They created the first draft of their video, which may have included ele­ ments such as moving and still images, an audio recording of their script, and background music or sound effects. These videos were uploaded to a password-protected website with a shar­ ing app called Flipgrid embedded. This allowed all students to view all videos in one virtual space. Feedback was provided by teachers and their peers. Students were encour­ aged to give oral or video feedback on Flipgrid and expected to provide written feedback via a rubric1, which focused on three areas: content, spoken English, and video production. Students were instructed to write comments about positive aspects of the video as well as about aspects that could be improved. Students used this feedback to re-edit and improve their work, producing a final version of their video.

Adopting peer feedback was another attempt to give students agency in the production of the videos. It was not merely a teacher’s feedback that deter­ mined how students reflected on their work but the impressions of the very audience they were targeting. Hung (2016, p. 98) has found that students highly value peer feedback, while video feedback can “promote more interaction” and “foster more personalized learning and attentive engagement”.

Discussion of the Video Analysis This part analyses a video from each country. Comments are taken directly from the written feedback rubric designed for the video exchanges. We have not made any corrections to the students’ writing.

Virtual Student Mobility

233

Representation of Japan The Japanese students chose a wide variety of topics, from traditional topics, such as the kimono, to contemporary topics, like conveyor-belt sushi restau­ rants, to enduring cultural customs, such as cherry blossom viewing. The video chosen for analysis was called Japanese Archery. While similar to Western archery in that the archer shoots arrows with a bow at a target, Japanese archery has unique rules, clothing, procedures, and equipment, making it a suitable topic to introduce one facet of Japanese culture. The video uses several modes of communication. It begins with a still image of an archer aiming an arrow at a target. Gentle background music plays while the student introduces the topic. Following this, there is a short video with a close-up of a young man in traditional clothing drawing back an arrow in his bow, settling himself, and then releasing the arrow. The video is then replayed with the student narrating the important aspects of what has been shown. This may give the viewer a sense of being drawn into the story, as was noted in the feedback comments: (1) The introduction of clear and complete ideas is a good introduction to this part of the content. (2) Adding a video in the middle is appealing. (3) The video is very clear and nice, with not only images but also video inserts to make the whole thing more attractive. (4) The sound fits. This scene is followed by three still images of archers on horseback. The video zooms in very slowly on the images as the narrator explains the difficulty of this skill. The archers are shown with their bows drawn while the horses gallop by the target. Though the images are still, the students have added another mode to the video by slowly zooming across the images to make them feel dynamic. In their feedback, one of the students indicated that the use of these images was effective: (5) The images selected highlight the theme. The final part of the video mainly shows a still image of an Olympic archer using modern equipment. The narrator explains the major differences and claims that while modern archery prizes accuracy, traditional Japanese archery is a means of training one’s mind. The feedback indicates that the overall scope of the video was appropriate: (6) The content is very comprehensive and introduces the history of shoot­ ing and modern sports shooting. However, some of the students mentioned that there were relatively few images used in the video:

234

Martin Parsons et al. (7) There are not many pictures to insert; in fact, there can be more, espe­ cially when introducing modern archery.

Pronunciation was also raised as an issue in the comments: (8) The pronunciation is not very standard. Feedback from Spanish students also raised this as an area of concern. Indeed, in the narration of this video, the student is very careful to pronounce each word individually, giving it a choppy, staccato feeling, which is quite common amongst Japanese learners of English. In reflective comments, when evaluating themselves, one of the students acknowledged that this was an area that needed work. (9) The least satisfying thing [about the project] is that when recording your voice, you can’t say it smoothly in one go, and it takes a long time. (10) I was surprised to find that both China and Spain had very good Eng­ lish pronunciations. Therefore, I thought that I would improve it so that I could pronounce it smoothly. (11) I was able to notice that I read English sentences separated by words, and I felt that I had to improve it in future video creation. The final version of the video is not substantially different from the original in terms of imagery. However, subtitles have been added in places where spe­ cific Japanese words and artifacts, such as archery equipment, are shown. The narration is also smoother, showing signs of elision to reduce the staccato effect, indicating that peer feedback can have a positive effect on the way stu­ dents approach their use of the English language. Representation of China Chinese students produced videos on a variety of themes: Paper Cutting, Chi­ nese Funerals, the Peking Opera, Chinese Clothing, Morning Tea, the Archi­ tecture of Beijing, the Mid-Autumn Festival, and Kung Fu. The selection of topics represents the aspects of Chinese culture that the students wanted to show to Japanese and Spanish students. The video on Chinese Clothing has been chosen for analysis. It begins with a cinematic opening in the style of “Star Wars” in which the text scrolls across the screen with a student narrating. This is followed by an outline of 5,000 years of Chinese history, which focuses on clothing throughout that history. Subtitles on Chinese clothing names and dynasty names are also provided so people watching the video can follow the narration easily. The photos and videos of clothing used are copyright free and represent good examples of the different types of clothing worn throughout Chinese history. The descriptions of the different types of clothing are clear and concise. The video also shows

Virtual Student Mobility

235

how Western clothing was adapted to Chinese culture during the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912) and the Republic of China (1912–1949). Several instances of positive feedback were provided by two Japanese students: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

The images and subtitles were separated and very easy to read. The voice was not loud and not too quiet, making it very easy to listen to. It was easy to hear the voices of the first and third people. I could understand the clothes of that era from the images and video. The background music was very good.

Students appreciated the way various modes of expression were used, commenting upon the integrated use of images, subtitles, and sound effects, such as background music. Overall, they showed many positive perceptions of the video. Japanese students mentioned that there were areas of potential improvement: e.g., there could be more use of video transitions and that the quality of the voice recordings was not optimal. One student felt that there was too much informa­ tion. This could be because the video covered many dynasties and many periods: (6) There weren’t a lot of transitions, so I thought more of them would be good. (7) I found it to be too much information, so let’s try to improve yours to be more compact. (8) I don’t know what the second person is saying because the sound is broken. The feedback that came from Spanish learners was mainly positive. Students particularly emphasized good vocabulary, pronunciation as well as the density of the topic. The Spanish peers also appreciated the images and BGM. Among the critical comments is the necessity to improve the organization of the video context and the use of more explicit examples. Positive audio feedback was also provided by a Spanish student on Flipgrid: (9) I really like the ideas raised. (10) Participants have really good pronunciation. (11) The images—I love them. Representation of Spain Six EFL learners from Spain were involved in the video-creation process on the aspects of Spanish culture. The topics chosen were bullfighting, beaches in Cádiz, the Canary Islands, the Mediterranean diet, the Spanish Civil War, and flamenco. We will analyze the video on flamenco. One of the students intro­ duces the topic and explains what flamenco is, its origin, and its clothing style. Throughout the presentation, we may hear some quotes by important people in the flamenco tradition, such as Camarón de la Isla (e.g., flamenco is always a

236 Martin Parsons et al. sorrow, love is a sorrow too. In the end, everything is a sorrow and a joy). Although the presentation incorporates linguistic and visual cues, it lacks other potential modes of expression, such as aural, gestural, and spatial. For instance, the majority of students expected to hear some dynamic music in the background. Regarding the feedback provided by EFL learners in Japan, four students noted various positive aspects of the video: (1) The story was slow and easy to understand. There was also a quiz, and I enjoyed listening to it. (2) English was easy to hear. Very easy to understand the explanation, that pronunciation, and…Understand explanation. (3) The image is easy to see. Animation is very good to use. Easy to see because it is a slide. Considering the points to be improved, students gave more succinct comments. Most of them expected more motion and music (examples 4–7). One student also noted that the narration was too fast. However, this comment was pre­ ceded by a positive observation that alluded to the Spanish student’s pro­ nunciation (example 7): (4) (5) (6) (7)

I also want a video. Not BGM. I want movement. With a little more sound effects. I want to see flamenco images and videos; it looks like they are using the same images. Pronunciation is good, but the words are too fast to understand.

Moving on now to comments given by Chinese speakers, in examples 8 to 12, we can observe more elaborated feedback. They emphasize the fluency of the narration, the clear structure, and simplicity. Among others are: (8) The overall narrative is fluid; the prepared parts are adequate (…) there will be no unclear place. (9) The video is good for viewing. Video is clear. (…) The video articulates clearly. (10) Good creative ideas, good visual effects, slow pace, appropriate topics for life. This is a great video. (11) The overall fluency of the article is very good, the theme is clear, and the voice is clear, examples are also very good, accurate words. (12) The structure is clear. It allows people to distinguish layers. The beginning of the article is simple and clear and points out the main idea. Content fits the topic. As for the features that could be improved (examples 13–17), the most common ones are related to pronunciation, intonation, speed of speech, and the inclusion

Virtual Student Mobility

237

of background music. Students note that enhancements in these areas would help them understand and engage more with the content. As with negative feedback offered by Japanese students, Chinese students also emphasize positive aspects before giving remarks to be improved. In example 16, the student fol­ lows a feedback approach that draws on her/his interests and willingness to know more about the relationship between flamenco and sorrow. Stressing such interest is a technique the student might use to mitigate the otherwise negative nature of the feedback: (13) There are big problems with pronunciation. The speed of speech is too fast to hear the key content. And there is no tone, there is almost no place for pause. It feels like reading aloud. There aren’t too many pictures or videos to explain the point of view of the video, it’s boring. (14) Inadequacies can make the picture more vivid, and the link between the pictures can be smoother. (15) The pronunciation (…) is not very standard (…) can speak at the same speed and explain in a more emotional way, which may make the video more dynamic, it’s kind of flat, not fluent. (16) I am interested in the emotion of the flamenco. In the video, you say that flamenco is always sorrow. Can you tell me an example with more details? (17) The rhythm is good, the points are in place, and the small details are emphasized (…), but the key story is not very prominent, and the overall story is not summarized and expressed.

Discussion of the Survey Results In this section, we discuss how this example of virtual student mobility influ­ enced students’ impressions of the other countries, which we hypothesized would be improved through mutual interaction, by examining the responses to two questions from participants pre- and post-surveys: 1 2

I have a positive attitude toward people (of the other country). It would be fine with me if my brother or sister married a person (of the other country).

Such an unusual approach (question) promoted further (written) discussions aimed at developing students’ communicative skills. Additionally, going into the intimate/private questions like matrimony and marriage would reveal the respondents’ cultural perceptions and attitudes towards other societies. Twenty Japanese, 24 Chinese, and six Spanish students responded to the preproject survey, and 17 Japanese, 23 Chinese, and four Spanish students respon­ ded to the post-project survey. Due to space constraints, only a single Figure 19.1 is displayed here.2

Neither

15%

Strongly agree

Agree

0% Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 19.1 Participants’ attitudes towards Chinese people

0%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

20%

30%

60%

0%

40% 15%

0%

40%

55%

0% Disagree Strongly disagree

Japan, Pre-project

Agree

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

50%

15%

Strongly agree

33%

67%

50%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Spain, Pre-project

Strongly agree

6%

Strongly agree

75%

Agree

53%

0%

0%

0% Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

35%

6%

Neither Disagree Strongly disagree

0%

Japan, Post-project

Agree

25%

Spain, Post-project

I have a positive attitude towards Chinese people

238 Martin Parsons et al.

Virtual Student Mobility

239

Although the attitude of Spanish students towards Chinese people has been quite positive since the project began, the attitude of Japanese students was less optimistic. All Spanish students (strongly) agreed that they have a positive attitude toward the Chinese. In contrast, 30% of Japanese students expressed no particular opinion or disagreed with the statement. While the attitude of Spanish students became more positive towards the Chinese, the termination of the project did not change the Japanese attitudes to a greater extent. Figure 19.2 (in the link provided in the footnote) show the results of students’ feelings about the possibility of a sibling marrying a Chinese person. Again, the attitude of Spanish students changed in a positive way. Before the project star­ ted, half of the Spanish students strongly agreed that a sibling marrying a Chi­ nese person was fine. This number increased after the project was over. The attitude of Japanese students also improved. Before the project, half of the Japanese students (strongly) agreed that a sibling marrying a Chinese person would be fine. These figures increased to 70% right at the end of the project. Overall, the attitude of the Spanish students involved in this project towards China and Chinese people was very positive, and for the most part, it improved as a result of the project. Nevertheless, the attitudes of Japanese students towards China and the Chinese did not change to a great extent. This is diffi­ cult to interpret. The history between Japan and China is long and complicated, and there have been many difficult moments in recent decades. Deep-seated animosity towards the other country exists in both countries, and it is possible that this might have played a part in the responses of Japanese students. More research is required to understand the social and political impact on the cultural perception among the nations. Figures 19.3 and 19.4 (in the link provided in the footnote) display the results regarding the attitudes of Japanese and Chinese students toward Spanish people. Before the project began, Japanese and Chinese students had quite positive feelings about Spanish people, which improved by the project’s end. The responses show that the percentages of positive responses rose from 75% to 100% and from 83% to 95% for Japanese and Chinese students, respectively. The possibility of a sibling marrying a Spanish person was initially relatively high; however, the project accelerated the positive opinions expressed by Japa­ nese and Chinese students, respectively. Before the project, 65% of Japanese and 50% of Chinese students (strongly) agreed that they would be fine if one of their siblings married a Spanish person. By the end of the project, this number had changed to 88% (Japanese) and 69% (Chinese), respectively. Finally, Figures 19.5 and 19.6 (in the link provided in the footnote) shows the moods of Chinese and Spanish students toward Japanese people. All Spanish students reported a positive attitude in both surveys, but the percentage for “strongly agree” rose from 67% to 100%. A more significant change can be seen in the attitudes of Chinese students. Before the project began, 46% of students felt positive toward Japanese people, while 17% indicated some skeptical atti­ tude. However, when the project was over, the proportion of students with a positive attitude had risen to 74%, and no students reported having a negative

240

Martin Parsons et al.

attitude. Very similar results were seen regarding students’ feelings about the possibility of a sibling marrying a Japanese person. Once again, two out of three of Spanish students strongly agreed with the statement before the project began, and a total number of students expressed a strong agreement just after its termination. There was also a general move towards positivity among Chi­ nese students. 25% of Chinese students were not fine with the idea of a sibling marrying a Japanese person before the project, but this dropped to 9% after the project ended. The percentage of students reporting that they were fine with this rose from 37% to 61%. As such, it can be observed that attitudes towards Japan and Japanese people were generally positive before the project began and became more positive after the project had been completed.

Conclusion This asynchronous, transnational telecollaborative exchange between Japanese, Chinese, and Spanish university students represents a practical example of vir­ tual student mobility. Students also had agency in making meaning of their environment by creating a multimodal expression of the culture of their country or region from their own perspective. It points the way to making VE an inte­ gral part of EFL programs at universities that could complement physical mobility programs, such as Erasmus and many others. Creating formal curri­ cula guidelines and evaluation standards will be essential in this endeavor. As was mentioned in the introduction, an exchange of this type presents challenges to all participants. For example, there were various technical issues to be negotiated. In China, internet access fluctuated, which is a common issue in distance internationalization. At times, Chinese participants experienced dif­ ficulties accessing the project’s shared resources. In both China and Japan, there were occasions when some students could access the application used for shar­ ing videos, Flipgrid, while at the very same time and from the very same loca­ tion, other students could not. The reason, though unclear, may be connected to intermittent bandwidth issues at the universities involved. The concept of copyright proved difficult for some students to grasp. We speculate that practices such as sampling and mashups and the popularity of social media applications where these practices are common may engender in students a mistaken belief that they can appropriate any media that appeals to them. This is an area that would benefit from more research and the develop­ ment of instructional materials. Issues such as these highlight the necessity of providing language instructors with theoretical and practical training and information about implementing VE in their classes. The relatively small number of student participants made it difficult to draw definitive conclusions from this particular project. It is hoped that future itera­ tions of this project will shed more light on the issues by involving more stu­ dents from more countries and regions to provide more robust findings. It is also expected that via a reflective, action-research approach, the challenges encountered will serve as the basis for developing stronger versions of this

Virtual Student Mobility

241

project. However, for VE to prosper pedagogically, robust partnerships between institutions, researchers, and teachers in various locations around the world who are open to collaboration and innovative pedagogies will need to be established. Overall, the current chapter is an illustration of affordable collaboration, communication, and cultural exchange among students of different nations and geographic locations engaged in EFL learning. Such virtual mobility may serve as a preliminary step for physical mobility able to facilitate students’ linguistic and cultural adaption. Moreover, it may serve as an excellent vehicle to pro­ mote the students’ communicative competencies that would advocate for oral and written production in English. Considering this project as a beckon for a new virtual form of mobility, the instructors may wish to design a course that would feed their class needs.

Notes 1 Please visit https://osf.io/3gnx6?view_only=f2c943c9b33b4c719b58a0a570253194. 2 Figures for the other statements: https://osf.io/fmvay?view_only=f2c943c9b33b4c719b58a 0a570253194.

References Burns, A. (2015). Action Research. In Brown J. D. & Coombe C. (eds.) The Cambridge Guide to Research in Language Teaching and Learning ( pp. 99–104 ). Cambridge University Press,. Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Language Teaching for Intercultural and Interna­ tional Dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 140–151. Carrillo Castellón, B. (2001). La evaluación en los centros educativos: desde la práctica docente hasta los procesos de aprendizaje. ANPE. Cisco (2021). Cisco visual networking index: forecast and trends, 2017–2022. White paper. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-net working-index-vni/white-paper-c11-741490.html. Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca. De Gruyter Mouton. Dikilitas¸, K., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Developing Language Teacher Autonomy through Action Research. Palgrave Macmillan. Gérard, M. & Sanna, A. (2017). Students’ mobility at a glance: efficiency and fairness when brain drain and brain gain are at stake. Journal of International Mobility, 5(1), 43–74. Hung. A. (2016). Enhancing Feedback Provision through Multimodal Video Technology. Computers and Education, 98, 90–101. Kikuchi, K., & Sakai, H. (2009). Japanese learners’ demotivation to study English: A survey study. JALT Journal, 31(2), 183–204. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Com­ munication. Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Oxford University Press.

242

Martin Parsons et al.

Lewis, T., & O’Dowd, R. (2016). Online Intercultural Exchange and Foreign Language Learning: A Systematic Review, in Robert O’Dowd & Lewis, Tim (Eds.) Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice (pp. 21–66). Routledge. Muñoz, C. (2007). CLIL: Some Thoughts on its Psycholinguistic Principles, Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada. Volumen Extraordinario, 1, 17–26. Parsons, M. (2020). Podcasting Technology for Student Engagement and English Lan­ guage Learning in the Japanese Context. In D. Ktoridou, E. Doukanari, & N. Eteokleous (Eds.) Fostering Meaningful Learning Experiences Through Student Engagement (pp.245–265). IGI Global. Stevens Initiative. (2022). 2022 Virtual Exchange Impact and Learning Report. https:// www.stevensinitiative.org/resource/2022-virtual-exchange-impact-and-learning-report/. Sung, C. C. M. (2014). Global, local, or glocal? Identities of L2 learners in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(1), 43–57. Yeung, P. (2017). Why can’t Chinese graduates speak good English? Blame the teaching methods. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-op inion/article/2110113/why-cant-chinese-graduates-speak-good-english-blame-teaching.

20 Developing Intercultural Sensitivity and Discomfort Through Collaborative Virtual Exchange Emilia Alonso-Marks and Siphokazi Magadla

Introduction Internationalizing the curriculum in higher education is the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions, and delivery of post-second­ ary education to enhance the quality of education and research for all stu­ dents and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society. (De Wit et al., 2015, p. 29) Internationalization is a movement that has started gaining momentum in the context of rising globalization in both the public and the private facets of the economy. Technological advances have permitted governments, businesses, and other institutions worldwide to have a rapid international projection, which has meant preparing a workforce competent in global matters and ready to meet intercultural challenges and market demands. Colleges and universities must stay attuned, as they are charged with preparing students who will become skilled professionals in an increasingly complex, interdependent globally com­ petitive work environment. Within the context of internationalization, students must acquire global competencies. The Organization for Economic Co-opera­ tion and Development (OECD, 2018, pp. 7–8) proposed a definition of global competence that encompasses four dimensions: a) the ability to examine situa­ tions of local, global, and cultural significance; b) the capacity to understand and appreciate different viewpoints and world perspectives; c) the capacity to keep positive interactions with people from a diversity of backgrounds; and d) the ability and disposition to act for collective well-being and sustainable development. Therefore, a key goal of higher education is to prepare students who can engage in meaningful interactions with people from different back­ grounds, whether national, ethnic, religious, socio-economic, cultural, political, gender, etc. Collaborative online international learning (COIL) is a methodology that could help higher education institutions achieve this goal in preparing globallyminded students (Rubin & Guth, 2015). COIL presents students with DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-24

244

Emilia Alonso-Marks and Siphokazi Magadla

opportunities to learn in alternative ways, with and from other peers, by taking substantive responsibility for working together. COIL provides opportunities for students to learn valuable interpersonal and team skills (Barkley et al., 2014). It affords students international experiences. By working collaboratively with international partners, students share perspectives and provide answers to complex questions affecting our world today. They commit to a larger goal of becoming intercultural communicators (O’Dowd & Dooly, 2020). COIL virtual exchanges provide a departure from student exchanges in that the intercultural exchange happens while students remain in their countries and institutions. The history of student exchanges between countries can be traced back to the political motivations of countries that use education institutions as an arena to showcase their values and norms to visiting students who will promote those values in their own country. Atkinson (2010, p. 2) explains that “educational exchanges are one way of socializing others to your norms, ideas, and procedures; and in the process build soft power”. It is our view that COIL offers the possibility to disrupt the historically one-way transfer of cultural and political values that characterized the movement of students from the global south and north, where the students from the global south were expected to imbibe and transfer the values of the host country upon their return to their countries as the new educated political and economic elite. Within this context, the current chapter assesses students’ preparedness and experiences of the COIL project as they develop intercultural sensitivity when discussing cultural and political topics with their international peers, and in their reflections, on the challenges and opportunities involved in working with and from others. The goal is to examine this experience to restructure student jour­ neys for effective collaborative virtual exchanges and enlightening of future COIL projects. The choice by the authors to examine the politicization and crim­ inalization of migration in three contexts enabled them to use COIL as a “peda­ gogy of discomfort” (Zembylas, 2018) to illuminate the intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality, language, and geography in public culture, academic and policy debates about migration. The collaboration between Ohio University (OU) and Rhodes University (RU) students shows that intercultural sensitivity is a political process that should not downplay intersectional differences shaped by race, class, gender, and geography among the students participating in the virtual exchange. When these differences are illuminated intellectually and creatively, they reconfigure power dynamics between students at universities and colleges in the global south and north and build confidence among students who come into the project with academic and cultural inferiority. Used in this way, virtual stu­ dent exchanges can be used as a decolonizing strategy.

Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL): A Globally Networked Learning According to O’Dowd and Dooly (2020), the collaborative virtual exchange is an umbrella term to refer to a series of online communication tools that can

Developing Intercultural Sensitivity and Discomfort

245

provide students with intercultural experiences. These online communication tools can bring together students from different backgrounds to develop inter­ cultural sensitivity (ICS) through collaboration and group projects. More and more higher education institutions have had to meet the challenge of responding to the demands for affording unique academic learning experi­ ences to their students that, in many instances, require the use of technology. Traditionally, student interactions were asynchronous so that they did not have to communicate in real time. However, with the new advances in online con­ nections worldwide (wi-fi), and the emergence of new forms of communication, students can participate in verbal exchanges synchronously across different media and different platforms effortlessly. In this sense, students’ perceptions of the ‘classroom’ have changed. The confines of their learning spaces have become wide open, as they want the flexibility to engage in learning from their smartphones, iPad, and laptops virtually anywhere, in a coffee shop, an airport, or at the beach (Folkers, 2005). One of the terms that has been employed to describe collaborative virtual experiences in the context of higher education in the US is Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL). COIL is a form of globally networked learning. It is an effective teaching and learning methodology that provides innovative, cost-effective internationalization strategies to higher education institutions. Such programs foster faculty and student interaction with peers abroad through co-taught multicultural online and blended learning environments, emphasizing experiential student collaboration (Rubin & Guth, 2015). Intercultural sensitivity (ICS) is the ability to understand, manage, and assimilate differences between a speaker’s target culture and their own. It is a crucial component in developing intercultural competence (ICC), a broader skillset that involves respect, self-awareness, seeing from other perspectives, listening, adaptation, relationship building, and cultural humility (UNESCO, 2013, p. 24). While ICC encompasses several abilities, ICS specifically manifests itself in the learners’ sensitivity, curiosity, and genuine interest in other cultures (Alonso-Marks & Sánchez-Hernández, 2020). Byram’s (1997) model of ICC specifically identifies openness and curiosity to account for his conviction that, to participate in relationships of equality, an individual must remain open to learning about new beliefs, values, and worldviews. Importantly, COIL projects also present the opportunity to reconfigure power dynamics and self-perceptions among students in the global south and north. In Naicker et al. (2021), South African students collaborating with a university in the Netherlands discovered that they were “just as good” as the Dutch students. It cannot be denied that intercultural student exchanges take place in a context where universities and colleges in Europe and North America are assumed to be academically superior to those in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Even after independence from colonialism, universities in Africa still reflect colonial institutional cultures because they are “modeled and essentially seek to replicate and align with those institutions of higher learning that emerged from the West” (Hendricks, 2018, p. 17).

246

Emilia Alonso-Marks and Siphokazi Magadla

However, according to the case studies by Naicker et al. (2021), students in South Africa academically senior to the students they were collaborating with were assigned as academic seniors and leaders of the collaborative projects. This demonstrates the emerging opportunities for these students to take the lead globally and academically. These case studies show that COIL offers the possibility of moving beyond student exchange as mimicry. If used carefully, COIL can perhaps provide a decolonizing pedagogy that can meaningfully transform self-perceptions of academic and cultural inferiority.

Discussion of Methodological Approach Thirty students (16 female and 14 male) participated in the COIL project. The students were registered in an honors political science course (Rhodes Uni­ versity—RU) and in an advanced Spanish composition and conversation course (Ohio University—OU), respectively. The project was integrated into their respective courses as a regular course activity. Students were assigned to five different teams: Heart Team, Spade Team, Diamond Team, Clover Team, and Triangle Team. We chose the team names because of their neutrality and global recognition as card-suit symbols. Each team comprised six students (three from RU and three from OU). Stu­ dents were partnered according to their self-reported information (major and academic level). In their teams, students examined and reflected on debates in the politics of migration and considered the experiences of migrants from diverse backgrounds as they traveled in South Africa, the US, and Spain. Stu­ dents investigated the various motivations for migration and focused on lin­ guistic strategies used in media and state discourses to include or delegitimize others and criminalize migrants. Teams also examined how public policy shaped migrant access to education, employment, and other forms of belonging and personhood. The chapter relies on compilation and analysis of individual and team reflections after students had completed the different phases of the COIL project. Preparing to COIL In preparation for COIL, the instructors participated in a series of virtual learning community workshops. There were four two-hour sessions on virtual technologies (September–October 2019) and an introduction to virtual tools on Blackboard, RUConnected, and Zoom. The instructors also completed virtual exercises, which they expected students to do (e.g., an introduction video). In addition to these training workshops and activities, instructors participated in a series of hands-on in-person sessions, where they had an opportunity to learn from previous COILers and were paired with COIL partners. They also atten­ ded a COIL Conference in Tacoma, Washington, in October 2019, where they learned how other academics were making sense of their COIL experiences.

Developing Intercultural Sensitivity and Discomfort

247

COIL Pairing One of the two instructors is a professor of Political and International Stu­ dies from RU, and the other is a professor of Spanish from OU. Both uni­ versities are located in small college towns, Makhanda and Athens, but differ in size. Ohio University has an estimated 28,000 students, and Rhodes University has just 8,200 students. The two courses that were paired were: an honors (4th-year level) political and international studies course of 15 students (seven female and eight male) studying the topic of Africa and the New Wars and an undergraduate advanced conversation and composition course of 15 students (nine female and six male) studying the topic of immigration in Spain and the US. The two courses came together under the project theme: “States of Violence— the criminalization of migration in South Africa, the United States, and Spain”. The project spanned three months—September through November 2020. The project was conducted during the run-up to the US elections (debates about the Latinx community and Islamophobia), a year after September 2019, xenophobic violence in South Africa, and reports of xenophobia against Moroccans in Spain. These case studies allowed the COIL teams to think seriously about a topic that had real-life meaning in their geographical contexts of study. The idea was also to challenge students to see how discourses of xenophobia are similar across their contexts, that is, their communities, countries, and even continents, in terms of public culture engagement, policy, and academic debates. By zooming into this aspect, the criminalization of migration, the instructors hoped that students would also see parallels in other intersecting topics. The strength of COIL, formed before the complications of the COVID-19 pandemic, is that the virtual collaboration is premised on a real-life human connection between the collaborators. The fact that we were able to meet and get to know each other as colleagues in October 2019 profoundly impacted our passion and commitment to this collaboration. It might be easy to assume that virtual exchanges can be sustained online without the necessity for collaborat­ ing instructors and students to ever meet in person. This assumption would be a mistake. Virtual connections cannot replace the need for human interactions to nurture long-term connections. For example, the first author attests to a palatable disconnect in a virtual exchange collaboration with another colleague she had never met. COIL Project: Learning Outcomes Academic � �

Understand and articulate major debates about the politicization and criminalization of migration in South Africa, the United States, and Spain. Understand and interpret somewhat complex written texts, both literary/ scientific and journalistic.

248 � �

Emilia Alonso-Marks and Siphokazi Magadla Adopt a ‘radical openness’ to analyzing material critically, imaginatively, and independently. Reflect on their learning.

Collaborative � � � �

Cultivate an understanding and appreciation that critical thinking goes hand in hand with communication, collaboration, and creativity. Assume shared responsibility for collaborative work, and value the indivi­ dual contributions made by each team member. Understand and respect that management of time is critical to collaboration and problem-solving. Ability to appreciate and respond constructively to feedback from peers and lecturers.

Intercultural Development � � �

Cultivate cultural humility and understanding. Create a space for diverse perspectives and healthy disagreement. Cultivate transversal skills towards a multi-versal future.

Critical Digital Literacy � � �

Interact with a variety of authentic media of the cultures within the target countries (film, music, radio, Websites) and comprehend the socio-cultural specific references. Create digital media as one of the pillars of knowledge-making. Show a critical understanding of how digital platforms may disrupt and reproduce established ideas and ways of creating knowledge.

Deciding on Virtual Technologies Instructors and students maximized the use of the learning platforms available at their respective institutions, namely, Blackboard and RUConnected. RU stu­ dents submitted their individual and group assignments on RUConnected, while OU students submitted their work on Blackboard. It was an option for groups to submit their group presentations and their reports of other groups’ pre­ sentations on Google Drive. The instructors created a folder on Google Drive just for that purpose. The instructors also created a Facebook group for the project so that students could upload their introductory videos, send reminders about upcoming joint ZOOM meetings, and share materials, e.g., songs, poems, news articles, etc. The two groups of students came together as one on three occasions through­ out the semester. The first occasion was to welcome everyone and assign the students to groups according to country case studies. For example, groups Hearts

Developing Intercultural Sensitivity and Discomfort

249

and Spades studied South Africa and the African continent; group Diamonds analyzed the situation in Spain and the European continent; and groups Clovers and Triangles researched the USA and the North American continent. Groups met over Zoom or Teams and recorded group presentations. The second time was to contextualize the topic by the two instructors and for students to ask preliminary questions. The third occasion was to reflect on the project as a whole in the context of International Education Week. On their own, students arranged to set up group WhatsApp to coordinate meeting times or for brief personal interactions with group members.

What Did We Come Up With? Results are reported combining Byram’s (1997) ICC model with the learning outcomes (LOs) of the COIL project, particularly with the Collaborative LOs and the Intercultural Development LOs, as those were the ones closely related to international peer interaction. The examples cited are from the students’ group reflections that made us note that students displayed the right disposi­ tion, and openness toward different viewpoints, acknowledging the value of teamwork and getting the skills they needed to function optimally in an increasingly globalized and multicultural world. Respecting others’ perspectives, listening, and being open and curious allowed students to welcome team mem­ bers, acknowledge their ideas while developing their viewpoints, show empathy, grow together, and learn about one another’s culture and the world. Respecting, Listening, Seeing from Others’ Perspectives, And Discomfort The accounts of experiences from OU and RU students show an openness to learning with and from each other. The students understand that their experi­ ence reflects encounters they must expect in their post-university life. One of the students expressed that the project helped them to see similarities in migration treatment in the case studies, as hoped by the instructors. An expressed experience of tension and ideological disagreement is articu­ lated by an RU student. In this group, one of the students did not want their submission to be edited by others as part of the group report. The RU students expressed that the student from OU held conservative Republican views of migrants, which were not supported by academic literature. Two RU students reported the ideological tension to the instructors, who responded to the entire class to reinforce the importance of respectful disagreement. The instructors explained that group members do not have to share a uniform view in their report; they can share various views that need to be supported by credible media and academic sources. After this interaction, the RU student expressed that the group could continue working, although the group dynamic “never quite recovered”. The instructors knowingly chose the theme of migration which was politi­ cally sensitive in South Africa and the United States, to create some discomfort

250

Emilia Alonso-Marks and Siphokazi Magadla

among students. South African students had to confront recent violence directed at African migrants by South African nationals. They were challenged to think seriously about their complicity in Afrophobic discourses that criminalize Afri­ can migration within Africa. American students had to confront their compli­ city in xenophobic discourses towards the Latinx community, Muslims and Asians at the time. Zembylas (2018, p. 93) explains that the concept of peda­ gogies of discomfort … had been proposed as a pedagogical means by which learners-especially those who are privileged – are encouraged to engage in a critical inquiry regarding values and cherished beliefs, and to examine constructed selfimages in relation to how one has learned to perceive others… dis­ comforting feelings can be the point of departure to challenge dominant beliefs, social habits and normative practices that sustain inequities, thus creating openings for individual and social transformation. By surfacing the intersections of power, race, class, sexuality, language, and gender that shape the migration and migrant experiences, it was possible to challenge all students to examine their personal views and how these feed into broader discourses of migration. Putting together a class of predominately white OU students and predominantly black RU students, it was important not to undermine identity but to use it to facilitate individual reflections that may hopefully contribute to social transformation in how the students will think about migration in the future. OU students I found the project helpful in the sense that we had discussions, and, in these discussions, we unpacked literature by exchanging thoughts and ideas and responding to the project activities. This project has significantly contributed to my understanding of immi­ gration in the US and Spain. I have seen a lot of similarities in how migrants are treated compared to South Africa. RU I appreciated the fact that we were willing to participate, and everyone carried their weight without any problems; feedback was received well by the group, and I had no problem in being corrected where I was wrong, as this only made our presentation better. I felt as if we did not belittle any of the group members and made sure we all had an equal, and I am glad that there were no clashes as we were all on the same wavelength. …we encountered ideological disagreements which visibly impacted group dynamics and communication…. While we reached a civil and pro­ ductive medium once again, it feels like we never quite recovered from the wedge caused by the ideological/cultural clashes. Nonetheless, we

Developing Intercultural Sensitivity and Discomfort

251

continued to respect each other and contribute to making the completion of our weekly group assignments successful. Overall, I feel that the project has made me much more empathetic and open and has provided me with some skills for navigating difficult group dynamics. Recognizing the Value of Teamwork, Negotiating, and Relationships Students demonstrated an appreciation for teamwork, even though it had its challenges. Groups had to negotiate a six-hour time difference. They had to learn to establish clear communication about when to meet and plan accord­ ingly; otherwise, they would miss each other’s days. Overall, the experiences on both sides show that students learned how to communicate without shaming or undermining each other. One student from RU noted that the teamwork brought them a lot of “angst”. RU students mentioned that they were panicking about the fact that the COIL project accounted for 25% of their coursework. Additionally, they emphasized the tension they had due to diverse course priorities between RU and OU students. While OU students prioritized the content, RU students were focused on the success of COIL because it was their degree major. OU We all brought different ideas together to come up with a final piece of information. We were able to work well as a team. I enjoyed being able to hear the different team members’ perspectives on the subject [plus we] were all able to have a voice in the group without anyone feeling undermined. RU The triangle team adopted the approach of engaging with a task through discussion first, advising one another on how to tackle the activity, and responding to any posed questions by the group members. To be honest, there were several negative aspects to this project that have brought me a lot of personal and academic angst beyond the fact that group work is always a strenuous exercise. After the project had ended in November, the second author received an email from a student that had expressed negative feelings toward the project. The student said: Firstly, I’d actually like to apologize for my panic and disgruntled behavior towards the COIL project. It was extremely hectic, and I didn’t like it, but I do feel that I didn’t have to constantly email you about it and take you on an emotional roller-coaster based on my dislike and difficulties with

252

Emilia Alonso-Marks and Siphokazi Magadla working with other people. I feel that I could have been more courteous and considerate towards you regarding that project. (Personal communication, 17 November 2020)

The instructor responded by reinforcing to the student that they appreciated that the student felt free to express their feelings about the project. It was also important that the student had some distance from the project to be able to appreciate its goals. From the Local to the Global: Preparing for the Future Overall, students enjoyed learning about migration and seeing parallels between the three case studies. One student from the RU group is currently doing a Master’s thesis on Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa inspired by the COIL experience. In this project we documented students’ having an overall positive COIL experi­ ence, where students mentioned, for example, that they learned new aspects of a particular concept by explaining its meaning to their international team members or that through the relationship they cultivated with their international peers, they learned the importance of maintaining good study habits (Skagen et al., 2018). OU I enjoyed researching the topic of immigration in the United States. I found the timing of this project to be very good, as we were researching a topic that played such a big role in this year’s election. It was also interesting to get the perspective of [our international partners]. The project served to broaden my understanding of migration from a perspective other than that of my home country. Learning about the poli­ tical situation in South Africa regarding migration has enabled me to think about the situation in America in ways that I hadn’t considered before. RU …I am of the opinion that such an experience and project, though at times tough to navigate, is probably an accurate reflection of collaborative working in real-world environments, where one will have to work with others in dif­ ferent countries, continents, and time zones. Thus, to have an opportunity to navigate these dynamics with the assistance and structure of a university course is indeed a very helpful preparation for what we might expect in the future. …All in all, the project did have good elements, such as the opportunity to work with others, as this is a very pivotal part of any individual who wants to get into the working world. The challenges faced, patience tested, and frus­ tration experienced at times are part of what will happen in the real world, and this was, therefore, a good exercise to practice for the real deal.

Developing Intercultural Sensitivity and Discomfort

253

Critical Issues As we have just mentioned, negotiating the six-hour time difference was one of the critical issues students had to learn to navigate. This time-mismatch chal­ lenge couples with the fact that RU students were graduate students, more experienced and specialized learners than OU students, to make the biggest challenge of all. This most significant challenge was not dealing with different disciplines—RU students were specializing in political and international studies, whereas OU students were studying Spanish—but had different priorities and looking to meet different expectations due to the different academic levels. In one of the Marcillo & Desilus’ (2016) studies, students also recollected an overall positive COIL experience but also mentioned their frustration when dealing with technological challenges and lack of institutional support to work around those challenges. Naicker et al. (2021) proposed a series of interventions during COIL to assist students with digital literacy skills sup­ port and weekly meetings by contacting students with low participation rates. They also mentioned the importance of a pre-COIL session on inter­ cultural awareness as well as an icebreaker session on intercultural sensitiv­ ity during the COIL component as a means to embrace diversity and inclusion. In their study, Naicker et al. (2021) outweighed the challenges of implementing the COIL project and recommended using COIL as a sustain­ able, cost-effective methodology. Some studies have supported the idea that students’ presuppositions and motivations toward the purpose of the colla­ boration will not only vary but may reflect a response to different cultural expectations (Ware & Kramsch, 2005; inter alia).

Conclusion A COIL project between graduate students specializing in Political Science and undergraduate students focusing on Spanish affords gains in ICC, espe­ cially in: respecting, listening, seeing from others’ perspectives and thereby confronting discomfort; recognizing the value of teamwork, negotiating, and relationship-building to be able to present a unified project; building selfawareness, comparing, learning contextualized information from the local to the global, promoting citizenship values; and obtaining practice for a future global work environment. The project also became a space to reconfigure power dynamics among American students and students in South Africa and to challenge their assumptions about the competitiveness of African uni­ versities. The project facilitated a space for individual reflection and trans­ formation that went beyond virtual exchanges that model mimicry of Western values. It is for this reason that this case can be reflective of COIL’s possibilities as a decolonizing pedagogy. The chapter indicates that students can develop their ICS when collaborating with international team members on an online project. Students gained enhanced awareness about issues of a global nature as seen through localized

254

Emilia Alonso-Marks and Siphokazi Magadla

lenses. They also deepened their understanding of teamwork, negotiating ideas, and strengthening relationships with peers. Students were able to respect dif­ ferences and develop solidarity and trust. Nevertheless, as we have seen, critical issues related to time differences, conflicting schedules, internet connectivity, and having different priorities can compromise the viability of international telecollaborative projects.

References Alonso-Marks, E., & Sánchez-Hernández, A. (2020). Intercultural development during short-term study abroad: The role of the intensity of interaction on cross-cultural sensitivity, ELIA (Applied English Linguistics Studies), 20, 13–46. Atkinson, C. (2010). Does soft power matter? A comparative analysis of student exchange programs 1980–2006. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(1), 1–22. Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters. De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). The internationalization of higher education. European Parliament. Folkers, D. A. (2005). Competing in the marketspace: Incorporating online education into higher education - an organizational perspective. Information Resources Man­ agement Journal, 18(1), 61–77. Hendricks, C. (2018). Decolonizing Universities in South Africa: Rigged Spaces? Inter­ national Journal of African Renaissance Studies-Multi-, Inter-and Transdisciplinarity, 13(1), 16–38. Marcillo, M., & Desilus, B. (2016). Collaborative online international learning experi­ ence in practice opportunities and challenges. Journal of Technology Management & Amp; Innovation, 11(1), 30–35. Naicker, A., Singh, E. & van Genugten, T. (2021). Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL): Preparedness and experiences of South African students. Innova­ tions in Education and Teaching International. doi:10.1080/14703297.2021.1895867. OECD (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-comp etency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf. O’Dowd, R., & Dooly, M. (2020). Intercultural communicative competence development through telecollaboration and virtual exchange. In J. Jackson (Ed,) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication (2nd ed.) (pp. 361–375). Routledge. Rubin, J., & Guth, S. (2015). Collaborative online international learning: An emerging format for internationalizing curricula. In A. Schultheis Moore and S. Simon, (Eds.) Globally Networked Teaching in the Humanities: Theories and Practice (pp. 27–39). Routledge. Skagen, D., McCollum, B., Morsch, L., & Shokoples, B. (2018). Developing commu­ nication confidence and professional identity in chemistry through international online collaborative learning [10.1039/C7RP00220C]. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(2), 567–582.

Developing Intercultural Sensitivity and Discomfort

255

Thorne, S. L., (2003). Artifacts and cultures- of- use in intercultural communication, Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 38–67. UNESCO (2013). Intercultural competences. UNESCO. Ware, P. & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration, Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190–205. Zembylas, M. (2018). Affect, race, and white discomfort in schooling: Decolonial stra­ tegies for pedagogies of discomfort. Ethics and Education, 13(1), 86–104.

21 Virtual Internationalization in Teacher Education Experiences from Four Projects Conducted at German Higher Institutions Kathrin Wild, Wiebke Nierste, Katrin Kaiser and Nina Dasouqi

Introduction Compared to other groups, student teachers are usually less mobile. Therefore, the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) implemented the Lehramt.Interna­ tional (Teaching.International) program in 2019.1 The project measures presented here aim at including international mobility in different teacher education pro­ grams. As the DAAD states: “Germany’s future teachers work in an increasingly globalized environment”2 which highlights the importance of mobility, especially for this group. Viewing a classroom as a globalized environment includes acknowledging diversity in numerous aspects: religions, languages, values, worldviews, clothing habits—in short, culture. To make this globalized environment tangible, the concept of internationalization at home offers an approach with dif­ ferent angles addressing students as well as organizational needs. As mentioned in Chapter 16, Internationalization at home (IaH or I@H) was first mentioned by Nilsson (2003), who internationalized Malmö University at the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the new Millennium. Nilsson’s strat­ egy was not only to focus on mobility but to internationalize the whole Uni­ versity. This led to the use of the term internationalization at home (I@H). The scholar gives four different aspects that characterize I@H (Nilsson, 2003, p.31): � �

� �

Internationalization is the process of integrating an international dimension into the research, teaching, and service functions of higher education; An internationalized curriculum is a curriculum that gives international and intercultural knowledge and abilities aimed at preparing students for per­ forming (professionally, socially, and emotionally) in a global and multi­ cultural context; International education is any internationally related activity including the mobility of staff and students; Internationalization at home is any internationally related activity except for outbound student mobility.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-25

Internationalization in Teacher Education

257

These aspects make it clear that I@H has to be thought of and developed by everyone. Integrating an international dimension into every entity makes interna­ tional mobility more accessible and brings a global mindset to the respective uni­ versity. The same is true for an internationalized curriculum, focusing on courses in English and providing intercultural skills to staff and students at their institution to prepare for diversity-based teaching in such a globalized environment. Despite the immense benefits of international mobility, student-teachers are reluctant to take this opportunity (cf. Schön & Sliwka, 2014, Ahlgrimm et al., 2019, Kercher & Schifferings, 2019). According to a mobility survey conducted by the German Center for Research on Higher Education and Science (DZHW) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) in 2017, challenges lie in the areas of loss of time during studies (54%), financing (31%), lack of com­ patibility with the requirements of the degree program (content: 31%, formal: 28%), recognition of achievements from abroad (28%), lack of support from the home university (28%), and separation from the partner or family (25%) (cf. DAAD/DZHW, 2019, pp. 92–95). In general, mobility in teacher education is hampered by its national character affecting, for instance, the languages of instruction and the content (cf. Schön & Sliwka, 2014, pp. 85–87). In Germany, this national character is accompanied by federalism, which leads to 16 different systems and even more reduced mobility. Some of the mentioned challenges, such as financial and personal reasons, can be tackled with virtual formats. However, challenges linked to accreditation of academic performance and organizational issues remain. Although the COVID-19 pandemic increased the availability of virtual formats, it did not yet provide solutions to administrative, often local, obstacles. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, the students’ reluctance was accompanied by the impossibility of physical travel. All of a sudden, almost all social interactions, as well as international experience/exchange/mobility, had to be moved into virtual space on a larger scale. Experiences during the pan­ demic made people realize that student-teacher mobility offerings should be more differentiated to include the largest possible number of students. Considering that the previous chapters have already introduced some projects implemented via virtual mobility and collaboration, the current chapter will add up and summarize long- and short-term projects of virtual mobility, including Summer Schools, lecture series, tandem teaching and workshops. All formats introduced are initiatives by four projects at different German uni­ versities (Cologne, Flensburg, Giessen, Ludwigsburg) within the Lehramt.Inter­ national program.

Discussion of the Virtual Formats and Their Participants In the following, we will present four different short-term and two long-term formats. For each, we will discuss the target group, objectives, time frame, stakeholders, content, and supporting and impeding factors. A condensed overview of the formats can be found in the Appendix part.

258

Kathrin Wild et al.

Short-Term Formats Under short-term mobility formats, we include single events of up to three-four hours as well as events with a duration between one to five days. In general, short-term mobilities have several advantages. First, short-term mobilities are opportunities for those who cannot afford to spend an extended period abroad. Also, they can function as a motivator for a more extended mobility period for those who feel insecure about being abroad alone. This, at the same time, makes short-term mobilities more inclusive. Secondly, they are low-threshold opportu­ nities for an international experience, especially when they are conducted vir­ tually. Due to these characteristics, short-term mobilities, e.g., project work, can be easily included in teacher education programs. Ideally, short-term mobilities are the starting point for making students interested in more extended mobility periods. Successful virtual mobility, of course, highly depends on access to the internet, appropriate technical equipment, and digital competencies. Some exam­ ples of short-term mobilities and their impact are presented below. Winter School and Hybrid Teaching Week (Ludwigsburg University of Education) Internationalization at home is at the core of the Ludwigsburg University of Edu­ cation (LUE) project called INVITE (International Networking for Virtually Improved Teacher Education). In October 2021, an entirely virtual Winter School on “Diversity” was organized for students using both synchronous and asynchro­ nous elements of the meeting. The meeting created an opportunity for teachers and students to discuss how diversity can be handled in the classroom. At the end of the Winter School, to earn ECTS credits, students presented a group work on how different countries deal with diversity. Despite the project’s potential audience, which are the students of special needs education, the current project participants were student-teachers in Secondary Education (classes 5 to 10). After Winter School, the students continued the exchange on a personal and professional basis, as it was relevant for them to know more about school practices in other countries. This was a starting point for further international collaboration, including study abroad options or participation in live seminars oriented on comparative perspec­ tives of educational systems. In line with the virtual Winter School, a Hybrid/HyFlex Teaching Week took place as well. While the teaching staff from Ludwigsburg joined in person, their colleagues from partner countries joined virtually. The content material of the meeting was disseminated among the Winter School students; some materials were designed and distributed among teachers only. To integrate virtual parti­ cipants, physical participants had to adjust their position to be closer to the camera and, thus, be better visible in the video conference. Considering the technical side, both events worked out quite well. As regards the connections among the students, it was evident that they would most probably lose contact and split in the future. Such disunity stems from the

Internationalization in Teacher Education

259

selection process when students were invited based on their background rather than common knowledge and interests. Overall, Winter School was an alter­ native to regular course studies; all students got certificates. However, it should be noted that the events’ integrity was mainly achieved due to teachers’ pre­ vious “real-life” collaboration and initial preparation of the materials. In other words, these two examples demonstrate that personal encounters are still very fruitful and promote the development of trustful relationships. On the other hand, internationalization goes beyond mobility and may be incorporated at all levels. By offering internationalization at home, universities can offer interna­ tional and intercultural experiences that would include various stakeholders. Summer/Winter Schools (Justus Liebig University / Europa University Flensburg) In the framework of the project IMPACCT (International Mobility with Partners Abroad for Culturally Competent Teachers) at Justus Liebig University Giessen, we conducted a virtual Summer School in August 2021 on the topic “Interna­ tional, Intercultural, Interreligious: Perspectives on Islamic Religious Education from Austria, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and Türkiye”. The program focused on students of primary education with the subject of the Islamic religion as well as students of religious studies/theology. Originally intended as a oneweek format, we decided to shorten it to three days due to the high demands of a virtual Summer School. The most critical challenge we saw beforehand was maintaining students’ motivation and bridging the distance within virtual space. To involve students, we came up with different extracurricular activities, includ­ ing a pre-Summer School meeting to familiarize students with the platform, a meet and greet on the first evening, university presentations given by students, or brief video sessions introducing Giessen and surroundings to participants. Given upcoming student mobilities in the Winter semester 2021/22, the Summer School was an ideal space to connect students with students and lecturers. This way, our students from Justus Liebig University Giessen already knew whom they could turn to after arrival at their host universities. The enrichment of the virtual space with tools and methods to bridge the distance was positively and negatively challenging. Among other things, we used a collaborative online whiteboard for introducing ourselves or carrying out check-in activities as well as different tools for visualizing mood or evaluation. All in all, negative preconceptions regarding virtual Summer School have not come true. Of course, meeting face-to-face would have created a much different dynamic. However, there are so many tools and methods available for cooperating remotely that such a virtual event can become an enriching experience after all. At Europa University Flensburg (EUF), the project “Partners in flex-mobility” organized a one-day digital winter school on “Intercultural Education in a Nutshell” in the Autumn semester of 2020/2021. The target group were studentteachers, school teachers, and university staff. The winter school’s objectives were to:

260 � � � �

Kathrin Wild et al. share ideas about different perspectives on education; raise awareness on intercultural topics in education; train critical thinking; develop intercultural empathy.

Lecturers from EUF and Jyväskylän yliopisto (Finland) gave insights into different aspects of Dutch, German, and Finnish school education and the possibilities of doing international school internships. Besides that, staff from various German universities conducting Lehramt.International (Teaching. International) projects met for a think tank on developing a Europe Module–European Certificate for teacher training. The pandemic and the resulting lack of mobility opportunities were a sup­ porting factor for reaching out to about 40 participants from Europe and Africa in a brief preparation period. On the other hand, it was hard to include staff from all project partner universities with an active part, as many were entirely absorbed by the high demands of digital teaching. Virtual Tandem Teaching Collaboration (University of Cologne) As an innovative teaching and learning setting, virtual tandem teaching colla­ boration offers the opportunity to establish joint teaching concepts across structural inequalities and resources. Co-teaching in the virtual space was con­ sidered a central measure to promote internationalization at home at the Uni­ versity of Cologne (UoC). Initially, a moderated exchange platform was offered where the lecturers designed an international and intercultural joint teaching project online; for the target group of bachelor and/or master students of all teaching subjects. The instructors developed the tandem collaboration projects individually. In the first two joint teaching projects with the partner universities in Mexico and Argentina, the students created short presentations on a specific topic in advance and presented them to fellow students at the partner university in the virtual meeting. Other tandem collaboration projects developed a broad range of topics and offered space for different study subjects in the teaching profession. They were so successful that the students themselves asked for a continuation in upcoming semesters. Especially the familiarization with varying formats of teaching, the change of perspective, the consolidation of intercultural communicative skills, and at the same time, the training of didactic skills appealed to the participants. Through this collaborative work, new universities with very different disciplines joined the project. The tandem teaching colla­ boration events were actively promoted and disseminated (e.g., social media) by the lecturers at the UoC and the partner universities. Risk factors that could arise at any time in the course of the project—such as changes in responsi­ bilities and thus breaks in communication—were overcome through highly efficient cooperation with the partners. The successful realization of the tandem project was mainly based on the concentrated collaboration among the lec­ turers, the International Mobility Department colleagues, the Center for

Internationalization in Teacher Education

261

Teacher Education, and the subject advisors. Students received a certificate. The primary goal was to increase student-teachers mobility. However, such a new form of virtual mobility should best be offered for physically immobile students since we believe that in some cases digital tools cannot replace the personal intercultural experience of people. Workshops (Europa University Flensburg / University of Cologne) At EUF, students of a teacher-training were offered two- to four-hour online (later on the hybrid) workshops on different topics. The workshops were held by peers, university lecturers, project staff, and school teachers. Students having experience abroad shared their impressions on the time spent in other countries due to academic mobility. Students with the intention of studying abroad in frames of international student mobility were interested in questions related to initial preparations, a realization of the project, and funding. The workshops aimed to acknowledge different physical mobility formats, recognize the added value of varying mobility formats, and have an informal discussion about the financial and household aspects of their stay abroad. In other workshops, the students gained insight into different education systems and policies, including intercultural education, to whet their appetite for staying abroad for the sake of international experiences in teacher training. The workshops held by staff members were aimed at fostering intercultural awareness and preparation for an academic semester or an internship abroad. The topics covered during the workshop were structural features of various cultures, country values and norms, as well as the phenomenon of culture shock. The student participants were asked to reflect on the cultural issues during the planned stay abroad. Together with the EUF’s in-service training facility, internal and external university staff offered workshops where student-teachers could train with school teachers on language-sensitive teaching methodology and plural approa­ ches to foreign language teaching. These workshops gave the students a lot of opportunities to exchange with teachers so that they also gained an insight into the everyday requirements in schools. Workshops on everyday school life shaped by migration and interculturality were carried out by in-service school teachers. They shared their professional experiences and discussed the current problems arising from the culturally and linguistically heterogeneous community of pupils they work with. During the workshop, teachers and students worked out some possible approaches to find solutions and coping strategies to overcome authentic conflict situations. The workshop aims to show students the importance of their own intercultural experiences in their future everyday work at school. Among all the positive aspects of online workshops, there are several limita­ tions. For instance, there was a relatively low number of participants. This is mainly sourced in the time slots offered for the workshops, the range of topics offered to the participants, and the lack of dynamics. Some of the workshops

262

Kathrin Wild et al.

were less interactive than those with physical presence, especially the ones on intercultural competence, which generally included interactional activities. Among the supporting factors are the relevance of some specific topics, stu­ dents’ obligatory presence, and the possibility of earning credits. Overall, the online workshops serve as an excellent bridge to bring together the global or country-wide community. At the University of Cologne (UoC) the comprehensive and varied range of workshops offered can be seen as a successful measure to raise awareness of the necessity to foster the concept of internationalization in teacher training among students and teachers of all partner universities. Four intensive international workshops were offered on socio-political topics for all interested students. The formats were designed for students of all UNITE partner universities as well as for students of the UoC. The target was to reach the best possible consolidation of the intercultural competencies of students and teachers. The handling of cur­ rent challenges within society, especially in the classroom, was trained so that the students are supposed to apply these unique skills in the best possible way in the future. Moreover, the students could establish digital competencies. Each work­ shop took place over two days and lasted a total of five hours. All participants received a certificate of attendance from the respective external provider. Each course was limited to 20 participants (fully booked with long waiting lists). The workshop covered the topics of Diversity, Teaching Techniques, Gender-sensitive Approaches, and Counteracting Racism in the classroom. Building on the above-mentioned workshops for students, a workshop was also organized for university lecturers. The actors were trained to develop Service Learning offered at the interface of university and school. A virtual workshop aimed at the reflection and evaluation of the stay abroad, as well as the creation of a diary for the cohorts of the UNITE scholarship holders 2021, was success­ fully carried out. The evaluation will serve to develop the mobility format fur­ ther. A virtual webinar and workshop on online formats, planning, and design of digital/hybrid events were offered to UNITE project staff as well as to coopera­ tion partners in Germany and abroad. Since the Summer School was planned for 2022, an individual consulting session for the UNITE staff of the UoC was also offered, so professional preparation was a key factor in the event’s success. Another workshop was designed to train the future UNITE scholarship holders on interculturality—especially with respect to their future employability—and to sensitize them about sustainable and climate-friendly travel. Long-Term Formats We understand long-term mobility as a period lasting more than a week up to one semester, though there might be other time frames. In a virtual scenario, the semester can be divided into several shorter units strung together as a series. Participants have the option to attend any number of sessions up to all sessions in a row. The formats as they are presented here are deliberately designed as series. In this way, participants are offered the opportunity to gain a variety of

Internationalization in Teacher Education

263

perspectives on a wide range of topics. At the same time, the degree of inter­ nationalization is increased, and different lecturers with differing university affiliations offer each session. These formats, thus, are characterized by multi­ perspectivity that allows participants to broaden their horizons accordingly and delve deeper into intriguing topics as a follow-up. For organizers, these formats provide room for wide-ranging international cooperation. #DifferenceMatters: Sensitive and Professional Handling of Diversity in the Classroom (Justus Liebig University Giessen) Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, students have been confronted with an overabundance of virtual events. Not infrequently, this circumstance has resulted in very low attendance at virtual lectures or workshops. To coun­ teract this, three Lehramt.International projects (Darmstadt, Giessen, Marburg) joined forces in the Summer semester of 2022 and organized the virtual event series #DifferenceMatters: Sensitive and Professional Handling of Diversity in the Classroom. The three events taking place within five weeks were open to students from the three organizing German universities as well as their project partners. With participant numbers between 25 and 50 per session, the coop­ eration served its purpose. As to the content of individual sessions, the focus was on topics connected to the internationalization of teacher education in that they fostered transcultural competencies and awareness. The cooperation has also proven worthwhile because the projects with their different subject foci, as well as target groups, were able to provide contributions beneficial for the stu­ dents of the participating universities. Lunchtime Lecture Series (Europa University Flensburg) During the spring semesters of 2021 and 2022, EUF organized a series of digital lunchtime lectures on Current Challenges in Internationalising Teacher Training and Digitalisation of Education. The general purposes of the lecture series was to: � � � � � �

raise awareness among teacher-students and lecturers on different topics within the internationalization of teacher training; contribute to teacher students’ internationalization by making them and university staff interested in different educational systems and views; connect staff and students across the universities; exchange ideas with scholars in various fields and with fellows; sharpen critical thinking; develop intercultural empathy.

Lecturers and/or students from all five project partner universities participated in 12 lectures per semester. The lecture took 15 minutes, followed by a 15-minute discussion in the first year and a 30-minute discussion in the second year as the audience asked for more time to discuss and connect. Whereas in 2021, only

264

Kathrin Wild et al.

lecturers and administrative staff gave talks, in 2022, students also contributed. We encouraged them to realize themselves as co-designers of digital education within the internationalization of teacher training. The lectures were moderated in turn by the participants to facilitate networking. In 2021, we registered seven to 35 attendees per lecture. In 2022, we expected to raise the number of attendees; however, it declined to between one and seven participants per session. With this in mind, the course in 2022 was offered in a hybrid format where students and staff could join either online or attend the EUF campus course room in person. Nevertheless, we did not reach a more significant number of attendees which means that the attendance does not necessarily depend on the format of the meeting, but most probably its content, aim, and delivery style. The current practice shows that the project made it possible to include all partner universities: whether staff or students as nobody had to travel. Because of the cooperation between different universities, it was also possible to widen the range of topics, to reach more speakers as well as a bigger audience, and with this offer the possibility of broadening the international network. Theoretically, we could reach/invite more students to contribute. Hindering factors may have been the timing as some might not have accepted the invitation if the talks were during lunchtime; it probably felt more like sacrificing the lunch break. We also observed that the audience constantly changed due to the wide range of topics, which means that people were concerned with the topic of the meeting rather than any other factor. Overall, this was a very positive experience.

Conclusion The internationalization of teacher education is primarily based on enabling stu­ dents and colleagues to spend some time abroad. Noteworthy, however, is the creation of international and intercultural opportunities. As for now, due to the global pandemic and limited physical mobility, there has been a significant shift to virtual solutions in the internationalization of teacher education. The digital offerings have become paving the way for the digitization efforts of our four Higher Education Institutions and the partner universities in the area of teacher education. The transition to the new digital formats in 2020 and 2021, which we all demanded, almost meant a quantum leap in the internationalization process. Our path to virtual internationalization in teacher education is accompanied by hindering and supporting factors. Especially at the beginning of the pan­ demic, it was hard to include all partners because of the high demands of digital teaching they were confronted with. One of the most severe difficulties is brid­ ging the distance within virtual space and connecting with others. People can feel alienated. Misunderstandings arise more easily; it can be challenging to ask questions or work in groups during online or even hybrid sessions, especially in the case of sensitive topics. Intercultural interactive activities, which need e.g., body positioning, actions like avoiding/searching for eye contact, and group formation, can cause implementation difficulties. Offers at different times and in

Internationalization in Teacher Education

265

different time zones show that there is no perfect timing to increase the number of participants. In times when there is an overabundance of virtual events, it is not easy to reach out to the target group: there must be intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. Offering a wide range of topics can both draw attention to a format and create a constantly changing audience. There seems to be a need for a balance between digital and physical mobilities. While discussing impeding factors, we can also state promoting ones. Whereas many at the beginning of the pandemic struggled with technical aspects, these have become less and less an issue. Counseling for the challenge of digital teaching and learning is offered. Nowadays, there is a wide range of collaborative online tools. Therefore, virtual formats make it possible to include everybody without a need to travel, making it possible to join sponta­ neously without exposing oneself to health risks. For the students, extracurricular activities for involvement and familiariza­ tion are helpful as well as concrete tasks. Whereas at the beginning of the pandemic, students suffered from a lack of mobility opportunities, it might have become more important that the topics offered are relevant for them, and it is even more motivating for them to earn ECTS credits. The virtual international format may be part of regular (non-obligatory) courses recognized by a certifi­ cate. It can also be motivating for students to be included as an agent. On the institutions’ side, a key factor for successful formats is their incor­ poration into the entire institution. This is the basis for networked commu­ nication of all actors within the different institutions. A commitment of partners is high when the previous contacts have already been fruitful, and trust has grown over past experiences. This commitment makes it possible to offer a wide range of topics, reach a broader audience, and expand international net­ works. Offering professional preparation makes everybody confident and leads to an event’s success. Virtual formats have become an essential part of internationalization in tea­ cher education, though virtual mobility is still in its infancy. Planned and con­ ducted carefully, virtual formats can widen the students’ horizons and whet their appetite for internationalization in general and, in particular, for physical mobility. Therefore, it is necessary to continue optimizing the offers and the didactic implementation.

Notes 1 The program Lehramt.International is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). 2 German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), https://www.daad.de/en/information­ services-for-higher-education-institutions/further-information-on-daad-programmes/ lehramtinternational/.

connect scholars and students from partner universities; provide a plattform for discussing international, intercultural and interreligious perspectives on Islamic Religious Education; foster intercultural, language and digital competence; enhance the students’ didactic competence; contribute to the professionalisation of pre-ser­ vice teachers; acquaint stu­ dents with our partner universities; promote studying abroad

Students (Primary/ Secondary Education with the subject Islamic Religion, Theology, Religious Education) and lecturers from partner universities; interested public

Summer School

Justus Liebig University Giessen

Virtual Winter School: bring students together and let them learn new things about different school systems while at the same time develop intercultural competencies during the common group work Hybrid Teaching Week: professional exchange and find possibilities for common projects, teaching and research

Virtual Winter School: students from Germany and the partner universities Hybrid Teaching Week: Teaching staff from Germany and the partner universities

Virtual Winter School and Hybrid Teaching Week

Ludwigsburg University of Education

Objectives

Target group

Virtual Formats

University

Table 21.1 Short and long-term virtual formats

Appendix

Project partners (teaching staff and students), DAAD

Students, lecturers, project team, partner universities, DAAD

3 days

Stakeholders

1 week

Time frame

Interreligious education from an Islamic perspective (lectures, workshops, discussions)

Virtual Winter School: exchange on how diversity is handled in the classroom and differences between different school systems Hybrid Teaching Week: exchange on projects and common interests

Content

safer because a virtual event can happen despite rising numbers (pandemic)

everyone could participate without having to travel; German students could earn credits; participants in the Winter School showed interest in student exchange afterwards

Supporting factors

upkeep of motivation over several days; bridging the distance; create a sense of the group/of belonging to a group of learners; familiarizing partici­ pants with the city of Giessen virtually

online format made interaction sometimes difficult because of technical (bandwidth, interruptions) and social reasons (difficult to dare speaking up); in the hybrid setting it was difficult to include everyone at a time

Impeding factors

266 Kathrin Wild et al.

Winter School

Tandem Teaching Collaboration

Europa University Flensburg

University of Cologne

Virtual Formats

University

university lecturers, project staff

exchange between students and teachers; gain insight into everyday requirements in school

2–4 hours

teacher training students, in-service teachers

Workshops

Europa University Flensburg

peers, university lecturers, project staff and school teachers, DAAD

2–4 hours

get to know different physical mobility formats; reduce the worries about student mobility; preparation for student mobility; stimulate reflection processes

teacher training students

Workshops



Europa University Flensburg

professors from home university and professors from partner university

2 hours online seminar + preparation of materials and presentations in advance in each of the courses independently

international cooperation, developing common teaching content across cultural differences

students and teachers from regular courses with similar themes respect teacher training: from both home university and partner university

language-sensitive teaching; plural approaches to foreign language teaching

mobility formats; condensed insight into intercultural communication processes; everyday school life shaped by migration and interculturality

varies according to range of topics

Intercultural Education

staff from partner universities

1 day

share ideas about different perspectives on education; raise awareness on intercultural topics in education; train critical thinking and develop intercultural empathy

teacher students, school teachers, university staff

Content

Stakeholders

Time frame

Objectives

Target group

practice-related topics; German students could earn credits for later training as an inservice teacher

relevant topics; partly obligatory

students and teachers of the seminar groups of the respective university know each other from regular courses; a relationship of trust exists; working over long distances possible.

lack of mobility opportunities for students -> possibility to internationalise at home

Supporting factors

narrow topics; less interactive

less interactive; not relevant for students not interested in mobility; some took place in the evening

virtual world prevents personal closeness; alienation; mis­ understandings; tech­ nical difficulties; network reception can be interrupted

high demands of digi­ tal teaching for lecturers in beginning of pandemic -> less active participation

Impeding factors

Internationalization in Teacher Education 267

Virtual Formats

Work- shops

University

University of Cologne

Workshop A: all teacher training students, both home university and partner university interested in the offered themes Workshop B: academic or administrative staff both home university and partner university interested in the offered themes related to teacher training Workshop C: cohorts of the tea­ cher training funded programme by the DAAD – UNITE Cologne scholarship holders 2021

Target group

A and B: international cooperation, developing common teaching content across cultural differences, to reach the best possible consolidation of the intercultural competences of students and teachers C: reflection and evaluation of the stay abroad plus using a reflection diary

Objectives A and C: 2 days, 5 hours B): 2 to 4 hours online seminar without preparation in advance

Time frame professionel staff from independent coaching unities

Stakeholders A: socio-political topics: Diversity, Teching Techniques, Gender-sensitive Approaches and Counteracting Racism in the classroom. B: Training to develop Service Learning offers at the interface of university and school C: Theories of different reflection modules and their application, how to use and evaluate a reflection diary

Content students and academic or administrative staff do not know each other personally (except workshop C); multidimensional target group and offer of extremely interesting insights; no impediment for interested groups with disabilities; working over long distances possible

Supporting factors

virtual world prevents personal closeness; relationship of trust does not exist; aliena­ tion, misunderstand­ ings; technical difficulties; network reception can be interrupted

Impeding factors

268 Kathrin Wild et al.

Virtual Formats

Lecture series: #DifferenceMatters: Sensitive and Professional Handling of Diversity in the Classroom

Lunchtime Lecture Series

University

Justus Liebig University Giessen (in cooperation with Technical University Darmstadt and Marburg University)

Europa University Flensburg

teacher training students, university staff, in-service teachers

students from Justus Liebig University, Technical University Darmstadt, Marburg University and partner universities within the Lehramt.International projects

Target group

raise awareness among teacher students and lecturers on different topics within internationalisation of teacher training; contribute to teacher students’ internationalisation by making them and university staff interested in different educational systems and views; connect staff and students across the universities; exchange ideas with scholars in different fields and with fellows; sharpen critical thinking and develop intercultural empathy

sharpen the view of challenges, but also the opportunities of difference, diversity and plurality within the classroom

Objectives

12 sessions/ semester each 30–45 minutes

May 16-June 21, 2022

Time frame 3 lectures with different content: Educational ideas of Muslim parents, Gender and sexual diversity at school, Intercultural differences as a potential for conflict and a resource in school life

Current Challenges in Internationalising Teacher Training; Digitalisation of Education

staff from partner universities, teacher students

Content

project coordinators, students, partner universities, DAAD

Stakeholders

easy access for all interested without traveling; wide range of topics; reaching more audi­ ence through cooperation between different uni­ versities; reaching (theoreti­ cally) more students by including them with contributions; possibility to widen network

reaching a higher number of students through cooperation between three German universities; offering content to students they would not be exposed to at their home universities; virtual events are more inclusive, you can join spontaneously

Supporting factors

taking away lunch break; possibly too wide range of topics

lectures in the evening prevent from partici­ pation; highly sensitive topics; ZOOM bombing

Impeding factors

Internationalization in Teacher Education 269

270

Kathrin Wild et al.

References Ahlgrimm, F., & Westphal, A., & Wallert, A., & Heck, S. (2019). Weshalb Studierende (nicht) ins Ausland gehen. Prädiktoren für Mobilität im Lehramtsstudium. In C. Falk­ enhagen, N. Grimm, & L. Volkmann, (Eds.), Internationalisierung des Lehramts­ studiums. Modelle, Konzepte, Erfahrungen (pp. 211–233 ). Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh. Bijnen, H., Boussemaere, M., & Rajagopal, K. (2006). European Cooperation in Educa­ tion through virtual mobility: a best-practice manual. Europace. DAAD/DZHW (2019). Wissenschaft weltoffen 2019. Daten und Fakten zur Inter­ nationalität von Studium und Forschung in Deutschland. doi:10.3278/7004002rw. Iucu, R., & Ciolan, L., & Nedelcu, A., & Zus, R., & Dumitrache, A., & Cartis, A., & Vennarini, L., & Férmamdeu de Pinedo, N., & Pericicä, A. (2022). Digitally enhanced mobility – CIVIS Handbook on Virtual Mobility. CIVIS, a European Civic University. Kercher, J., & Schifferings, M. (2019). Auslandsmobilität von Lehramtsstudierenden in Deutschland: Ein Überblick zur Datenlage und zu praktischen Umsetzungsbeispielen. In C. Falkenhagen, N. Grimm, & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Internationalisierung des Lehramts­ studiums. Modelle, Konzepte, Erfahrungen (pp. 235–261 ). Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh. Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalization at Home from a Swedish Perspective: The Case of Malmö. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 27–40. Schön, H., & Sliwka, A. (2014). Towards global identities: internationalization of tea­ cher-training at the Heidelberg University of Education. In G.-B. von Carlsburg & T. Vogel (Eds.), Baltische Studien zur Erziehungs-und Sozialwissenschaft (Vol. 28.) (Towards global identities: internationalization of teacher training at the Heidelberg University of Education) (pp. 81–90). Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. Schopp, E., Clauss, A., & Akbar Safavi, A. (2020). A Framework to Boost Virtual Exchange through International Virtual Collaborative Learning: The German-Iranian Example. In Virtual Exchange; Selection of Conference Papers. DAAD. Vriens, M., Van Petegem, W., Op de Beeck, I., Achten, M., Gómez Chova, L., Martí Belenguer, D., & Candel Torres, I. (2010). Virtual mobility as an alternative or com­ plement to physical mobility. In EDULEARN 2010. 2nd International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (pp. 6695–6702). International Association of Technology, Education and Development (IATED), Spain.

Conclusion

Tamilla Mammadova

The current book attempts to reflect the existing challenges of international aca­ demic mobility in the intersection of pre-, within- and post-pandemic times. While the authors revealed the realities of global mobility in various settings, they opted to offer solutions that would trigger a step toward possible enhancement and rectification. The first part of the collection has peered into the language and culture development and identity construction within international mobility. The three are said to be tightly linked, as both language and culture constitute human identity. The studies conducted in the first part revealed that the conformation of new identities of mobility students is related to the duration of their stay, students’ perception of the host citizens, and interaction with local people. Moreover, the attitudes of local people towards mobility students shape their decisions to choose or not to choose a destination country. Researchers need to recognize international students’ past histories and social networks to convert students into resources for building positive identities and extensive networks in the educational context. Additionally, it is vital to prepare young generations for globalization and help them acquire a sense of belonging to international communities keeping ties to their country of origin. It is also suggested that educational practitioners think of separating the segregation between local and international students and creating favorable socializing conditions that would positively affect global identity formation. Students can also navigate or reshape their identities while being treated as knowledge-holders and decision-makers. Student-partnership projects serve well in knowledge and culture interchange that would promote better interaction. Several chapters revealed that develop­ ing intercultural awareness may help students quickly adjust to a different con­ text. To do so, both in-class and out-class interactions should be promoted between international and local students where an actual cultural interchange will take place. In turn, instructors should be aware of culturally sustaining pedagogy that systematically provides intercultural awareness using instruc­ tional implementations. Finally, one of the most debatable questions is the learning and using a language that would serve as a means of academic instruction and communication between the locals and mobility actors. Studies on EFL revealed that English remains a lingua franca for most mobility affairs. DOI: 10.4324/9781003366942-26

272

Tamilla Mammadova

It improves intercultural communication, enables cooperation within research projects, and increases academic and professional opportunities. Alternatively, learning local languages is essential to culturally and linguistically enrich the mobility actors. Studies showed that students are willing to learn local languages and cultures. However, the linguistic choice is mainly driven by (a) the linguistic objectives in a specific context and (b) the local language landscape and language policy that have a substantial impact on mobility actors who choose to learn the local language. To promote learning local languages and cultures, university administrators can enrich the social and academic programs, provide domestic interaction with local students, and design pre-departure study abroad sessions. The latter is further discussed in the third part, where virtual mobility is envi­ sioned as a part of traditional exchange programs. Going back to English, it should be extensively taught to and used by international mobility actors unless it does not hegemonize the local linguistic landscape of the recipient countries. Educational policies should be in place that encourages the mingling of students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, most probably, English serving as a language of international communication. The book’s second part dealt with international academic mobility in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapters looked into the general challenges most students and stakeholders faced at the time when governments imposed regu­ lated and restrictive lockdowns. We approached the issue from the point of view of travel restrictions, network capital, friendship, managerial work, actors’ cultural and linguistic competencies, students’ engagement, and online collaboration in various educational settings. The studies revealed that during the pandemic time, most of the domestic and international travel in the resear­ ched countries was restricted. As a result, international students could not similarly gain network capital as in the prior pandemic due to the closure of university facilities and limited possibilities to socialize. Managers were unpre­ pared to demonstrate flexible and well-organized support that would mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the educational process within international mobility. Alternatively, some mobility programs shifted to the virtual environ­ ment. While for some students, collaborative online international learning turned into a communication platform to share fears, knowledge, and experi­ ences, for others, the mis-implementation of online collaboration led to a dras­ tic decrease in cultural and linguistic competencies. Additionally, subjectspecific goals were substituted by domestic problems and concerns. Studies also showed that during the virtual interchange, the freedom given to students should be well-balanced. In other words, giving students too much or too little freedom may cause frustration leading to disengagement and demotivation. The authors developed some suggestions to benefit international academic mobility in line with the investigated challenges. For example, it is believed that uni­ versities should reflect and establish contingency plans to cope with similar future events, including public health crises, wars, natural disasters, etc. For this, it is necessary that universities proactively foster closer relations between staff, international students, and domestic students. Study abroad can also be

Conclusion

273

facilitated online, but some elements need improvement. For instance, developing online communities for students to communicate, creating more options for learning and personal growth through online platforms like virtual tours, and providing online classes that are active and engaging need to be taken care of. Universities should also ensure that programs are effectively planned and imple­ mented. As to students’ cultural, linguistic, and content-specific orientation, the emergence of distance internationalization can be a way out. The main engine for effectively implementing distance internationalization should be a well-tailored program, well-organized academic staff, flexible pedagogy, an active learning framework, and safe technology. All these features are capable of shaping a complementary academic mobility mode in a virtual dimension. This will give rise to new projects and different collaborations in educational frames. The volume’s third part discussed emerging distance internationalization as a new paradigm of international academic mobility. It juxtaposed the traditional context of academic mobility with a newly emerging digital one. The chapters unveiled the opportunities to incorporate short and long-format online colla­ boration in frames of international academic mobility. Short-term formats inclu­ ded summer and winter schools in hybrid and hyflex modes, tandem teaching collaborations, and workshops. Among long-term formats, projects are summer and winter semesters and lecture series. Moreover, the chapters effectively dis­ tinguished between internationalization abroad (IA), internationalization at home (IaH), and internationalization at a distance (IaD). While the first one stands for traditional academic mobility, the latter two encompass the use of technology as an integral part. To draw some general conclusions regarding the current issue, I will use the term virtual mobility (VM), which stands for any academic mobility implemented via digital technology. Thus, studies have proven that virtual aca­ demic mobility considerably expanded as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and consequently, technology helped keep international education alive during lockdowns. Despite this, today, virtual mobility, mainly IaD, is seen as an opportunity for students to receive international education because of its low cost and no need for cross-border mobility. Well-tailored virtual student mobility helps students experience cultural differences, remain cognizant of geographical locations, and use technology resourcefully. As an illustration, we could observe that students were capable of making meaning of their environment by creating a multimodal expression of the culture of their country or region from their per­ spectives which pointed to the way to make virtual mobility an integral part of many educational programs. In other words, virtual student mobility promotes the successful integration of cross-cultural collaboration for developing inter­ cultural and global competence in education, i.e., the outcomes that need con­ tinued optimization to bridge cultural divides and foster global collaboration for mutual well-being and co-existence. For academic staff, virtual mobility may serve well in bridging educational institutions: foster intercultural sensitivity, promote cooperation with international team members, work on international online projects, negotiate ideas, and strengthen the relationship with partners. At a basic level, virtual mobility may serve as a preliminary step for physical

274

Tamilla Mammadova

mobility to facilitate students’ linguistic adaptation and promote communication competencies. Several suggestions have been made by the contributors to stimu­ late adequate virtual academic mobility. IaD can be in the form of joint online teaching and joint degree programs with domestic and foreign higher education (HE) institutions. A combination of domestic and foreign curricula integrating multi-campus learning resource services can be arranged among HE institutions. Cross-cultural teaching curricula with clearly communicated guidelines and eva­ luation standards should be designed. Multiliteracy pedagogy in a virtual envir­ onment can promote a glocal curriculum. This will become possible once the instructors successfully integrate online cross-cultural communication into every­ day classroom activities, communicative activities that would be respected and acknowledged by the HE officials. Instructors and staff should be equipped with technical, online, and offline teaching toolkits. Educational institutions should also address time differences, conflicting schedules, and internet connectivity. All in all, virtual formats have become an essential part of internationalization in education, though virtual mobility is still in its infancy. Planned and conducted carefully, virtual formats can widen the horizons of educational parties and serve as an excellent start to pursue physical mobility. Therefore, it is necessary to continue optimizing the offers, establish partnership contacts, and reconsider the virtual mobility that may either act as a new form of international education or complement the already existing one. So, the current volume will establish a good platform for scholars and researchers to consider new conditions and possibilities to merge physical and virtual mobility in an advanced and sophisticated way.

Index

academic staff 107, 111, 273 active engagement 102, 222 active learning 99, 129, 141, 171–6 adaptation problems 15 agency 71–78, 98–104, 222, 225–40 agentic involvement 100, 103 agentic knowers 99, 104 autonomy 169–176 Bakhtin’s Heteroglossia 40 bilingual policies 37, 45 bilingual society 49 Bourdieu’s Linguistic Capital 39 COIL 179–183, 208–9, 244–253 COIL policy analysis 183, 187 collaborative virtual exchange 244 colonialism 95, 245 COVID-19 epidemic 125 critical consciousness 109, 111, 115, 226 cross-cultural competencies 165 cross-cultural interaction 198, 211 cross-cultural partnership 95 cultural competencies 156, 179 cultural distance 60 cultural diversity 10, 108, 112, 211 cultural immersion 157, 159, 163, 165 cultural settings 115, 231 culturally sustaining pedagogy 107, 110 decolonizing pedagogy 246, 253 digital distance learning 157, 159, 160–3 digital platforms 156–7, 163, 248 digital spaces 151 distance internationalization 153, 165, 189, 193, 198, 200–2, 273 domestic internationalization 197

English as a medium of instruction 15, 24, 30, 38 Englishization 24–6, 30–1, 37–9, 41, 44, 46 equal collaboration 102 Erasmus 11, 24–32, 59, 65, 67, 147, 157, 195–97, 207–9, ethnoscape 83, 91 European community 2, 12 European higher education 24, 26, 31, 164, 197 European identity 9–20 Europeans 10, 16, 19 exchange students 12–3, 24–6, 145–53, 230 exchange students’ friendship 145, 150, 152 friendship networks 145–52 glocal dialogue 223, 226 growth mindset 98 Heteroglossia 39–40 home culture 15 homesickness 15, 136 host community 71, 79, 157, 161, 165 host context 59–60, 66–7 host country 29, 31, 48, 63, 96, 109, 112, 136, 138, 149, 157–59, 165, 244 host culture 15, 60, 68, 135, 159, 163 Hybrid/HyFlex teaching week 258 identity construction 3, 53, 57, 74, 76 identity markers 48 identity transformation 18 in-between identities 95–6 intercultural awareness 107, 111, 114–16, 253, 261, 271 intercultural citizenship 20

276

Index

intercultural competence 24, 107, 182, 195, 205–6, 245, 262 intercultural development 29, 140, 248–9 intercultural learning 72, 107, 110–11, 115, 201, 208, 210–11 intercultural reflexivity 223, 226 intercultural sensitivity 191, 195, 243–44, 253 interculturality 72, 220, 261–62 international education 71, 78, 79, 111, 134, 140, 179–80, 189, 195, 197–200, 210, 215, 249, 256 international identities 107 international mobility programs 9, 20, 156–7, 163–65 internationalization 24–6, 71, 107–8, 179, 193–94, 196–202, 205, 219–20, 243, 245, 256, 259, 264 internationalization abroad 191, 193, 197, 205 internationalization at home 191, 193–94, 205, 219, 256, 258–60, 273 internationalization of education 191, 193, 196, 198 internationalization of higher education 24, 71, 193–99 internationalized curriculum 256–57

mobility programs 7, 9, 11, 18–21, 31, 107, 109, 111–14, 156–57, 163–65, 189, 197, 240, 272 monolingual language policies 38 multiculturalism 46, 109 multilingual diversity 38 multilingual society 37 multilingual students 37 multilingualism 38–40, 46, 48, 109 multiliteracies 219–21, 223, 224, 226–27 multimodal campaigns 220, 224

knowledge co-creation 102 knowledge-holders 94–8, 104

relatedness 169–70, 172–73, 176 returnees 83–7, 89–92

language and literacy socialization 73, 78 language attitudes 48–50 language barrier 15, 188 language policies 37–9, 41 language proficiency 26, 29, 30–1, 57, 90 lingua franca 32, 40, 46, 60, 109, 225, 230, 271 linguistic competencies 156–57, 164, 272 linguistic diversity 110 linguistic hegemony 39–40, 45 linguistic homogenization 38 linguistic landscape 39, 45–6, 66–7, 272 local citizens 15, 20 local institutions 28 local language courses 30 local languages 30–2, 42, 46, 272 lockdowns 121–22, 125, 128, 130, 156–59, 162, 164–65, 182, 210 long-term mobility 191, 262

short-term mobility 209, 258 social capital 71, 146, 152 social connectedness 74, 78 social distancing 145 social network development 74–9 stereotypes 83, 91, 110–11, 114–16, 157 stress 125, 128, 141–42, 157 structured freedom 171, 176 student engagement 74, 167, 169, 176 student mobility 71, 78, 84, 107–9, 121–25, 146–47, 150, 156, 194–95, 206 student-centered learning 110–13 student-centeredness 113–14, 169–73 study abroad 11–3, 26–7, 59, 67, 72, 88, 133, 145, 206, 272 summer school 257, 259, 262 symbolic power 39

mediascape 83–4 minority language 40, 48, 51, 57, 61 mobility exchange programs 9–13, 19–20

national students 45 network capital 143, 145–47, 149, 152–53 networks 11, 54, 56, 72–9, 145–53 nursing education 179, 183 online collaboration 218, 220, 272–73 orientation programs 159, 161, 164 pedagogies of discomfort 250 Plurilingualism 26 positionality 83–4, 137 pragmatic socialization 73, 75–6, 78 pre-departure training 67 program coordination 119 project-based learning 180

teacher education 24, 221, 256, 258, 263–65 teaching staff 156, 258, 266 technology-based mobility 191, 205, 207–8 telecollaborative exchange 240 travel ban 122, 180

Index travel policies 121, 128 travel restrictions 121–22, 124, 127–29, 206, 209, 213, 272 values 10, 16–9, 94, 116, 240, 244, 253, 256 video feedback 232 virtual collaborations 206 virtual exchange 179, 189, 207, 209–11, 218, 227, 232, 243–44, 247, 253

277

virtual internationalization 256, 264 virtual mobility 109, 119, 150, 207, 230–31, 257–58, 273 virtual tandem 260 winter school 258–59, 273 workshops 172–73, 246, 257, 261–63, 273 zero COVID 121–2, 125, 128–9