Virtual Exchange Borderless Mobility between the European Higher Education Area and Regions Beyond Selection of Conference Papers Presented on December 11, 2019

Virtual Exchange Borderless Mobility between the European Higher Education Area and Regions Beyond Selection of Conference Papers Presented on December 11, 2019

Contents Introduction Boosting Exchange: Digital Formats as a Means to Enhance International Cooperation between the EHEA and Other Regions 1.1 Testing Online Inter-Institutional Collaboration across the Globe: The Virtual Exchange Program 1.2 A Framework to Boost Virtual Exchange through International Virtual Collaborative Learning: The German-Iranian Example Building Expertise and Capacity: What New Skills and Competence Challenges Arise for Higher Education Students, Teachers, and Staff? 2.1 Online Collaboration Among European, African and US Students: Building Bridges Across Continents Project 2.2 How to Overcome #Technophobia in Academia? The PlayDate – Invitation to Play, a “No fear but fun” Approach 2.3 COIL4COIL: Building Expertise and Capacity in Faculty at Durban University of Technology, South Africa Curriculum Development: How to Embed Virtual Exchange Formats in Study Programs to Create Networked, Cross-Campus Study Programs and Assure Quality? 3.1 Schools of Education as Agents of Change – A Virtual Semester Abroad for Indian and German Education Students 3.2 Curriculum Innovation for Intercultural Cross-Border Learning: The DoubleDegree Experience between UDS Ghana and HSD Germany 3.3 A Virtual Exchange Tool-Kit: From Micro-Credential Settings to Full Study Programs Administration and Management: Developing Guidelines for Students and Faculties 4.1 Virtual Exchanges: Developing Guidelines for Students and Faculty Conference Impressions 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 19 30 32 40 49 56 58 65 72 82 84 90

Dear Reader, “Virtual exchange” constitutes an important element in the current discourse on internationalisation in higher education. Hence, the Erasmus+ National Agency for European Higher Education Cooperation at the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) took the opportunity to organise a conference on "Virtual Exchange – Borderless Mobility between the European Higher Education Area and Regions Beyond" in Berlin on December 11, 2019. The event was part of the ongoing “Glob- al Policy Dialogue”, which is an initiative of the Bologna Follow Up Group (BFUG) dedicated to strengthening relations between the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and other higher education regions in the world. In the runup to the conference the DAAD published a call for papers and we were very pleased to receive numerous contributions, which dealt with the topic “Virtual Exchange” from very different perspectives. This range of voices shows that many universities around the world are currently experimenting with virtual formats for teaching and learning or have already anchored them in the study curriculum. However, there are also higher education regions that have little experience with virtual learning and would like to see opportunities for exchange and coopera- tion. Bridges need to be built here in order to fully exploit the potential of online learning worldwide. The contributions in the following pages include the papers selected for pres- entation at the conference. They investigate the challenges and best practises of virtual exchange in higher education regarding curriculum development, capacity building, and management and guidelines. As the various discussions during the Berlin conference showed, even if phys- ical mobility should not and cannot be replaced in the future, collaborative on- line learning plays a crucial role in facilitating academic cooperation, especially by enhancing, supporting, or complementing physical mobility, and as a component of implementing internationalisation-at-home. I hope this publication provides you with new and insightful ideas on virtual exchange within the European Higher Education Area and other higher education regions worldwide. Enjoy your reading! Dr Stephan Geifes D A A D / h c i e R e n n a s u S : o t o h P Director Erasmus+ National Agency “Higher Education” German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

Testing Online Inter-Institutional Collaboration across the Globe: The Virtual Exchange Program Dr Anne S. Helsdingen, Ecole Polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland Gijs Elkhuizen, MSc, Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands Françoise Docq, MEd, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium A Framework to Boost Virtual Exchange through International Virtual Collaborative Learning: The German-Iranian Example Prof Dr Eric Schoop, Technical University Dresden, Germany Alexander Clauss, MSc, Technical University Dresden, Germany Prof Dr Ali Akbar Safavi, Shiraz University, Iran 9 1

Definitions The agreement starts with some definitions and conventions that we highlight here to facilitate a shared understanding: • Home institution: the institution where a student is registered to pursue a degree. • Host institution: the institution offering an online course to students registered at one of the participating universities. • Virtual exchange students (VEP students): students taking a credit- bearing online course from a host institution. • Regular exchange students: students physically moving to an institution abroad for a semester of study. Objectives of the Virtual Exchange Program The agreement states: The objective of this agreement is to enable students to take online courses from the participating university (courses that are credit-bearing and appear on an offi- cial transcript), thus enriching their educational program without needing to tra- vel to the host university. These privileges extend to selected students from the participating universities. Moreover, during one of the first face-to-face meetings, several members ex- pressed the ambition that the VEP become an opportunity for teachers who want a global classroom and access to a broad student cohort. Indeed, the VEP has been offering international opportunities for students from the participating universities at no extra cost to the students. This is a great benefit, since in the regular exchange the involvement of extra costs excludes some students. The VEP was also expected to create an interactive international classroom, but this does not seem to be happening, probably because the VEP courses are self-paced and asynchronous, meaning that students do not have to be online at the same time to follow the online course. Nevertheless, the individual and self-paced nature of most of our online courses also carries a great benefit: it provides students an easily accessible, ubiquitous, and flexible way of enriching their personal study programs. The VEP objective was formulated mainly from a student’s perspective, but it also functions as a testbed for participating teachers. They have the opportuni- ty to explore the full potential of online education, e.g., bringing together differ- ent learning communities (registered students from different institutions, online learners, professionals, etc.) and experimenting with different forms of blended learning. Lastly, the VEP benefits the participating universities at an organizational level. The tight collaboration at administration level and necessary synchroniza- tion of administrative processes led to a unique situation in which different ways of administrative collaboration could be tested. Unfortunately, many rules and regulations of the home institutions still limit the number of VEP courses offered 11

Selection and Admission of Students The agreement further stipulates the process and the responsibilities of stake- holders involved in the selection and admission of the VEP students for a course: • Students […] apply at their home institution. • • • Students will be selected by their home institution on the basis of their previous academic merit, scholarly interests [….], and required prior knowledge. The home institution will supply the host institution with a list of students willing to follow the online course […] prior to the registration deadline […]. The host institution will select and admit the exchange students […] as non-degree, credit-earning students […]. • A maximum capacity will be set by the host institution […] available places will be distributed over the institutions. • It is the parties’ desire that there will be a balance in the number of stu- dents exchanged […] by the end of the agreement. This process closely resembles the regular international student exchange pro- cess, with at least two approvals by both home and host institution. Nevertheless, the virtual aspect poses unique challenges. The fact that the VEP students will not be physically located at the host institution means that they may not possess the host country visa, insurance, or proof of residence that may normally be required for registration. They will be unable to come and show their photo ID, provide physical copies of tuition fee payments, collect their student ID, or activate their student account at the host institution campus. And as many of the online courses made available to VEP are in English, the VEP students are not required to speak the host language, and therefore they may struggle with the Learning Manage- ment System (LMS) in the host language. Hence, not only registration but also course enrolment of all VEP students is managed by VEP administrators at the host institution. This lengthy process may be justified in the case of semester exchanges, but is a lot of administrative work for just a single course. Furthermore, having different academic calendars and different regulations with respect to course selection and registration leads to loss of opportunity. Some of the institutions have one course registration period per academic year, whereas others have two or three course registration periods per year – one per semester, per trimester, or even just before the exam. This difference in registra- tion periods decreases the number of available courses at any one time for our students: when students at the home institution must decide on their courses, not all course information may be available, or the course at the host institution may not yet be open for registration. Currently, some participating home and host institutions have already made the administrative decision to include a VEP student as a new type of student, for whom certain administrative requirements are remitted. At the same time, we 13

VEP students may also miss information that is sent to their host institution email account. Some of them report not even being aware that they have such an account or confess not to check it on a regular basis. They also report being over- whelmed by irrelevant messages about local activities, sporting events, parking alerts, etc., especially if written in the local language they don’t understand. All this leads to VEP students feeling unconnected to the course and the host institu- tion. In case of questions, they prefer to contact their home institution rather than the course teacher. And as a result, they miss important deadlines or exams and thus fail the course, or they drop out of the course without notifying home or host institutions. Course teachers should be responsible for creating the optimal conditions for VEP students, but this may require extra effort. And teachers may be not aware, willing, or able to take care of specials needs of VEP students. Thus, we see some VEP administrators offer extra support themselves: tracking students, checking enrolments, checking students' learning activities, etc. If a VEP administrator is concerned about a student, they can intervene by contacting the individual stu- dent. This extra support may be relevant to help tackle the challenges of the VEP learning experience; however, it breaks the “small extra effort” principle of the initial agreement, as administrators usually do not monitor student progress and reach out to individual students. Finally, among the responsibilities shared by all stakeholders in a virtual ex- change, pedagogical support for VEP students must be explicitly addressed, in- cluding consideration of how that support affects teaching load, administrative effort, and student learning experiences. Assessment and Transfer of Credits The agreement reads: • The host institution is responsible for the assessment and grading of exams [...]. • In case of a written exam, the host institution will send the exam in a secure way to the home institution. In case of an oral exam this will be organized via a safe online communication tool. The home institution will organize the exam [...]. • The home institution may grant credit for courses and assessments completed at the host institution in accordance with the home institu- tion’s policies and procedures. • The host institution’s rules and procedures for complaint and appeal by students [...] are applicable. This passage refers to the idea that the VEP student is subject to the Educa- tion and Examination Regulations (EER) of the host. Sometimes, however, such regulations may be incompatible with those of the home institution. This can cre- ate dilemmas, such as in organizing host institution exams at the home institu- tion campus. For example, differences may exist in whether online proctoring is 15

Coordination At the start of the VEP program, details of the structure and procedure of the pilot project were formalized in the agreement: • The parties will have at least two general meetings per year to discuss course offerings and administrative procedures. • Each institution will designate one representative as liaison officer to facilitate student exchanges under this Agreement. Although the VEP pilot was initially thought of as a rather simple feasibility study to investigate the exchange of online courses for credits, it quickly became clear that we had no adequate procedures or infrastructure in place to exchange course information, register students, synchronize exams, etc. As we describe ear- lier in this paper, existing procedures and infrastructure were inappropriate for handling the specifics of virtual exchange. Thus, management of the VEP required a lot more coordination between partners than initially planned. In 2017, the op- erational group conducted an inventory of participating institutions to estimate each university’s capacity and effort involved in setting up all procedures and in- frastructure to run the VEP. This showed that universities required between 0.8 and 1.2 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) to set up the VEP. However, now that the VEP is up and running, the necessary capacity per participating university – acting as host and home – is estimated at 0.2 to 0.5 FTE for day-to-day operation and main- tenance of the VEP organization. As we approach the final phase of the pilot test of the VEP, many participating universities are looking into ways of embedding the VEP into existing university infrastructure. The procedures involved in day-to-day business include course pub- lication, student registration, course enrolment; remote exam management and sending transcripts; and maintenance of the infrastructure and tools, including website, course portfolio, marketing materials, and exam exchange platform. In many universities, these tasks are allocated to different departments or people. In addition, the processes involved in the VEP are truly different from the processes for regular exchange or regular student registration. Many participating universi- ties may therefore choose to allocate the VEP to a specific coordinator. Discussion and Conclusion At the start of the VEP, participating universities aimed to experiment with the implementation of an idea that seemed easy and natural: as we all had MOOCs running worldwide, we thought to offer them to each other’s students for credits. We agreed on four principles that, at the same time, framed and expressed our expectations for this pilot: 1) We decide to trust each other as valuable partners since we choose to collaborate on this experiment; 2) We use what we have so the extra effort should be small; 3) We accept the different academic calendars and even expect that this issue will be eased by the flexibility of online courses; 4) Because credits are at stake, we agree to provide the same exam, at the same moment and under the same conditions, to all students taking a particular course. Almost three years after articulating those leading principles, where are we? 17

A Framework to Boost Virtual Exchange through International Virtual Collaborative Learning: The German-Iranian Example Prof Dr Eric Schoop, Technical University Dresden, Germany Alexander Clauss, MSc, Technical University Dresden, Germany Prof Dr Ali Akbar Safavi, Shiraz University, Iran This article presents a transferable framework of an innovative formal learn- ing setting for the implementation of virtual exchange: Virtual Collaborative Learning (VCL). It uses the example of the DAAD-funded German-Iranian pro- ject to discuss the concrete implementation of the framework and its design dimensions. Gaining Teamwork Competencies The ability to work in decentralised, international groups based on collaborative information and communication technology (ICT) is quickly gaining importance as a globally required key competence. Both the European Union and the Organisa- tion for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) highlight collaboration skills, virtual communication, problem solving, the purposeful use of networked online tools, the development of social skills, and the creation of digital content as central key competencies for the 21st century (OECD, 2018; Rampelt, Orr, & Knoth, 2019; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). The acquisition of intercultural skills during a study period abroad is associated with high costs for travel and the local costs of living. Academic exchange mobility is highly dependent on external conditions. As a result, this type of mobility is not accessible to the vast majority of students; only a few privileged students have been able to acquire international teamwork skills in the past (van Schaik, 2019). ICT-supported collaborative learning settings using affordable, flexible technol- ogies allow local students and students abroad to connect virtually. This enables students to experience intercultural exchange adapted to their study content and integrated into their regular local studies without the need to invest additional time or money (Tawileh, 2016). It opens new opportunities for students who are economically or socially excluded from the physical mobility traditionally needed to gain international and intercultural experience (Otto, 2018). Two key concepts addressing these issues are virtual mobility and virtual ex- change. Virtual mobility is defined as “the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) to obtain the same benefits as one would have with physical mobility but without the need to travel” (Bijnens, Boussemaere, & Rajagopal, 2006, 19

Figure 1: Structure of a VCL scenario Organising an international VCL project to promote virtual mobility requires a complex, step-by-step implementation process, in which a variety of organisa- tional challenges have to be addressed. This preparation process is presented only schematically here. (See figure 2). Clauss, Lenk, and Schoop (2019) offer a detailed description of the challenges to be addressed in the preparation process, based on an earlier version by Balázs and Schoop (2004, p. 75). Figure 2: Complex preparation and organisation process of a VCL scenario In the planning of VCL scenarios, various design dimensions must be included. These dimensions are presented in the following chapter. Design Dimensions of VCL Projects VCL is based on four pivotal points to create and adjust a situation-oriented solu- tion: “Professionalised pedagogical support” by specially qualified E-Tutors; “real- istic cases and working tasks” to reach a maximum of interaction between team members; a “technical platform” providing necessary features for collaborative work; and a “learning analytics & information visualisation”. Together, these four fields produce multiple insights into learning processes for a partly automated support through social learning analytics visualised in a dashboard. 21

155 160 165 170 175 180 Title: A Framework to Boost Virtual Exchange through International Virtual Collaborative Learning: The German-Iranian Example Author: Eric Schoop, Alexander Clauss, Ali Akbar Safavi Date: 24.01.2020 Seite 6 Realistic Collaborative Self-organised Provide vocation-oriented knowledge Close connection to possible corporate problems as well as future job tasks Characterised by open solutions that need in-depth explanation, tasks should focus on gaining new, practical, usable knowledge through discussion and exchange Tasks must be solved in groups and need a multi-perspective input Learners learn from each other Active virtual communication is a must Self-determined scheduling and distribution of roles and tasks Learning supporters accompany learners instead of leading them Table 1: Main criteria for case study design Communication: Asynchronous tools enable structured and documented group discussions To facilitate a multi-perspective analysis of the case, participants must choose predefined roles and follow them. The roles determine the participants’ function and responsibility. The To facilitate a multi-perspective analysis of the case, participants must choose roles should be split up among the participants in a democratic way, based on a self-assessment predefined roles and follow them. The roles determine the participants’ function of individual strengths and abilities and on previous work and learning experiences. and responsibility. The roles should be split up among the participants in a demo- cratic way, based on a self-assessment of individual strengths and abilities and on Technical Platform previous work and learning experiences. During the virtual project phase participants work on a central social learning platform. Tawileh, Bukvova, and Schoop (2013) summarised the characteristics of the required features for Technical Platform collaborative work, as follows: During the virtual project phase participants work on a central social learning plat- form. Tawileh, Bukvova, and Schoop (2013) summarised the characteristics of the and synchronous tools allow real-time discussions and virtual group meetings, which are required features for collaborative work, as follows: required for instant communication, ad-hoc agreements, and urgent decisions, realised by text Communication: Asynchronous tools enable structured and documented group and voice/video chat and conferencing tools. discussions and synchronous tools allow realtime discussions and virtual group meetings, which are required for instant communication, ad-hoc agreements, and urgent decisions, realised by text and voice/video chat and conferencing tools. necessary to work collaboratively on a document or structured web page. A shared file storage enables the group to host, organise, and access files, which can be accessed location- Work on tasks and deliverables: Groupware tools that save the history of independent by all group members. changes are necessary to work collaboratively on a document or structured web page. A shared file storage enables the group to host, organise, and access files, Coordination: Personal coordination tools allow students to build personal networks with which can be accessed location-independent by all group members. group members and display personal skills, professional experiences and study background, as Coordination: Personal coordination tools allow students to build personal well as more informal details like hobbies, thus building up trust. Task coordination tools are networks with group members and display personal skills, professional experi- required to plan, assign, and display deliverables and to chart their progress. ences and study background, as well as more informal details like hobbies, thus building up trust. Task coordination tools are required to plan, assign, and display (www.elgg.com) as learning platform and social network. The technically open platform allows deliverables and to chart their progress. participants to work inside closed groups and provides a diverse selection of features for The example VCL project presented below was based on the open source solu- collaborative work: tion elgg (www.elgg.com) as learning platform and social network. The technically open platform allows participants to work inside closed groups and provides a di- verse selection of features for collaborative work: The example VCL project presented below was based on the open source solution elgg Work on tasks and deliverables: Groupware tools that save the history of changes are 6 23

Figure 4: Information visualisation for E-Tutors and teaching staff Implementation in a German-Iranian Project As an example for boosting virtual exchange by the application of our VCL frame- work, we present our latest international collaborative learning project, number 61 since 2001. In the summer term 2019, this VCL project was organised by the Chair of Information Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, at TU Dres- den. Students from TU Dresden and from Shiraz University, Iran, participated in mixed international and interdisciplinary groups. Background The basis of this cooperative teaching project is a knowledge transfer partnership between the participating universities, already established with a memorandum of understanding in 2016, renewed in 2018. The focus of the partnership is on com- mon research and teaching projects. Shiraz University has advanced e-Learning experience since 2000. In 2004, the first e-University program was conducted in one university discipline with about 200 students. Today, about 2,000 students are simultaneously studying in Shiraz University’s e-Learning programs. The programs include 14 degree programs, such as Bachelor and Master Programs in Electrical 25

Stage 5 – Evaluation: In the virtual phase, a lively synchronous and asynchro- nous collaboration was observed by the E-Tutors and was subject to evaluation (for students’ ECTS credits and individual grades). This VCL evaluation was comple- mented by quantitative data analysis (social learning analytics & information dash- board) and peer2peer evaluation in the groups and reflective self-assessments. The VCL case was further developed not only in the workshops in Dresden, but also the processes and results of the VCL collaboration were critically reflec ted upon and evaluated. Finally, suggestions for improvement and future develop- ment were documented. Conclusions and Outlook Due to the generous funding by DAAD and TU Dresden, for which we are very grateful, we had rather a unique situation in which the international VCL students could also experience physical mobility following the virtual exchange, with the chance to meet virtual collaborators personally and deepen their already well de- veloped mutual trust and team spirit. Following many reports from both German and Iranian students in the months after the group study visit, many of the connec- tions developed in Dresden were continued via WhatsApp, Instagram, or similar private platforms. More than six months after the event, several students remain in regular contact and some German students are motivated to visit Shiraz. In our eyes, the project’s initial targets were exceeded by far. Regarding the VCL framework, we received valuable praise, constructive cri- tique, and helpful suggestions for the improvement of the framework. In the com- ing summer term, the VCL project will be shifted to a professional IT platform, providing up to date functionality and user interface, especially mobile access. The information generated by learning analytics shall be shared with the student groups to contribute gamification elements, such as competitive indicators and formative assessment, and to support personalised feedback from the E-Tutors to students and groups. Based on iterative research, following the Design Science Re- search principle (Hevner, March, Park, & Ram, 2004), we are continuously refining the VCL framework, improving the learning arrangements, and documenting our experience in the digitalisation of Higher Education. Our goal is to foster interna- tionalisation in forms of didactical patterns and technical templates. 27

Safavi, A. A., Veisi, P. (2013). ”A Remote and Virtual PLC’s Laboratory via Smartphones”, (IEEE Xplore), Proceeding of ICELET 2013, Shiraz, Iran. Seuferth, S., & Mayr, P. (2002). Fachlexikon e-Learning. Wegweiser durch das e-Vokabular. Bonn: ManagerSeminare. Shum, S. B., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Social learning analytics. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge – LAK ’12, 15, 23. Tawileh, W. (2016). Virtual Mobility for Arab University Students: Design Principles for International Virtual Collaborative Learning Environments Based on Cases from Jordan and Palestine. TU Dresden. Tawileh, W., Bukvova, H., & Schoop, E. (2013). Virtual Collaborative Learning: Opportuni- ties and Challenges of Web 2.0-based e-Learning Arrangements for Developing Countries. In N. A. Azab (Ed.), Cases on Web 2.0 in Developing Countries: Studies on Implementation, Application, and Use (pp. 380–410). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Information Science Reference. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills.: Learning for Life in Our Times. John Wiley & Sons. van Schaik, F. (2019). Virtual mobility in vocational education. In Alkmaar: EMEU Engineering Mobility in Europe. Virtual Exchange Coalition. (2019). What is Virtual Exchange? Retrieved December 15, 2019, from http://virtualexchangecoalition.org 29

Online Collaboration Among European, African and US Students: Building Bridges Across Continents Project Prof Dr Lurdes Martins, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, Portugal Regina C. Brautlacht, MA, Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Sieg (University of Applied Sciences), Germany Dr Joseph Owino, University of Nairobi, Kenya Prof Dr Daniel Agyapong, University of Cape Coast, Ghana How to Overcome #Technophobia in Academia? The PlayDate – Invitation to Play, a “No fear but fun” Approach Bettina Pfändner, MA, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia COIL4COIL: Building Expertise and Capacity in Faculty at Durban University of Technology, South Africa Dr Penny Orton, Durban University of Technology, South Africa Lesley Anne Cooke, MEd, Durban University of Technology, South Africa 31 2

structive communication and interaction takes place between individuals or groups who are geographically separated and/or from different cultural backgrounds, with the support of educators or facilitators. Virtual Exchange combines the deep impact of intercultural dialogue and exchange with the broad reach of digital technology. (Jager, Nissen, Helm, Baroni, & Rousset, 2019, p. 7) Furthermore, virtual mobility is seen as a way to foster the development of job skills such as digital competence, foreign language competence, communi- cation savvy, media literacy, and working in culturally diverse contexts. Building Bridges Across Continents – Project Background Information Building Bridges Across Continents (BBAC) is an ongoing virtual mobility project which started in 2013 with only two countries, and has now expanded to include five higher education institutions on three different continents. Designing and im- plementing virtual mobility projects across continents goes far beyond decisions on the tasks and tools needed to facilitate students’ dialogues. It requires changes in pedagogy and didactical models, embracing competency-based and learner-led learning and guided independent self-study, where students take greater respon- sibility for their own learning, but with support and feedback from faculty coordi- nators. In addition, detailed planning, with a clear description of the different tasks and roles, is vital for success. This project has allowed students to think across the boundaries of disciplines and make use of knowledge and skills they have acquired, embracing challenges that require them to be curious, creative, open-minded, and flexible. One of the cornerstones of virtual exchange projects is pedagogical design. The BBAC project is underpinned by the Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework, created by Koehler and Mishra (2009). The TPACK Framework involves more than simply having knowledge of all three domains (Content, Pedagogy, and Technology). Instead, the purposeful blending of the domains is key and constitutes a frame for teaching in a more integrated and meaningful way. According to Koehler and Mishra (2009), “Teaching successfully with technology requires continually creating, maintaining, and re-establishing a dynamic equilibrium among all components” (p. 67). In terms of content, it is crucial to establish the learning outcomes expected from the project. Understanding cultural dynamics and differences, practicing dig- itally-enhanced collaboration and communication in an international environment, and practicing language are the main intended outcomes of the BBAC Project. To achieve them, relevant global topics have been selected, such as cultural diversity. Concerning pedagogy, socio-constructivism is the learning theory that best re- lates to this virtual exchange project approach. According to socio-constructivism, learning should involve social negotiation and dialogues, and students should be placed at the forefront of the learning process. The role of the teacher is crucial and involves creating an environment suitable for engaging in meaningful interac- tions. 33

Given that in Germany and Portugal the BBAC project is developed in a lan- guage-related course, language level may be used as a selection criterion. Coordi- nators are also responsible for integrating the project in the course assessment, aligning it with the course goals and outcomes. The table above shows that the BBAC project accounts for 15 to 20 % of the total assessment in each country. Student Tasks: Approach and Design Since 2013 the virtual exchange has developed through different cycles of action research (Stringer, 2007). Students and faculty coordinators reflect on the differ- ent tasks assigned, which are continually adjusted in light of technical, institution- al, national as well as behavioral change in all member countries. Planning Stage: The planning process begins eight weeks before the start of the project itself. The initial stage of planning the virtual exchange is to write down tasks in the form of student guidelines based on overall learning goals and the 21st century skills framework described earlier. Each country is involved in the writing process to monitor whether the described tasks can be executed on an institutional, course, and student level. In this phase, students’ evaluations from the previous project are examined by all country coordinators to ensure that pro- cesses are optimized. Support structures vary among the countries and before the tasks are finalized and approved by all country members, the guidelines are com- posed and often revised to provide clear, step-by-step instructions for technical, cultural, or administrative assignments. This document includes templates, includ- ing instructions on how to use technical tools or how to describe learner outcomes for each task. Implementation Stage: In this phase, the tasks defined are implemented by the students in each country. Students work online, but converse in class face-to- face through a number of reflection talks, and finally compose a reflection report on the tasks they have completed. In this phase, faculty, to see if adjustments are needed during the project itself or for future projects, note down some of the is- sues students are having. Throughout the six-year period, the tasks in this process have changed. Final Stage: In the final phase, we evaluate the students’ surveys of each pro- ject and adjust the project for the next year. For this paper, we selected the past two project phases from 2019, which fo- cused on cultural diversity, and could be implemented in a shorter time frame of nine or ten weeks, being normally offered in the winter term. The past project began in September and ended in November 2019. Overall, students needed to complete three tasks in an eight-week period. Orientation Workshop (week 1-2): First, students are offered an orientation workshop in each country. Each country gives a short overview of the goals of the project and the competencies that the students will acquire. Students are provid- ed with a printed version of the student guidelines and receive access to the pro- ject wiki. The project wiki is password protected and hosted by Germany. It offers one joint platform to access all written material, forms, and student information during the project. The participants get acquainted with the workspace and are 35

Findings and Discussion In order to evaluate the BBAC Project, we used both quantitative and qualitative data. On the one side, students’ final reflections were used to answer questions related to students’ experience and the impact of the project on the development of their intercultural and digital competences. On the other hand, an end of pro- ject evaluation was carried out using a structured questionnaire, which rated stu- dents’ perceptions based on broad intended learning outcomes, including inter- cultural communication, intercultural knowledge, interpersonal communication, digital media literacy, and research skills. In total, of the 51 students who participated in the BBAC in 2019 – Winter term, 50 completed the survey. Results demonstrate more possibilities of virtual col- laboration with other people globally using digital tools. Although pronunciation of English words varies across countries, it did not constrain communication. Stu- dents reported that meeting deadlines and dealing with different communication styles were the main challenges with intercultural communication during the pro- ject. Results also show that during virtual meetings, internet connectivity and net- work stability issues in Africa affected the quality of communication. In extreme cases, network disruptions rendered virtual meetings with Africa ineffective. For example, two virtual meetings were disrupted due to poor internet connectivity in Ghana and Kenya. Arranging meetings was a challenge for some students, as many factors are involved in arranging a meeting time and then conducting an interview. Some stu- dents were unfamiliar with negotiating a suitable time and found it difficult to consider the perspectives of other students from different time zones. The chal- lenges encountered were often not the interviews themselves, but failing to read or respond to emails in an efficient manner (48 hours), neglecting consider the time differences involved, showing little or no flexibility in considering the inter- viewee’s availability for meeting, changing the interview time slot spontaneously after it had been agreed to, or skipping an interview without giving prior notice. The evaluations show that students spent around one hour for each interview. The students, for the most part, had never conducted an interview before, either online or face-to-face. Results also confirm that after engaging in the virtual collaboration project, students’ confidence and knowledge using digital media significantly increased. The students learned how to use digital tools for purposes of research and com- munication. Content knowledge of country-specific issues increased among stu- dents, leading to better global awareness. Most students also emphasized that they became more confident in communicating with people from other countries. Watching a video about another country before engaging in an interview with a person from that country dispelled fears of the unknown about foreign cultures. Analysis of final reports indicates that students tended to be sceptical about vir- tual collaboration at the beginning of the project. However, the difficulties en- countered at the beginning fizzled out as students’ confidence improved. Virtual collaboration projects provide international exposure and help correct misconcep- tions about other cultures. This is captured in the following sentiment of one of the students: “Although I was not able to be there physically, I met new people virtually and broadened my horizons”. 37

References Beelen J. & Jones E. (2015). Redefining Internationalization at Home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi & P. Scott (Eds), The European Higher Education Area. Cham: Springer (pp. 59–72). Brautlacht, R., Agyapong, D. & Owino, J. (2018). Handbook of Applied Teaching and Lear- ning, German-African University Partnership Platform for the Development of Entrepreneurs and Small/Medium Enterprises. Bonn: Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Sieg, University of Applied of Applied Sciences, Germany. Howells, K. (2018). The future of education and skills: education 2030: the future we want. Working Paper. Paris: OECD. Jager, S., Nissen, E., Helm, F., Baroni, A. & Rousset, I. (2019). Virtual Exchange as Innovati- ve Practice across Europe. Awareness and Use in Higher Education. Retrieved from https:// evolve-erasmus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Baseline-study-report-Final_Published_ Incl_Survey.pdf Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. P21 - The Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2015). P21 Framework Definitions. Retrieved from: www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21 Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J. & Coulson, R.L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(1), 24–33. Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. 39

are created in collaboration with the student, learning materials are developed with the student as co-creator, aligned with personally meaningful and education- al worthwhile learning outcomes (Hunt & Chalmers, 2013, p. 120). In the tradition of the Bologna process to improve learning and teaching on a massive scale (Biggs & Tang, 2011, p. 8), James Dalziel (2016, p. 286) asserts there is a shift from a content focused to an activity focused learning design. Whilst the teacher role takes a turn from being a knowledge narrator to both a knowledge curator and student mentor, the student role shifts from a consumer of pre-pack- aged information into a producer and sharer of dynamic knowledge, building on collective prior knowledge of a team (Dalziel, 2016, p. 216). Content is not king anymore, context is. The university lecturer today is well advised to put both his own and the students’ knowledge in the right context to master today’s learning and teaching demands. As a result of this development we as educators have to ask ourselves: Is the one-man teaching act in front of the stu- dents still the optimum? How do we transform our long survived one-way teach- er-to-student communication from a monologue into a dialogue? And, do we even speak the same language? Dialogue vs. Monologue If we define the new teacher-student relationship as a process of co-creation of learning, where “co-creation is a learning journey in which two or more parties have to adopt new practices and processes in place of the established routines and habits”, (Akhilesh, 2017, p. 43) we as educators should indeed be able to speak the same language as our co-creating students. What is the vocabulary of the students of the 21st century? In April 2016 the European Broadcasting Union conducted a survey about what drives the 'Gener- ation What', a profile analyses of the European youth. We are dealing with Gen- eration I-NTERNET, moulded from a young age by the widely spread use of the Internet. As a result, we do have to strategize effective solutions to foster the shift to digital teaching. At most universities, technology is still mostly used to replicate traditional learning and teaching practices (Dalziel, 2016, p. 98). If it were used for delivery as well as design within integrated pedagogical purpose it could impact students’ learning much more effectively. Then, academia, the gatekeeper of knowledge, would need to overcome its technophobia. Educators also need to be willing to enjoy and to play with technology in a flexible way, shaped along learning out- comes, exploring alternative learning and teaching activities, as well as sometimes be open for unconventional assessment and feedback tools. In recent years, several universities have adapted their educational approaches to encourage and support the use of technologies in both classroom and online learning courses. Some programs combine both models into the blended learning approach of flipping the classroom (Ferreira, 2017) to deliver the content before the tutorial as video or online resource. James Dalziel (2016, p. 286) goes even further in stating that the rise of mobile devices and blended learning approaches demonstrates how technology can be a useful part of the classroom experience, 41

Walker and Kerrigan (2016, p. 99) ask rightly if teachers and students possess equal critical digital literacy ability? They demonstrate three scenarii: “1. Staff and students have an equal critical digital literacy, 2. Students have greater critical dig- ital literacy than staff, 3. Staff has greater critical digital literacy than students”. In any case, only as collaborators will both parties win, and yes, students could work as agents or partners of change, which could offer staff enrichment in their professional development (Walker & Kerrigan, 2016, p. 105). Teaching digital liter- acy does not mean teaching digital skills in a vacuum, but doing so in an authentic context that makes sense to students. It means teaching progressively rather than sequentially, which helps learners understand better and more clearly over time (Bali, 2016). O’Byrne (2016) argues that the Web is this generation’s defining tech- nology for literacy. The question remains, how and to what degree do university institutions and teachers need to alter existing practices regarding ongoing chang- es in communication environments in the practise of learning and teaching (Brown & Cinque, 2015, p. 1). Certainly, a prerequisite is to improve the capability of staff to teach in a technological world they did not grew up in (Walker & Kerrigan, 2016, p. 114). But what if the fear of technology takes over? Fear of something new? Educa- tors are not alone with this challenge. Illuminating this problem is the 2015 Ras- mussen College study Digital Literacy, which reports that one in four millennials want to improve their digital literacy, but 37 % find the Internet “scary”, more so than respondents aged 35 and over (Johnson et al., 2016, p. 24). If students and education will “never be the same again” (Brown & Cinque, 2015, p. 1), it is well time for academia to team up with students, let go of its fear of technology and jump into the unknown to meet each other, online. Workshop “The PlayDate – How to Reduce #Technophobia in Academia” Background: Hunt and Chalmers (2013, p. 120) call the teacher a co-learner. To teach this co-learner the skill of addressing a new challenge in life with fun and Internet tools has been the aim of the PlayDate workshop: to minimise #Techno- phobia in Academia. We designed a workshop for teacher educators and science teachers to develop co-creation skills through online tools in the framework of the Reconceptualising Maths and Science Teacher Education Program (ReMSTEP) pro- ject. ReMSTEP’s project activities were centred around developing new teacher education practices that align contemporary approaches to STEM with engaging teaching and learning. As a result of the limitless engagement of four major Mel- bourne universities with two departments each in science and teacher education, the ReMSTEP outcome has been 23 major activities. Seven innovations were iden- tified to focus the project’s activities over the three-year period of the initiative. There is no doubt that facilitating learning is a complex undertaking, and each lecturer deserves society’s greatest respect and support. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the issue causing the greatest amount of angst is the handling of on- line tools for educational purpose. This issue we address with our workshop “The PlayDate – Invitation to play”. 43

The Aim: The participants were asked to create a personal, visual appealing story with the Adobe Spark website tool1 about their journey and experience with the RemSTEP project. Furthermore, the goal of this workshop was multi- faceted: On a rather theoretical level the goal was to: 1. Overcome resistance against learning something new; 2. Promote co-creating learning and teaching; and 3. Train a more effective use of technology for learning and teaching. On a more outcome-oriented level the goal was to: 1. Let academics experience with the 'fun no fear' approach how to acquire a new skill; 2. Encourage academics to let go of their fear of technology by discover- ing how easy it is to work with online tools; and 3. Encourage to personalise their RemSTEP story. The participants were academics from all four RemSTEP partner universities, science lecturers and teacher educators. From Monash University nine academics attended, 12 from the University of Melbourne, five from la Trobe University and nine from Deakin University. The Method: The workshop’s overarching research question was to investigate the perceptions and uses of the Internet and its learning tools as learning and teaching design tools for teachers. The purpose of this workshop was to pinpoint those aspects and to draw a direct connecting line from losing the fear of learning a new skill to losing the fear of engaging with online tools. We asked the academics to bring openness of mind to learn, readiness to play and engage, emotional willingness to take opportunities to change. The workshop description, inclusive all online activities, can be found in the authors’ PlayDate booklet2. The Morning – playing in the 3rd dimension: This session consisted of a num- ber of activities selected to challenge participants intellectually, physically and emotionally. Tapping into the notion of learning new and not easily acquired mo- tor skills the participants were asked to integrate this experience into team prob- lem solving and cooperation, in a fun and no risk environment. Cooperative fine and gross motor activities such as juggling, rhythm exercises with video stimulus, and lateral thinking puzzles required movement and interaction with other team members. According to the feedback from the participants the activities were “enjoyable and engaging”. In addition, understanding the debrief with its education struc- ture, intent and process, added value to the experience. Each of the activities was 1. https://spark.adobe.com/de-DE 2. The PlayDate booklet can be found on the authors’ side on the following address: https://bit.ly/3daUx4l 45

Secondly, we wanted to get academics engaged with digital tools. At the end of the workshops, more than 80 % of the participating academics engaged with on- line tools. The author concludes that conceptualising learning a new skill with “fun no fear” is breaking down resistance in academics to consider using online tools in the context of co-creating content. Playing, reflecting, establishing a frame of reference in the familiar learning and teaching context, enjoying the process of discovery and implementing the discovery creatively left the participants with a feeling of fulfillment after completing the workshop. In their set of practice suggestions Walker and Kerrigan (2016) recommend for a successful integration of critical digital literacy within a learning design, a very practicable and fair approach for academics’ lifelong learning: “CPD provision is in place to develop staff critical digital literacy and staff are never asked to teach above their critical digital literacy level” (Walker & Kerrigan, 2016, p. 114). The author would like to suggest that this roadmap be adopted for future de- velopment at universities when it comes to educating educators in digital literacy. We cannot neglect to note that the mental and emotional obstacle of technology hinders good practise and interferes with teachers’ excellence. If academics, who are talented and engaging teachers in a face-to-face situation, are forced without an adaption phase to teach with technology, all effort of learning designers are foredoomed. But if the obstacle is rooted in our emotions, we are able to address that challenge of fear with fun. The PlayDate workshop might be able to diag- nose the level of digital literacy knowledge, and also offers a starting point for change in academia’s mindset towards using online tools for co-creating learning and teaching. This series of workshops let to the creation of the DigitalCompetencyStart- erKit, a free online course with facilitation on request. References Akhilesh, K. B. (2017). Co-Creation and Learning, Concepts and Cases. SpringerBriefs in Business. Bali, M. (2016). Knowing the Difference Between Digital Skills and Digital Literacies, and Teaching Both. viewed 1. February 2020. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. 4th ed, Open University Press, Berkshire, England. Brabazon, T. (2016). Play, a theory of learning and change. springer international publi- shing, Switzerland, ProQuest Ebook Central, viewed 1. February 2020. Brown, S. L. & Vaughan, C. C. (2009). Play: how it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York. Cinque, T. & Brown, A. (2015). Educating generation next: Screen Media use, digital compe- tency and tertiary education. Digital Culture & Education (DCE), viewed 1. February 2020. Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, C. & Bichsel J. (2014). Student and faculty technology research stu- dies. viewed 2. February 2020, Educause. 47

COIL4COIL: Building Expertise and Capacity in Faculty at Durban University of Technology, South Africa Dr Penny Orton, Durban University of Technology, South Africa Lesley Anne Cooke, MEd, Durban University of Technology, South Africa South Africa has a diversified post school education landscape which includes three different types of higher education institutions (HEI): traditional univer- sities; comprehensive universities, which offer traditional degree programmes and vocational programmes; and the universities of technology, which offer vocational diplomas and degrees. Durban University of Technology (DUT) is this third type of HEI. DUT has identified internationalisation of the curriculum and integration of e-learning as two of its key strategic objectives for innovation in teaching and learning. Furthermore, DUT has developed a set of graduate attributes that every student is expected to attain by the time they graduate. These attrib- utes include the following: critical and creative thinking, both independently and collaboratively; putting knowledge into practise; effective communica- tion; cultural, environmental and social awareness within local and global con- texts; and active and reflective learning. In pursuit of the two strategic objec- tives, and to promote the achievement of these attributes among graduates, DUT became, in 2016, the first African university to join the State University of New York (SUNY) Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) global network. The design, development and implementation of COIL projects offer innovative and authentic opportunities for students to develop the graduate attributes and to enhance and embed soft skills necessary for graduates to contribute effectively in the workplace. Internationalisation of Higher Education Internationalisation of higher education (HE) has developed over the last 25 years from being marginal and minor to global and mainstream. Conceptually, interna- tionalisation has grown from a narrow focus on scholarships for foreign students and international development projects, to a broad approach that includes brand- ing, international programmes, mobility, global citizenship, internationalisation at home, global rankings, knowledge diplomacy, cultural homogenisation, franchis- ing, and joint and double degree programmes (Knight & De Wit, 2018, p. 2). 49

there has been growing political and academic interest in more inclusive interna- tionalisation practices, there is still a lack of conceptual clarity around IaH and its practical applications (Beelen & Jones, 2015, cited in Almeida et al., 2019, p. 201). Virtual mobility initiatives such as COIL are recognised as being flexible, versatile, and inclusive approaches that moderate the problem that only a few students take up mobility. COIL and Internationalisation Such increasing needs for students to experience global perspectives and to be prepared for the global world of work have led to initiatives such as COIL. Over 15 years ago, COIL was conceptualised, led, and managed by the State University of New York (SUNY) (www.coil.suny.edu). Students who engage in a COIL project do not incur the financial costs, the time commitment, or other social impacts of study abroad programmes (Fowler, Pearlman, LeSavoy, & Hemphill, 2014, n.p.). The foundation of COIL is an extensive network of partners, and initiatives developed by SUNY to build the capacity of academic staff (faculty). Implementation of a COIL project begins with the development of a partnership between two academ- ic staff from different geographical regions of the world (drawn from the SUNY partners). The academic partners co-design a short (4–6 week) learning project to be implemented with their respective groups of students. Interestingly, the two partners do not have to be in the same field or discipline, or the students in the same level of study. The partners agree on clearly defined learning outcomes that jointly align with an area of the curriculum for which they are responsible. When the learning project is implemented, the students engage with each other virtu- ally through technology mediation pre-selected by the academic partners. COIL therefore provides innovative international learning experiences, aligned with the philosophy of IaH, and virtual mobility for both groups of students. COIL projects occur across the North-South global divide1 and the EastWest global divide, and are couched in diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, which makes them challenging. According to Rogers (2003, as cited in Li and Haung, 2016, p. 50), there are, based on when they adopt innovation, five (5) types of individuals. Innovators, those who jump on board first, are approximately 2.5 %; then the early adopters are approximately 13.5 % and the early majority 34 %; the late adopters are also 34 %; and finally the laggards 16 %. Furthermore, research indicates that academic staff suggest that a lot of effort is put into developing their technolog- ical skills, but there is a lack of pedagogical and instructional support for teaching with technology (Bailey & Card, 2009, p. 152). These dynamics are an indication of the capacity building that needs to be done to get academic staff to embrace the concept of COIL and introduce projects into the modules for which they are re- sponsible. The capacity building initiative for COIL at DUT has been conceptualised by taking these factors into consideration. 1. For elaboration of this concept see, for example, Almeida et al 2019. 51

ty, and DUT. Academic staff were invited to a virtual meeting on Zoom and they had a short introduction to COIL/VE and then went into “breakout rooms” to dis- cuss ideas for possible projects with international colleagues. Following this, they all came back together and shared some of the discussions. From this exercise, academic staff were encouraging the formation of a community of practice that would meet regularly. This is becoming a reality supported by, for example, anoth- er Zoom webinar recently held for academic staff. During this webinar, partnering across disciplines, together with some of the cultural problems experienced in a collaboration, were discussed. One of the constraints with the North-South part- nerships is the structure of the academic year. In the Northern hemisphere the 1st semester generally commences in September. In the Southern hemisphere the 1st semester is from February to June. This means that the first half of the year is a better time to collaborate North-South, with project development happening in the second half of the year for implementation in the following year. The period of time between June and September poses another constraint for collaboration due to the staggered vacation periods in the respective countries. Recently, a journal club has been introduced to stimulate the scholarship on COIL/VE pedagogy, and to infuse pedagogical evidence into the practice of ac- ademic staff. Journal clubs are an important strategy for academic staff to en- gage in a meaningful way with the pedagogy of COIL/VE, internationalisation, and teaching with technology as part of continued professional development. Jour- nal clubs encourage academic staff to improve their reading habits, increase their knowledge, and develop critical appraisal skills, all of which are necessary to en- gage in evidence-based teaching practice and help bridge the theory/practice di- vide. Research conducted, particularly in the health sciences, reports that journal clubs provide an effective learning environment that promotes the utilization of research and evidence-based practice (Turner & Mjolne, 2001, p. 158–159). This activity will contribute significantly to the development of scholarship opportu- nities through, for example, publications, emanating out of COIL/VE projects and strengthening evidence-based teaching practice and research. It will also open up new opportunities for deeper collaboration with international partners. Conclusion DUT is in the initial stages of its COIL/VE trajectory and has, so far, tapped into a group of individuals who are identified as innovators. There is now a need to move the initiative into developing the next level of academic staff, who could be consid- ered to be early adopters. Technology enhanced COIL projects offer professional development opportunities to academic staff members through networking and collaboration (Zhang & Pearlman, 2018, p. 8). COIL/VE practice at DUT finds itself on a spectrum between the approaches described earlier, namely an integrative approach where academics incorporate intercultural references into an existing curriculum, and a transformative approach whereby staff and students embrace cultural difference and knowledge and ethical challenges, ambiguity, and risk (Joseph, 2011, cited in Wimpenny et al., 2019, p. 2). COIL/VE is a cost-effective way to internationalise the curriculum and an opportunity to develop new partnerships globally (Fowler, Pearlman, LeSavoy, & Hemphill, 2014, n.p.). DUT is striving to max- imise these opportunities in alignment with the newly developed DUT Strategy 2020–2030. The further development of a community of practice and a community 53

Turner, P. & Mjolne I. (2001). Journal provision and the prevalence of journal clubs: a survey of physiotherapy departments in England and Australia. Physiotherapy Research International, 6(3) 157–169. Villar-Onrubia, D. & Rajpal, B. (2015). Online international learning, Perspectives. Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 20(2-3) 75–82, DOI:10.1080/13603108.205.1067652. Wimpenny, K., Beelen, J. & King, V. (2019). Academic development to support the interna- tionalization of the curriculum (IoC): a qualitative research synthesis. International Journal for Academic Development, DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2019.1691559. Yin, M. & Yeakey C.C (2019). The policy implications of the global flow of tertiary students: a social network analysis, Oxford Review of Education, 45:1, 50–69, DOI:10.1080/03054985. 2018.1489788. Zhang, J., & Pearlman, A. M. G. (2018). Expanding access to international education through technology enhanced collaborative online international learning (COIL) courses. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 1–11. 55

Schools of Education as Agents of Change – A Virtual Semester Abroad for Indian and German Education Students Dr Nina Jäger, Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany Minke Jakobi, MA, Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany Prof Dr Jörg-U. Keßler, Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany Prof Dr Christoph Knoblauch, Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany Curriculum Innovation for Intercultural Cross-Border Learning: The Double Degree Experience between UDS Ghana and HSD Germany Prof Agnes Atia Apusigah, PhD, University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana A Virtual Exchange Tool-Kit: From Micro-Credential Settings to Full Study Programs Prof em Dr Torsten Fransson, EXPLORE Energy Sweden AB, Sweden Ruchira Abeyweera, MSc, The Open University Sri Lanka Sen Prof Dr Samuel Anbahan Ariadurai, The Open University Sri Lanka Dr Jeevan Jayasuriya, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden 57

Than, 2014). Blended learning approaches have shown particular relevance in in- tercultural environments and greatly support international collaborative work environments. They offer communication tools and allow for interaction by pro- viding shared learning spaces for both students and university teachers in vari- ous countries (e.g., So & Curtis, 2010). In this respect, the shared project between Ludwigsburg University of Education and Dr B.R. Ambedkar of the University Delhi is not only a role model for COIL-projects, but also plays a crucial role in inter- nationalisation@home efforts at both institutions. Additionally, it promotes the collaboration between our two universities beyond this particular project (e.g., by additional staff and student exchange). Approaching the Virtual Semester: A Design of the Collaboration The key question of the project is whether and how schools of education in India and Germany can perform as agents of change in diverse and digitally connect- ed societies. Therefore, the partners have developed blended learning scenarios combining collaborative and interactive courses for students at both universities for virtual exchange. Additionally, to allow students from each university to gain more insight into the partner institution and its host country, two 15-day summer schools are a vital part of the project. The first summer school was conducted in Ludwigsburg in September/October 2019, focusing on “Diversity and Resilience in Educational and Social Contexts” in India and Germany. About half of the blended learning scenario was taught rather traditionally in classroom settings, while the other half took place online in a mutual learning plat- form. Both universities use Moodle as their learning platform, and the internation- al office in Ludwigsburg provided a joint workspace for all participants from Delhi and Ludwigsburg. Figure 1 shows an example of the Moodle platform: Figure 1: Example of the Moodle platform Some of the blended learning assignments were tackled individually, but the majority were handled by teams of international students. The content provided for blended learning consisted of two pillars: 1) the presentation of course topics 59

of the complex research focus, a multi-method test, using quantitative and qualita- tive methods, was designed. It looks for both reliable quantitative data as well as in- dividual, subjective feedback, which offers a more comprehensive view. Two collabo- rative, interactive, and blended courses and the first Summer School in Ludwigsburg have been evaluated with this process in order to gain insight into two foci: • Focus 1: A balance of online and classroom learning, resulting learn- ing strategies, and attitudes towards the blended learning setting in general. • Focus 2: Online learning preferences, specific forms of digital collabo- ration and the concrete use of online tools, and perceptions of change within learning strategies and attitudes. The quantitative evaluations were mainly used to gain general feedback about the courses, show trends in attitudes and preferences, and help develop items for the subsequent qualitative evaluation. The qualitative evaluations were used to gain deeper knowledge about the individual attitudes and preferences of the participating students, and to learn about the demands of a collaborative blended-learning environment in intercultural settings in general. By evaluating students’ responses in different empirical settings, the multi-method evaluation notably helped to identify strengths and weaknesses in the courses. Below, the methods of evaluation are discussed, including the use of triangulation. Results of the Quantitative Evaluation The quantitative element of the evaluation consists of two surveys, which are com- pleted by participants of two blended and collaborative courses (n(1)=16/n(2)=13) and the summer school (n=11). The results show that the blended structure and the online content of the courses were generally well accepted by the participating students: 61 % strongly agree with the statement, “I would take a blended learning class with this struc- ture again.” The blending of online and classroom learning also resulted in very positive attitudes: 42 % strongly agree and 29 % agree with the statement, “The balance between online and classroom learning was good.” The findings indicate that students exhibited a general satisfaction with the blended learning design. The results also show that the students appreciated the various forms of col- laboration offered in the courses: 23 % strongly agree and 54 % rather agree with the statement “The collaboration with others was very helpful for my learning.” The results are even more pronounced when the sample was asked to rate col- laboration with international peers: 76 % strongly agree and 24 % rather agree that “Collaboration with internationals was very helpful for their learning.” The findings indicate that the students highly valued collaboration on a national and, particularly, an international level. The results also indicate that a high number of students (54 % strongly agree/38 % rather agree) shared the opinion that they “learned new techniques of learning in the courses.” 23 % strongly agreed and 61 % rather agreed with 61

School. Within the blended setting of the courses, the participat- ing students especially appreciated the opportunity for self-regu- lated learning. In relation to this, the students seemed to value the independence the blended design offers: The online content can be retrieved and reused whenever and wherever the students choose to; online interaction can take place at individually fixed dates; and the collaboration enables students to share perspectives outside the classroom with individually chosen partners. 2. In general, the findings indicate that students highly valued the col- laborative and interactive approach of the courses and the face-to- face interaction of the Summer School. Students reported that they enjoy the blending of individual reflection via online contents, the in- teraction with other international students, and, finally, the collabo- ration – online and in class – in small groups. In this context, students greatly valued the international and intercultural approach of the courses, which enabled them to learn about other educational sys- tems and concepts, and at the same time reflect on familiar ideas. In this context, students reported that consolidated positions have been challenged by alterity.2 3. In general, the findings indicate that students develop their learning skills and acquire new learning techniques in the blended and collabo- rative setting of the courses and the Summer School. Students report- ed that they use the provided online content and tasks in a flexible and largely independent manner. In addition to this, many students emphasised the fact that the digital and face-to-face interaction with international students is a means of collaboration that changed their learning habits. Conclusion Our experience so far has shown that blended learning and intercultural collabora- tion can function as links between students from different countries and cultural backgrounds. The cooperation between two universities that come from differ- ent educational and cultural contexts offers constructive learning opportunities on different levels. As students and teachers from India and Germany share and discuss their different experiences and perspectives, a systemic approach can be developed. By exchanging ideas, especially in an intercultural setting, students compare and discuss different perspectives in active and receptive self-other re- lations. These encounters, made possible by the collaborative and blended design of the courses, play a major role in collaborative and interactive blended learning environments in general. Our experience and the students’ feedback also demon- strate that the concept of alterity is crucial to international collaboration because it fosters the construction of new knowledge: By gaining insight into different per- spectives and by discussing common topics from different perspectives, students develop new knowledge, deflect predominant opinions, and may deconstruct ste- reotypes. 2. The idea of the pedagogy of alterity in this context focuses on the experience of “the other” (cf. Ruiz, 2013). 63

Curriculum Innovation for Inter- cultural Cross-Border Learning: The Double Degree Experience between UDS Ghana and HSD Germany Prof Agnes Atia Apusigah, PhD, University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana The growing understanding of the need for collaborative efforts in tackling global development issues has warranted the de-compartmentalization of learning, especially in higher education. Even as higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly adopting multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and trans- disciplinary approaches to learning, the push for intercultural or cross-cultur- al exchanges is compelling students to seek cross-border experiences. Espe- cially for students in the humanities and development studies, embarking on cross-border learning exchanges has become a crucial part of the search for practical experiences in their learning journeys. Intercultural cross-border learning in higher education is expected not only to provide students with critical practical training but also to equip them with the requisite knowledge, skills, and values for emotionally intelligent global citizenship. While globalization has focused largely on economic integration often underpinned with exploitative trade relations, cross-border learning enables students to learn and share knowledge in ways that leverage and promote intercultural competence. Although drivers such as internationalization, globalization, technological advance- ments, democratic development, capacity development, economic opportunities, and cultural diplomacy are inspiring faculty and student mobility for cross-border learning in higher education (HE), challenges such as paucity of funds, conflicts and insecurity, quality assurance, institutional variabilities, and technological lim- itations have tended to impede progress (Chetros-Szivvos, 2010; de la Fuentes & Damian, 2010). Both the drivers and challenges have enormous implications for individuals and institutions seeking to cross borders. Recently, with advancements in smart technologies and improved understanding of partnership-building, col- laborative initiatives have become important for leveraging and advancing mutual cross-border learning interests. This paper discusses a cross-border collaborative initiative between the Univer- sity for Development Studies (UDS), Tamale, Ghana, and the University of Applied 65

Nature and Background of the Collaborative Experience The collaboration between the University for Development Studies (UDS) and the University for Applied Sciences of Hochschule Dusseldorf (HSD) was a double degree, four-year initiative based on two pre-existing, national, fully accredited, different yet related programmes: Development Education Studies (DES) at UDS and Empowerment Studies (ES) at HSD. The collaboration was possible because both programmes were advocacy-focused and aimed at empowering citizens for socio-economic transformation. While the DES centred on community and national development, ES targeted national and international development. A background analysis and institutional profiling following the initial establishment of the pos- sibility of collaboration enabled the project teams, working on either side and to- gether, to establish areas or levels of comparability regarding convergences and divergences in curriculum goals and objectives, structure, content, grading sys- tems, and graduation requirements (see UDS/HSD, 2013). Given that process, the goal and objectives were to: Foster inter-university partnership for institutional strengthening and the pro- motion of innovative teaching and learning in the field of development studies 1) strengthening of curriculum development and institutionalisation of joint cur- ricula activities at the MA level, 2) strengthening teaching/learning activities: Qualify Ghanaian and German master’s students in the field of development stud- ies. (UDS/HSD, 2013: 1) By design, the initiative sought to enlist 80 (40 from each side) already en- rolled master’s (MA) students to complete local institutional and national accred- itation requirements regarding coursework, research, and practical experience in the form of community and organizational placements for the award of a co-joint degree. The coursework comprised a joint curriculum that required students to travel to partner countries during spring session for UDS students at HSD and Sandwich (summer) term for HSD students at UDS. In Dusseldorf and Tamale, the two groups of students attended lectures and workshops together in same class- rooms, engaged in group projects, gave presentations, and took part in experi- ential programmes. Over the four-year period, the courses were facilitated large- ly by selected and trained facilitators of the two institutions, while on occasion, facilitators crossed the borders with the students. Since the collaboration was between two institutions and two programmes, it was important to ensure that the two programmes were in tandem. Hence, a lot of time was spent on ensuring the right match. This included reviewing and synchro- nising the two programmes’ curricula to determine shared possibilities for a joint curriculum without deviating from the framework of accreditation. (See Table 1 below.) In the end, eight courses that showed close similarities were identified to form the joint curriculum offered in Tamale and Dusseldorf, with four at each uni- versity. Once the courses were established, the lecturers for those courses were trained to review the course content to meet the learning needs of the two cate- gories of students and facilitate them during the joint sessions. Together with the project management team, the teaching time tables of each side were reviewed to ensure a good fit for collaboration, to identify the most suitable onsite and offsite tools for the delivery of the joint course, and to draw on the experiences of both 67

The main virtual tools used were the Moodle platform, which was used to conduct webinars, share course materials, give presentations, and facilitate com- munications. These were then backed by Skype and Zoom meetings, email, and WhatsApp interactions. Basically, virtual tools were used for project development and management, participant and facilitator trainings, course presentations, stu- dent projects, project reviews, and resource sharing. To be effective in the use of the virtual tools, trained dedicated technical sup- port staff to assist facilitators and students were made available. This was espe- cially useful for the Ghana partners, who at the start of the initiative were less familiar with many of the tools. In their case, it became necessary to provide a laboratory for plenary sessions during webinars and periodic training. They were also provided airtime and headsets to improve online access. Effects of the Blended Intercultural Learning Although virtual learning was not the crux of the collaboration, it was instrumen- tal in driving and sustaining interactions throughout the project period. It offered various benefits, in spite of some challenges. Some the benefits included the fol- lowing: The expansion of time-on-task for increased sharing and learning among students. This was especially so because the virtual tools made it possible to work together and independently at scheduled but also flexible times. Communications could be generated at any time and responded to in discussions at any time. It was possible to arrange time together quickly and reach agreements on schedules. Also, as noted by various studies (Chetro-Szivvo, 2010) on cross-border intercultur- al learning, the traditional mode of physically moving across borders for stay and learn was a costly exercise because students had to bear travel, accommodation, and food costs, among others. With the introduction of virtual tools and spaces, it has become possible to get together or initiate learning at hardly any cost be- yond existing investments in information technology, personnel, and curriculum materials. Undoubtedly, such investments remain costly in developing countries and emerging economies, thus restricting access to virtual tools. It is for this very situation that blended learning becomes worthwhile. Additionally, valuable cultural knowledge, technological skills, and ethical values were gained during the period of collaboration. While the course content taught disciplinary knowledge and skills, the interpersonal interactions, onsite field visits, and use of technological tools expanded and extended learning. For the Ghana students in particular, who joined the collaboration with basic IT skills in emailing, texting, and web search, by the end of their studies, they had become very conversant with the use of the virtual learning tools deployed. Another im- portant benefit was the development of joint cohorts of students and facilitators from each country who supported one another during the project period and sometimes beyond. At times their individual learning was brought to the group and then from the group to the plenary (that is, the entire class). That cross-fer- tilization and fusion of ideas benefited not just the course learning, but also the intercultural experience. Furthermore, through the blended learning initiative, students were prepared for internationally competitive worlds of work or study. The onsite sessions for the 69

References de la Fuentes, J. R. and Damian, R. M (2010). Preface. In Bergan, S. and van’t Land H. (eds.). Speaking across borders: The Role of Higher Education in furthering Intercultural Dialogue. (5–6). Council of Europe/International Association of Universities, Strasbourg Cedex. Egron- Polak, E. (2010). The Role of Higher Education in Fostering Intercultural Dialogue and Understanding. In Bergan, S. and van’t Land H. (eds.). Speaking across borders: The Role of Higher Education in furthering Intercultural Dialogue. (37–42). Council of Europe/ International Association of Universities, Strasbourg Cedex. UDS/FHD (2008). Project Proposal. Unpublished documented submitted to DAAD, Bonn, Germany. UDS-HSD (2013). Report on UDS-FHD Cooperation Project. Unpublished report submitted to the Vice Chancellor of UDS, Tamale, Ghana. van’t Land, H. (2010). Universities as Actors of Intercultural Dialogue in Wider Societies. In Bergan, S. and van’t Land H. (eds.). Speaking across borders: The Role of Higher Education in furthering Intercultural Dialogue. (51–62). Council of Europe/International Association of Universities, Strasbourg Cedex. Zaragoza, F. M. (2010). The Role of Higher Education in fostering a Culture of Peace and Understanding. In Bergan, S. and van’t Land H. (eds.). Speaking across borders: The Role of Higher Education in furthering Intercultural Dialogue. (23–28). Council of Europe/Internatio- nal Association of Universities, Strasbourg Cedex. 71

may have on the teaching profession. It is clear that a "one-to-one" education, including aspects of it such as hands-on laboratory work, travel for exploration of different cultures, and direct student-to-tutor interactions in the form of case studies, dialogues, and peer discussions, is exceptionally good and efficient. Such education is, however, also very expensive, and often environmentally unsustain- able, as a lot of travel would be included, especially for international, common university programs. Today online education can offer a very realistic alternative, and with the progress of learning analytics, artificial intelligence, and virtual/aug- mented reality, online education can soon become a real alternative to a "physical, on-campus" presence. It will also offer a much-needed possibility for enhanced cooperation between educators from different cultures. Background Education is the key to development. The global world faces unprecedented societal, environmental, and other challenges. The significant majority of re- search-based university teachers are still in the “advanced economy” countries, whereas the largest number of potential students, and other types of learners, are in the “emerging economy” countries. To eradicate societal injustices there is a need to educate a significantly larger portion of the younger generation in emerg- ing economy countries than the traditional university systems can assimilate, while retaining the nationally recognized quality these universities already have. Open Educational Resources (OER) have been developed over many years. The first and most widespread example is, of course, the traditional textbook. Years ago, many institutes began to develop different kinds of learning materials, such as written text, radio- and TV-broadcasting. Such initiatives started to become “computerized” in the 1980’s and 90’s, began to catch on in the early 2000’s (with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, notably, offering all of its educational material online), and exploded online in the early 2010’s as the Massive Online Open Course (MOOC-) platforms started to appear. In the process there have been a number of “Open Universities” created (Open University UK being the first in 1969, with The Open University Sri Lanka the first such university in Asia, established in 1978). These open universities have deliv- ered a great service to their countries and citizens by offering courses of different kinds, ranging from vocational training to 2nd, and in some cases, 3rd cycle (MSc resp PhD levels) education. Of course, the courses are often also offered in a life- long learning perspective. However, “remote” or “distant” education has generally been looked upon as not offering the same quality as a traditional on-campus university can. This per- ception seems still to be the case, although the contemporary technical advantag- es related to fast, online, digital delivery have opened a lot of opportunities over the last few years. The pedagogical/didactical progress has clearly not followed the technical development and most “e-learning” done at universities (and far from all universities use such features) is still considered significantly less valuable than an on-campus degree, even if the exams and assignments the students take might be exactly the same in both environments. 73

Presently, MOOC-platforms like Coursera7 and FutureLearn8 work towards a similar concept in the sense that they aim to establish “micro-credentials” in vari- ous topics. However, although highly interesting and extremely well prepared for online learning, these are still fairly straightforward and often directed towards a large learner base. And although universities often are at the origin of the courses, these do not always carry academic credit. Furthermore, they are often general “one size fits all” courses, developed by western universities and, thus far, seldom adapted to local environments, such as in countries with emerging economies. Methodology With the goal of demonstrating the concept of building high-quality curriculum from different “small-scale learning units” in a “hard-core engineering” subject, a number of individual teachers in the energy area from different universities have over the last few years worked towards a “scalable and stackable” concept in which educational material from many sources can be shared and re-used among teachers. Teachers from mainly the T.I.M.E. Association, the EIT (EIT Climate, EIT Digital, EIT InnoEnergy) and other organizations participate. The keys to success in such a voluntary, global, and collaborative effort among these teachers have been identified as: • • • • Ensuring a broad base of teachers who (i) are willing to consider par- adigm shifts in digital education, including developing student-cen- tered and challenge-driven methods in a digital environment, who (ii) consider that affordable education is a necessity for citizens in emerg- ing economies, who (iii) are willing to share their own material on a largely voluntarily basis and (iv) work together with other colleagues to improve it. Working on smaller learning modules (~0.5-5 Estimated Learning Hours [ELH]), including videos, reading material, and appropriate as- signments, thus not burdening individual teachers with heavy work- loads, and also realizing that teachers globally must have the possibil- ity of putting their own “mark” on the modules they use in the extent they want (while of course always acknowledging where the material originally comes from). Accepting, with an open mind, individual modules from teachers, rec- ognizing that it takes significant time to establish collaborations and that teachers will make needed adaptions and improvements when they have the time, and especially when they receive feedback from students. Having, for each individual small-scale learning module, clearly de- fined (but locally modifiable) intended learning outcomes and cor- responding (for the lower taxonomy level automatically corrected) assignments, such that non-specialized teachers can re-use the com- plete module without having to be specialists in all sub-areas of a subject. 7. www.coursera.org/browse 8. www.futurelearn.com 75

universities in Sri Lanka 10 have teamed up with three universities in Europe 11 and the companies Learnify 12 and FutureLearn with the aim of establishing the “stack- able” concept in the energy sector in a nation-wide, combined academic environ- ment, and also establish a (smaller) “micro-credential” program for a broader scale of learners within FutureLearn. The T.I.M.E. Association is an Associate Partner of this project, and some of its members will be voluntary contributors to different parts of the program. In this project all the shareable “small-scale learning modules” will be stored in a repository (figure 1) so that different universities (not only those involved in the EUSL-Energy project but also others in a global perspective) can re-use the parts they need, and then also add (into the repository) the new learning modules these universities and individual teachers develop, given their local needs. Figure 1: Concept of Learnify repository (https://innoenergy.learnify.se) 10. Open University Sri Lanka, University of Peradeynia, University of Moratowa, University of Ruhuna 11. CentraleSupélec, University of Twente, KTH 12. https://learnify.se/en 77

All the existing, and to be developed, material in the repository is based upon Creative Commons licenses. As such it can be used towards not-for-profit educa- tion at self-cost but also towards for-profit education after agreement with the corresponding contributors13. It can then be used both towards local academic and professional accreditation. Individual units as well as larger blocks of a subject can be re-used. This development is entirely up to the individual teachers, and a “local program director” has significant flexibility to design individual programs and to “package” the material so that it is adapted to the local environments, while re-us- ing the general, global content in any appropriate way. The key to re-use of mate- rial in various local environments is that all the basic learning modules used are (i) small (0.5-max 5 ELH), in order to be accepted by other teachers, (ii) self-sustained (with appropriate ILOs and assessments), (iii) allowed to be copied and modified, and (iv) inclusive of clearly Intended Learning Outcomes, which (v) can be adapted by the local teacher. Such adaption can be done by the local university alone, or, preferably, in collaboration with the different teachers who originally developed the material. The collection of individual, high-quality learning units from a large number of teachers is, of course, the most important factor in the concept, and it has taken considerable time to establish such a trustworthy collaboration among teachers. The second most important factor in the concept is the possibility of very easi- ly combining basic learning modules into a set of larger subject areas (presently called “Lessons”, each lesson consisting of subject-blocks of around 10-40 Esti- mated Learning Hours) with the appropriate “Lesson-level” intended learning out- comes. All the learning content is in the individual learning “content modules”, and the “lessons” are just the framework of how the “teacher-architect/guide” estab- lishes the learning environment locally. These lessons are collected, and thereaf- ter easily reached by learners, within the Learnify repository, while the learning units can be available in any other digital way. There is presently no external review performed on the material since the ma- terial presented, including assessments, corresponds to education that the teach- ers do at their home university and as such the quality is equivalent to what is accepted at that university. Nonetheless, within the EUSL-Energy project frame- work, a set of quality frameworks, based upon the EIT-Label Handbook14, is in the process of being established15. Next Steps Since its creation a few years ago, the concept is under constant expansion. Pres- ently the following steps are planned: • In 2020 The OUSL intends to deliver accreditation for an “OUSL En- ergy ABC Program Certification Series”, which is largely based upon already existing learning modules, assembled into “certification pro- grams” of around 100-200 ELH each, and offer them to both academic and industry-based professional learners. 13. This is similar to the models used by music streaming services with a payment to the originator only in the case that a profit organization is initiated, but different as the repository contributors are willing to share their material for free as long as a not-for-profit system is employed. 14. https://eit.europa.eu/library/eit-label-handbook-2018 15. To be implemented in the 4th quarter 2020. 79

References Abeyweera, R., Guillerme, G., Senanayake, N. S., Peiris, A. P. T. S., Jayasuriya, J., Frans- son, T. (2019). Dissemination of Knowledge and Sharing Experiences in Emerging Issues through a Remote Summer School, IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8725131. Abeyweera, R., Senanayake, N. S., Jayasuriya, J., Fransson, T. (2018). A Remote Mode High Quality International Master Degree Program in Environomical Pathways for Sustai- nable Energy Systems (SELECT) – Pilot Program Experiences During First Year of Studies, IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference. Abeyweera, R., Senanayake,N. S., Senaratne, C., Jayasuriya, J., Fransson, T. (2017). Capacity Building Through a Web Based Master Degree Programme in Sustainable Energy Engineering, IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/7942938. Dimon, J. (2020). The future of work is skills: So stop worrying about degrees; Fortune.com//January 2020, pp 30–31. Kithsiri, U.G., Peiris, A. P. T. S., Wickramarathna, T., Amarawardhana, K., Abeyweera, R., Senanayake, N. S., Jayasuriya, J., Fransson, T. (2017). A Remote Mode Master Degree Program In Sustainable Energy Engineering: Student Perception And Future Direction, 20th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning. https://link.springer. com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-73210-7_79. Leotard, P., Roy, S., Gaulard, F., Fransson, T. (1998). “Computerized Educational Program in Turbomachinery”; ASME Paper 98-GT-415. Monaco, L., Vogt, D., Bergmans, J., Fransson, T. (2014). “A remotely Operated Aeroelast- ically Unsteady Cascade for Turbomachinery Aeromechanics Education and Training: Remote Flutter Lab”; ASME Paper GT2014-27170. Navarathna, N., Fedulov, V., Martin, A., Fransson, T. (2004). ”Web-Based, Interactive Laboratory Experiment in Turbomachine Aerodynamics”; ASME paper GT2004-54032. Salomon, M., Fransson, T., Fedulov, V. (2004). “Interactive teaching and learning platform in Energy Technology” CALLaboraty, November 2004, pp. 24–26. 81

Virtual Exchanges: Developing Guidelines for Students and Faculty Regina C. Brautlacht, MA, Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Sieg (University of Applied Sciences), Germany Prof Wendi A. Hulme, Conestoga College, Canada Prof Kristi Julian, PhD, Middle Tennessee State University, USA 83

Figure 1: Brautlacht, Julian, & Hulme (2019). 3 Pillars of Virtual Exchanges – ProGlobe (own image) Pillar 1 – Pedagogy First, virtual exchanges among students should focus on building global and digi- tal competencies needed in the 21st century as well as providing the opportunity to connect with students from different parts of the world without having to visit the region. Nowadays, it is unarguable that communication is increasingly digitally mediated and that for students to be competent communicators and get ahead in the workplace, they need to be digitally fluent as well as experienced in working in different cultural diverse settings. It also requires learners to build strategies to enable the use of a multitude of literacies and skills. 21st century competencies (Griffen, 2015) require learners to experience real-life tasks in authentic scenarios that are complex (Hallet, 2014). Virtual exchanges offer multiple opportunities to gain experience with problem-solving skills, decision-making, and critical thinking. Students communicate and collaborate with partners in other countries using dif- ferent digital communication tools and discuss a number of global issues, such as environmental behaviour, with non-native and native speakers of English using ELF. The teaching methodology is student-centered and different tasks are carried out autonomously, using various digital tools to communicate and collaborate across continents. Students learn to be aware of differences in use of language, cul- tural diversity, and approaches to global issues (e.g., waste management, water con- sumption, etc.) of the different countries and communities involved in the project. Pillar 2 – Project Management Administration The administrative structure of a virtual exchange project is only as strong as the administrative support available and the commitment to the project made by the project coordinators (Abruquah, 2017). Administrative functions must be distrib- uted among the coordinators from each country as a means of minimizing work- load and increasing coordinator awareness of project progress and continued de- velopment. In addition, designated administrative support personnel are required for administrative maintenance. Focused on clearly identified project goals and the pedagogical strategies to achieve them, administrative guidelines, as a project navigation tool, house the pro- ject’s tasks, schedule, processes, expectations, and source references. The develop- ment and ongoing refinement of the guidelines includes the following criteria: 85

lications. Regularly scheduled virtual meetings for country coordinators provide the opportunity to manage these administrative activities; however, additional administrative support is required. This additional work may be accommodated with release time for faculty teaching loads, student assistant(s), and designated administrative personnel. Technology/Technical Support Technical infrastructure and technical support vary among the different institu- tions. Training in the use of digital tools for teaching and learning is necessary not only for students but faculty as well. Media didactics training is often not availa- ble within the institution, thus experienced coordinators train in designing online learning scenarios. Whereas North American institutions may have a well-estab- lished support system, African countries or even Germany often lack the technical support infrastructure. Faculty are often left alone to support themselves and need to use digital equipment and tools that are easy to maintain to minimize technical challenges. Fortunately, many apps and mobile devices today offer opportunities to connect without necessarily using high tech facilities or expensive software pro- grams. Nevertheless, each new country coordinator must be trained and supported technically through IT or digital learning centers within their respective institutions. Furthermore, a support mechanism between the countries has ensured that those less fortunate can benefit from those support systems already in place. Regular ca- pacity-building workshops are an integral part of every virtual project and provide an example to the students that continuing education is a lifelong event in order to be competitive and competent. This may require both purchasing equipment and in-house or service plans for external technical support to ensure quality control. Software licensing should be installed, purchased, or upgraded before the virtual ex- change begins. For example, in North America, current updated inventory of equip- ment is typically part of most accrediting-body requirements. In order to conduct regular virtual conferences, it is important to identify the staff within the institution that can support the digital activities and to notify IT per- sonnel when special digital events occur well in advance, preferably months prior to the event. This is critical in ensuring that required rooms are available and appropri- ately equipped. If IT is not contacted early in the process, they may not be available to assist. Furthermore, IT needs to be made aware that maintenance updates must not take place during a scheduled virtual conference that involves several countries and may need to be rescheduled to ensure that the international virtual event is not disrupted. Other considerations for the virtual event may include reserving or purchasing cameras, handheld or lapel microphones, and ceiling array microphones for student presentations, if possible. The additional convenience of an audio-visual control system provides a touch panel interface to replace what would normally re- quire multiple remote controls. Audio and visual concerns are always a major con- sideration for each project and it can never be assumed that the equipment will be available or working the day of the event, so testing and IT support is always desired. For some countries, connectivity issues are an important consideration when plan- ning an activity or task. The connection may not always be stable enough to organize a virtual conference. For example, in Ghana, we have experienced that Zoom can better offer a fairly stable connection. 87

Small and easy to manage virtual projects ensure a successful implementation. Free and easy to implement software, educational apps, and open education re- source material are especially good for keeping costs down. Developing countries cannot provide extensive support for their teaching staff and require special fund- ing for basic equipment and internet access. However, once this is provided, many students can benefit from the virtual exchange. Global digital learning and virtual exchanges must be supported by university leadership through new and various initiatives. We see a lack of experience, exper- tise, or commitment from higher education institutions to address the digitaliza- tion process in teaching and learning, which reveals a great potential to expand global digital learning activities, as the benefits outweigh the challenges encoun- tered. Digital collaboration among higher education institutions worldwide should be supported by national educational policies that include digital global learning as one of their pedagogical and funding priorities. “Digital transformation is not so much an additional challenge, but an effective means to address key challeng- es for higher education in the 21st century” (Orr, 2018, p. 1). We can reach more students and offer more global discourse through the use of digital communica- tion without compromising existing physical mobility and exchange. Finally, global learning networks need to be established to foster virtual or blended mobility in order to facilitate further growth of digital collaboration internationally. References Abruquah, E. (2017). Effective Collaboration in the Digital Age. TAMK Conference 2017: Learning and Working Together, 93–102. Brautlacht, R., Agyapong, D., & Owino, J. (2018). Handbook for Applied Teaching and Learning: German-African University Partnership Platform for the Development of Entrepreneurs and Small/Medium Enterprises. Sankt Augustin: Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences. Brautlacht, R., Poppi, F., Martins, M. L., & Ducrocq. (2017). European Dialogue Project. Collaborating to Improve on the Quality of Learning Environments. In P. Vu, S. Fredrickson, & C. Moore, Handbook of Research on Innovative Pedagogies and Technologies for Online Learning in Higher Education (pp. 393-426). IGI Global. Griffen, P. (2015). Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills Methods and Approach. Springer. Hallet, W. (2014). The complex competence task. Foreign language discourse as cultural participation and teaching practice. Germany: Seelze: Kallmeyer. Haugan, G. T. (2010). Project Management Fundamentals: Key Concepts and Methodology (2 ed.). Management Concepts Inc. Kurek, M., & Muller-Hartmann, A. (2017). Task design for telecollaborative exchanges: In search of new criteria. System, 64, 7–20. Orr, D., & Rampelt, F. (2018). Background Paper on Bologna Digital 2020. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung at Stifterverband. 89

The papers presented in this publication were part of our conference in Berlin on December 11, 2019: "Virtual Exchange - Borderless Mobility between the European Higher Education Area and Regions Beyond". Higher education practitioners from all over the world gathered and discussed the potential of collaborative online learning and best practices. Photos: Jan Kulke/DAAD 91