Introduction
Despite the rise in popularity of global education programming, much of the surrounding pedagogy and scholarship continues to center on the experiences and outcomes for students in the Global North, while neglecting to cultivate and investigate the impact on counterparts abroad, particularly in the Global South.
Globally, study abroad programs and virtual exchange opportunities are largely driven by educators in the Global North, as these experiences are often predicated on specific resources, infrastructure, and capacity not available at many institutions in the Global South. As a result, many global exchanges between these regions are developed and structured unidirectionally, with learning objectives oriented toward one group of learners, and/or with one group of learners being positioned to learn about or “help” the other, oftentimes further reinforcing colonial notions of Western privilege (Villarreal & Lesniewski, 2021; Zuchowski, 2017).
Given the mobility and financial limitations of study abroad, virtual exchange programs can make global educational opportunities more accessible to a more diverse range of students, provided the program is culturally responsive and designed to address and mitigate structural, technological, and other disparities (Arkorful & Abaidoo, 2015; Krasnoff, 2016; Membrillo-Hernández et al., 2023). Without addressing the unique needs and identities of students and staff, these exchanges risk reinforcing neoliberal and colonialist frameworks that can perpetuate global learning inequalities (Villarreal & Lesniewski, 2021).
Equally important is research and scholarship that reflects the experiences of students and counterparts in the Global South, who oftentimes are not interviewed and tend to form the “backdrop” in many case studies about global exchanges (e.g., Oberhauser & Daniels, 2017). In order to create a more equitable and culturally responsive classroom environment, it’s essential to investigate the unique impacts of these programs and identify best practices for partners as global exchanges become more prominent
This article draws from research conducted around a 3-year virtual exchange partnership between two universities in the United States and Liberia which captured the respective student benefits and generated practical considerations for the participating faculty and administrators (Devereux & Glenn, 2022). The goal of this article is to center the experiences of Global South students in the scholarship and provide context and praxis for leveraging virtual exchanges to better address their learning needs and priorities in a transformative classroom environment.
Case Study: Global Agriculture Global Classroom
Between 2019-2022, faculty at universities in the US and Liberia designed, implemented, and evaluated a Global Classroom Model (GCM) course centered around Global Agriculture (Devereux & Glenn, 2022). GCMs are innovative, project-based, cross-cultural, and virtual courses specifically designed to engage students “across national, geographical, and cultural boundaries, [while] recognizing the cultural, historical, epistemological, and ethical context” in identifying problems and developing sustainable solutions collaboratively (Wiek et al., 2013).
Within this course, each week students explored a new topic related to global agriculture (e.g., gender, climate change, spirituality) through case studies, guided discussions, and guest speaker presentations, and collaborated on solutions that could address some of these issues locally within their own communities.
The course instructors adapted tools including the Transformational Learning Scale and other approaches to guide student self-reflection and to promote collaborative, equitable, and reparative relationships between students in the Global North and South (Clayton et al., 2010). Transformational learning approaches are particularly relevant for decolonizing Western educational frameworks as they seek to empower indigenous people to detect and resist treatment of inequality via a recentering on human consciousness, collective soul, and holistic self (Akena, 2019; Dei, 2002).
The respective benefits and outcomes of this course were captured via semi-structured pre- and post-interviews. U.S. student outcomes are shared as a point of comparison to highlight the distinct nature of the Liberian experiences.
Results: GCM Benefits as Reported by Liberian & U.S. Students
| Liberia |
Common Themes |
United States |
| Realized that other countries experience similar suffering / struggles, and this commonality gave hope |
Shifts in Perspectives
|
Better understanding of the nature of global relationships, the role the US plays, and the development industry |
| Spirituality, gender, technology, and climate change |
New Knowledge |
Africa, agriculture, and extension |
| Reading, writing, and problem solving |
New Skills |
Technical writing, monitoring & evaluation |
| Ability to serve others and make an immediate impact in their communities |
Application |
Individual support for future interviews, jobs, or graduate school |
| Confidence in sharing their opinions and ideas with people from outside of their culture |
Cross-Cultural Communication |
Understanding the importance of listening to understand and asking questions before speaking |
| The unity and friendship they felt during the class |
Favorite Aspect of the GCM |
New perspectives and knowledge that enhanced their undergraduate education |
(Devereux & Glenn, 2022)
Reflection & Summary
While both groups of students reported outcomes related to new perspectives, skills, and knowledge, the framing of these benefits was distinctly different for the two groups. While Liberian students tended to focus on the immediate application of these benefits to their communities, the U.S. student experience was grounded in self-discovery and reported in terms of the future impact on their careers (Devereux & Glenn, 2022). Broadly, this reflects the value systems of their respective cultural backgrounds where Liberian society tends to be more collective and the US more individualistic (Zhao et al., 2021).
Evaluating the impact of cross-cultural exchanges on students within the Global South can be difficult due to limitations of time and resources, and differences in research policies and protocol between universities (Flint et al., 2022). However, global educators must strive to capture this data through participatory approaches that can inform both scholarship and pedagogy. The impact and adoption of virtual cross-cultural experiences varies significantly by cultural and educational context, meaning educators must adapt their courses according to the unique backgrounds and needs of diverse groups of students (Zhao et al., 2021; Joy & Kolb, 2009; Hornik & Tupchiy, 2006). Learning objectives and course content should reflect an iterative collaborative process which allows for flexibility, individual tailoring of assignments and activities, and open exchange of ideas. For example:
- Encourage faculty to co-develop the class from the beginning rather than one institution developing the class and inviting the other to participate;
- Providing separate syllabi with parallel curriculum and assignments tailored for each group of students and their institutions;
- Developing specific learning objectives for each group of students that reflect their educational goals and cultural backgrounds;
- Providing separate but overlapping reading materials that are tailored for the reading levels and languages of both student groups;
- Designing parallel project assignments to account for differences in reading, writing, math, and skills;
- Provide resources and support to professors and administrators at partner universities in the Global South to initiate, develop, and sustain these types of classes.
By tailoring virtual exchanges to the needs and interests of each specific group of students, practitioners can create a more equitable and inclusive environment that celebrates and leverages diversity among cultures and individuals rather than minimizing it. Virtual exchanges like the GCM that focus on decentering Western pedagogy and elevating the unique knowledge, skills, and perspectives of those in the Global South have the potential to create a more transformational learning environment that can empower members to then go on to address global challenges within their own communities. This shift enables actors in the Global South to go beyond merely partaking in global exchanges to actively shaping the global education sphere and beyond.
References:
Akena, F. A. (2012). Critical analysis of the production of Western knowledge and its
implications for Indigenous knowledge and decolonization. Journal of Black Studies,
43(6), 599–619.
Akolgo-Azupogo, H., Rubens, A., & Bardy, R. (2021). Soft skills in developing economies: An
African view on the hidden linkage between indigenous knowledge and business
perspectives. Journal of African Studies and Development, 13(3), 47–58.
Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its
adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and
Distance Learning, 12(1), 29–42.
Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., Senor, B., Huq, J., & Morrison, M. (2010). Differentiating and
assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitative,
transactional, or transformational. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
16(2), 5–21.
Dei, G. J. (2002). Rethinking the role of indigenous knowledges in the academy. (NALL Working
Paper)
Devereux, T., & Glenn, A. (2022). Transformational learning through shifting global perspectives:
The impact of COVID-19 on a global classroom in the US and Liberia. Journal of
International Students, 12(S3), 96–115.
Flint, A., Howard, G., Baidya, M., Wondim, T., Poudel, M., Nijhawan, A., Mulugeta, Y., &
Sharma, S. (2022). Equity in Global North–South research partnerships: Interrogating
UK funding models. Global Social Challenges Journal, 1(1), 76–93.
Hornik, S., & Tupchiy, A. (2006). Culture's impact on technology mediated learning: The role of
horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Global Information
Management (JGIM), 14(4), 31–56.
Joy, S., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural differences in learning style? International
Journal of intercultural relations, 33(1), 69–85.
Krasnoff, B. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching: A guide to evidence-based practices for
teaching all students equitably. Region X Equity Assistance Center, Education
Northwest.
Kubota, R. (2016). The social imaginary of study abroad: Complexities and contradictions. The
Language Learning Journal, 44(3), 347–357.
Membrillo-Hernández, J., Cuervo Bejarano, W. J., Mejía Manzano, L. A., Caratozzolo, P., &
Vázquez Villegas, P. (2023). Global shared learning classroom model: A pedagogical
strategy for sustainable competencies development in higher education. International
Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 13(1), 20–33.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v13i1.36181
Oberhauser, A. M., & Daniels, R. (2017). Unpacking global service-learning in developing
contexts: A case study from rural Tanzania. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement, 21(4), 139–170.
Villarreal Sosa, L., & Lesniewski, J. (2021). De-colonizing study abroad: Social workers
confronting racism, sexism and poverty in Guatemala. Social Work Education, 40(6),
719–736.
Wiek, A., Bernstein, M. J., Laubichler, M., Caniglia, G., Minteer, B., & Lang, D. J. (2013). A
global classroom for international sustainability education. Scientific Research, 4(4A),
19–28.
Zhao, Y., Wang, N., Li, Y., Zhou, R., & Li, S. (2021). Do cultural differences affect users’
e‐learning adoption? A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1),
20–41.
Zuchowski, I., Gopalkrishnan, N., King, J., & Francis, A. (2017). Reciprocity in international
student exchange: Challenges posed by neo-colonialism and the dominance of the
Western voice. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(1), 77–87.