2 The understanding of the dialogic approach, as used here, is informed by the interdisciplinary study on the definition of dialogue conducted by Conti (2012).

older buddy).The vast majority of buddy systems included pairings of students with students. However, in a few instances pairings of students with teachers or with members of the community, as well as teachers with teachers were reported. Buddy initiatives were generally based on pairings of one to one. However, instances were also reported of pairings of one to many, e.g. a student with a disability or other condition and their peers in the class. Pairings of one to many appeared suitable in inclusive initiatives taking place in larger settings. This seems to allow for flexibility and continuity of the initiative in the case that one of the buddies were to become (temporarily) unavailable.The buddy initiatives analyzed in the selected literature also included pairings of many to many. These were common in teacher-led initiatives with pairings of whole classes of different levels of education and generally complementary to one-to-one pairings of student-student and teacher-teacher as part of the same initiative. In those instances, the whole class pairing took place in specific stages of the project that involved the induction phase at the beginning of the project, or the reflection phase at the end of the project.

These findings are in line with the findings from the interviews, which also identified pairings of the same age as well as of different ages (older buddy with younger buddy). The different programmes run different pairingformats: pairings one to one (Programmes C and D), one to two (Programme B), and many to many (Programmes A and E). At the same time, the interviews also revealed that the buddy approach does not always need to have a fixed pairing format in terms of number, nor a specific orientation to specific profiles, nor in relation to the objective of the buddyship. The buddy-approach can be just lived as a *culture* permeating a certain group: The members of the group absorb the dialogic attitude on which the buddy-system is rooted and express it in terms of the enrichment of eye-level relationships. Buddy-teams emerge in this context spontaneously, on the basis of the needs and interests of the group members who become buddies for a certain project, often helping one another to reach a certain goal (Programme F).

#### Key Requirements for Successful Buddy-Systems

The literature review has led to the identification of some core factors which have a positive impact on buddy-systems. Some of these are related to the facilitator of the initiative, some to the condition under which the buddy-system takes place. Among the first factors is the *clear commitment of the initiators* of the intervention and their ability tomanage the process,including the delicate task of elaborating the profiles of the participants in order to match them correctly and to organize trainings and offer support mechanisms. Particularly important seems to be the *initial training,* in which the participants are introduced to the buddy approach and develop basic skills, although the pedagogic and material support given to the buddies throughout the process is also relevant, e.g. in the form of counselling and through the provision of learning materials. A specific challenge highlighted in the literature is the insufficient preparation of the students in relation to the display of their agency and their ability to take on the role of experts, switching from the role of learner to that of mentor. This implies the need to convey concepts with their own words and codes to their peers and, most importantly, to enrich the learning contents with their own knowledge, which actually represents the real added value, as it originates from their own individual experience in their lifeworld. In relation to the conditions under which the buddies collaborate, particular importance is given to the *place* where the buddies meet, which must be available, easily accessible, and adequate to the tasks and objectives.Moreover the literature highlights the relevance of a clear outline of *the duration of the intervention* (e.g. one scholastic year) as well as the specification of the *frequency of the meetings*.

These factors were also mentioned in the interviews, in which the success and sustainability of the project has been linked to the commitment of the responsible persons, to the institutional support and recognition given to the programme and to the presence of structures ensuring long-term continuity. The prevalence of buddy systemsin formal educational settings appears to confirm the importance of institutional settings and frameworks for the successful implementation of such initiatives. The interviewees also pointed out that while professionals are generally expected to have the necessary skills to implement the project and its aims, the participants need preparation before entering the programme. The selected initiatives undertake this through informal exchange (Programme D), while in a few cases an initial workshop summarizes the principal aspects (Programmes A, B, C and E). In all programmes the buddy-teams receive support in the form of counselling. In this way their well-being is ensured as well as the general positive development of the buddyship. Four out of the six programmes (Programmes A, B, E and F) also offer tailor-made training units throughout the process to allow the buddies to develop the hard and soft skills needed for accomplishing their buddyship. The data collected through qualitative research confirm that adequate conditions in relation to space and time are fundamental for good collaboration; indeed all programmes with one-to-one and one-to-two schemes make sure their participants fix their collaboration in terms of frequency and duration at the beginning of their buddyship.

### Modes of Learning

Nearly all of the programmes analyzed in the reviewed studies (n=38) implemented their buddy-system through traditional learning modes and face-toface interaction. Only one initiative reported buddy interactions and peerlearning via digital media. The buddy-programmes examined in Germany were specifically designed to promote buddy-systems on-site. During the Covid-19 Pandemic most of these had to stop, except Programmes B and D which supported the continuation of the buddyship through digital media. Digital forms of the buddy-system, in which collaboration takes place online as well as in hybrid formats – i.e. in which the buddy-collaboration on-site is guided by an e-learning platform, as is the case in the KIDS4ALLL project – remain underexplored in the literature and underutilized in practice.

# **4. Recommendations for the Development of Buddy-Systems**

It is evident from the systematic literature review and the findings from the interviews that the buddy-approach can be expressed in various types of buddy-systems, which may be shaped according to one of the following three schemes: pairings of one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many. The buddy-system must be conceived on the basis of the objectives of the specific initiative, the context in which it is going to take place as well as the needs of the participants involved. Moreover, the outcomes of both our meta-analysis and empirical study show that a core characteristic of the buddy-approach is the balanced relationship of the buddies despite their different positions, e.g. with/without disability, with more/less language proficiency. The dialogic attitude which buddies are invited to assume allows them to understand this experience as an enrichment for all, beyond its character grounded in solidarity. Indeed everyone has strengths and weaknesses, therefore *all* buddies are encouraged to share their knowledge, perspectives, and skills and can, in this way, learn from each other while building a positive interpersonal relationship.

As participants have different degrees of dialogic competence, it is important to support them from the beginning with training, counselling, and adequate materials as well as with practical issues which may arise. The intention is to stimulate collaboration and to help participants create a relationship in which they all feel free to express their opinion, to display their creativity, and to discuss their feelings in different situations, including those which are induced by conflict. In order to avoid frustration and ensure the participants' well-being, it might be useful to ask the buddies to start with the joint elaboration of their principles of collaboration, which may also include mediation strategies to be applied in the case that conflict arises. Setting a clear frame to the collaboration, also in terms of place, time, and joint objectives can favour the development of a buddyship whose members feel comfortable and motivated.

The data highlights that buddy-teams need the competent support of teachers and educators, who are however not necessarily specifically prepared for this task. As the buddy-approach questions their traditional role, it requires specific knowledge, skills and attitudes which transcend the pure commitment and might differ from the ones they have trained until then. Moreover the findings show that the commitment of the person in charge is not enough even in relation to the programme's sustainability, which is instead favored by its institutionalization.

# **5. Implementation of the Buddy Approach Within KIDS4ALLL**

As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, the Horizon 2020 project KIDS4ALLL aims to foster social inclusion of migrant youth through addressing their needs holistically. In order to reach this goal, various strategies interweave in its design. Firstly, the concept combines the promotion of key competences with peer-learning, promoting simultaneously in this way cognitive, behavioural, and social development. Secondly, the project's output is not just dedicated to migrant students, but it is for *all* students and also for teachers and educators, all of them being citizens who together constitute their community and who shape the future jointly. Thirdly, KIDS4ALLL is based on a special form of peer-learning, that is the buddy-system, whose dialogic character putsinto focus differences,while at the same time balances relationships. Fourthly, it also considers teachers' and educators' learning needs and invites them to satisfy these needs themselves, in exchange with a buddy. Fifthly, it acknowledges that learning does not just happen lifelong but also *lifewide;* the project's output is therefore designed to be useful also in non-formal and informal educational settings. Finally, in order to reach its target-groups, the project exploits the advantages offered by digitality and its output is conceived to be multimedial,multilingual, and accessible in any location. Nevertheless in order to stick to its goal, the project keeps the focus on the local reality of the users and stimulates collaboration on-site.

While the first five strategies refer to contents discussed in the previous sections of this chapter, the last one has just been touched upon, as we have observed that the vast majority of the (meta-)analyzed initiatives takes place on-site, without involving any strategic use of digital means. Considering that the engagement with digital media has become ever more pervasive, a major gap between merely analog didactic offers of the buddy-approach and postdigital lifeworlds3 seems to exist. KIDS4ALLL aims to contribute to the innovation of educational design through its hybrid concept,meaning thus the creation of an e-learning platform which stimulates buddy-interaction in place. This multimedia platform should make learning more accessible and appealing for learners of the postdigital society and at the same time disseminate widely the buddy-culture. This implies overcoming a core challenge: How to make this platform successfulin different world regions?The project developed a twofold tactic in order to harmonize standardization with localization. On the one hand, the contents, the format, and the design are inspired by quasiuniversal trends, so that once translated they should be easily usable and understandable by the speakers of 13 languages, among which there is Arabic, English, French and Spanish. On the other hand, the didactic concept according to which its content is structured and presented leaves space for localization, giving the buddy-teams themselves the task of involving in their exchange, knowledge which is meaningful to them. We will now show how this concept is to be realized by describing the KIDS4ALLL e-learning platform.

The KIDS4ALLL e-learning platform is organized in three areas, namely the *know.what* area, the *know.how* area and the *work.it* area. In the *know.what* area*,* children, adolescents, and young adults find content aimed at stimulating their buddy-collaboration.The content is presented in the form of thematic units which start with a warm-up, usually an interactive quiz, then offers the

3 In this context, 'postdigital lifeworlds'draw upon Cramer's interpretation of the term "postdigital" (2014), signifying contemporary lifeworlds characterized by extensive digitalization. It denotes the pervasive integration of digital media into our daily lives, wherein digital tools and platforms have become commonplace for various aspects of everyday existence.

buddies specific input on the topic with a task to solve together. It afterwards proposes to them at least one creative task that leads participants to produce their own content, and ends with a reflection which they can also share online in form of a digital postcard. The content transmitted in this area focuses particularly on the acquisition of the eight key competences for lifelong learning, which are considered, as mentioned in the introduction, as crucial to addressing the societal challenge of differences in life chances between migrant and non-migrant youth. Moreover, in order to also provide teachers and educators with the competences they need to act and design their lessons and projects in a more inclusive way, there is a dedicated *know.what* area for them. The contents are structuredin the samemanner as for the youth:With a warm-up exercise, a specific input, practical transfer-tasks, and a reflection. Content-wise, however, the know.what area relates to collaborative learning, socio-emotional skills, global competence as well as dialogic and intercultural competence. For both target groups, the learning units in the know.what area have been designed towards the development of the learners in three domains: The cognitive domain, through transmission of knowledge; the behavioural, through the facilitation of skills training; and the emotional domain, through the promotion of specific attitudes.

The *know.how* area provides users with video-tutorials of two-three minutes each, that intend to stimulate buddy-collaboration and support this from the beginning to the end. Ten tutorials are dedicated to the students and outline how they can conceive, manage, and successfully realize with their buddy a joint project, the project being the production of educational content. The tutorials refer exclusively to a one-to-one buddy scheme, as it fosters maximum active participation of both buddies and favours the development of their personal relationship. In line with the recommendation developed out of the findings, the buddy teams are encouraged to talk from the beginning of their buddyship about their collaboration and set goals related to how they can effectively work together, based on their mutual expectations.These ten tutorials deal, therefore, with teamwork but also with design thinking, project management, pedagogic content elaboration, inclusion and diversity issues, as well as content presentation and recording. As educators and teachers play a central role in the promotion of self-determined, dialogic, and creative buddy-collaborations, ten tutorials have been produced specifically for them. These aim to help in the building of matching buddy-teams, to develop an adequate framework in which they can work, and finally to support their creative and collaborative processes. The tutorials are, therefore, on participatory project management, team-building, dialogic facilitation as well as on the transmitting of know-how useful to support their buddy-teams in the production of their content in the context of KIDS4ALLL, and beyond.

In the *work.it* area buddy-teams can upload and publish – with permission and support of their teacher/educator – content related to one of the eight key competences which they have jointly created. This area of the platform is therefore a sort of participatory archive for educational content and extends the KIDS4ALLL peer-learning experience further, allowing buddy-teams to learn thanks to contents previously produced by other buddy-teams. The opportunity given to any and every buddy-team to share content on this platform has a further interesting implication: It makes the platform a lively place in which users can leave their traces and perceive the presence of others. As the material published in this area does not go through an automatic selection based on language, the users come into contact with multimedia content in several different languages.The *work.it* area is therefore a space in which users may experience their first conscious contact with other languages and indirectly with peers living in other regions. This connection, even if mediated, may strengthen a sense of belonging to the multilingual, transnational world community. By making buddy-culture 'go viral', the KIDS4ALLL e-learning platform promotes the development of stronger ties among young people, members of the same local community as well as positive connections among young citizens of the world.

# **6. Conclusion**

Universal access to and the enjoyment of high-quality, inclusive learning opportunities is a fundamental right. Research shows that this is not yet the reality and that young migrants are particularly prone to experiencing diminished academic performance and face an elevated risk of school dropout. This is linked with numerous factors, though a key role is played by language proficiency, social exclusion, as well as the insufficient ability of many teachers and educators to address their needs holistically. This chapter delved into the potential of the buddy-approach to foster social inclusion and outlined the strategies pursued by the Horizon 2020 innovation project KIDS4ALLL, which seeks to enhance the inclusion of migrant students by synergizing the buddy-approach with the development of key competences for students, as well as for teachers and educators.

In the framework of this project, funded by the European Commission, we have first conducted a systematic literature review on the buddy-approach and an empirical qualitative study on buddy-initiatives in Germany.Their findings, presented in this chapter, have provided a comprehensive insight into the current state of implementation of the buddy approach, shedding light on how it has been executed thus far. Based on the results derived from our (meta)analysis, we have formulated key recommendations for designing initiatives centred around this concept, which have been seamlessly integrated in the KIDS4ALLL output. In the following, we summarize the main findings and reflect on the strategies developed by KIDS4ALLL to make the buddy-culture 'go viral'.

While the buddy approach may lack a formal, explicit definition, it is commonly understood as a type of supportive and mutually beneficial connection among a select group of individuals marked by a dialogic attitude. In this approach, buddies engage in a balanced relationship that allows them to express their individuality and enhance their personal growth through meaningful interactions with one another. The buddy approach can manifest itself in various forms, including one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many configurations, often coordinated by an experienced individual responsible for the initiative. However, the buddy approach does not inherently require a pre-organized structure in which to thrive. In cases where a buddy culture prevails within a group, buddy teams can spontaneously emerge based on shared projects and mutual interests.

While the systematic literature review primarily identified the prevalence of buddy initiatives in formal educational settings, insights gleaned from interviews with German buddy initiatives focused on migrant youth inclusion reveal that both formal and non-formal educational settings can effectively accommodate such programmes. Facilitating students' sense of inclusion and belonging within the (school) community not only boosts their motivation but also transforms them into active participants in the learning process.However, the potential of buddy approaches to foster inclusion and skill development remains under-explored across various educational settings (formal, non-formal, or informal) and modes of learning (digital or traditional). This observation is supported by findings from both the systematic literature review and interviews conducted with representatives of buddy initiatives dedicated to migrant inclusion.

The primary focus of KIDS4ALLL is to bridge this existing gap by promoting peer-learning in buddy teams in and outside the formal educational settings. To achieve this, the project harnesses the digital realm, which has thus

far remained underutilized. An attractive and user-friendly platform is being developed to make learning *lifewide,* bringing individuals together and transforming strangers into buddies who learn from each other in their free time. In this manner, the project seeks to not only address the inclusion of migrant youth, but also to instill an active engagement of students in their own learning journey. By disseminating the buddy-culture online, KIDS4ALLL taps into the full potential of an increasingly diverse student population.

# **References**

**New Teaching, New Frontiers**

# **Global Classroom** Postdigital Connecting Across Continents

## *Siobhan Brownlie*

Abstract *This paper discusses a module entitled 'Global Classroom'.There are three participating universities: Le Mans Université, France where the module is part of the Masters in International Cultural Studies;the University of Pretoria, South Africa; and Fundação Armando Alvares Penteado, São Paulo,Brazil;participantsfromthelattertwouniversitiesarefourth year studentsinpolitical science. In ordertofacilitate communication, the module operates via the video-conferencing platform Zoom. Each week focuses on a particular topic, for example, green action, media and misinformation, democracy in action, national elections and youth attitudes, with guest speakers, student presentations and discussion.The paper defines andis structured byfour concepts/practices: "small cultures", "postdigitality", "virtual exchange", and "postdigital critical cosmopolitanism". The Global Classroom module is analyzed through the prism of these concepts/practices. With respectto virtual exchange and postdigital critical cosmopolitanism,itisfoundthat the module partially equates with these concepts/practices. It is suggested that in future iterations of the module, particular choices with respect to topic and task design could better allow students to develop intercultural skills and self-reflection.*

Keywords *Global Classroom; Small Cultures; Virtual Exchange; Postdigitality; Critical Cosmopolitanism*

# **1. Introduction**

The purpose of this chapter is to present a case study that contributes to the critical examination of digital forms of global education that allow the creation of hybrid spaces connecting people, and knowledges internationally.The chapter discusses a university module titled "Global Classroom" that involves students from three continents and whose main aim is to broaden the students' knowledge, understanding, and outlook with regard to a range of political, social, and cultural issues through the encounter with different perspectives.The virtual exchange takes place via synchronous online classes. The Global Classroom module was set up by the University of Akron, Ohio, USA, and has been running since 2018. For the 2022 edition,which I took partin as a lecturer/facilitator and report on here, three universities collaborated: the University of Pretoria, South Africa; Fundação Armando Alvares Penteado (FAAP), São Paulo, Brazil; and Le Mans Université, France.

In this chapter, the module is examined through the prism of four concepts/practices: small cultures, postdigitality, virtual exchange, and postdigital critical cosmopolitanism.With regard to the latter two concepts/practices, virtual exchange and postdigital critical cosmopolitanism, I will focus on the extent to which the Global Classroom module reflected these concepts. In terms of researchmethodology for the study, there are several aspects.As a contributing teacher at Le Mans, I undertook participant observation for the duration of the module from March till May 2022 and subsequently reviewed the recordings of the classes. I made use of an earlier report on the module covering 2018–19 (Henwood & Thuynsma, 2019). This report was written for the purpose of application for a teaching excellence award at the University of Pretoria and as such focused on the establishment of the Global Classroom module in 2018–19 as an innovative pedagogical initiative. Finally, I undertook an anonymous survey with the 2022 group from Le Mans that asked students about their learning, experiences, attitudes, and suggestions.1

# **2. Small Cultures**

*Small cultures* is a concept that applies to all social groupings and which was developed by Adrian Holliday (1999). A small culture refers to habitual patterned activities, behaviours, and understandings that emerge in specific ways

1 Ideally, the whole cohort of students from the three universities should have answered the questionnaire. However, the questionnaire actually played a dual role: It was not only undertaken for research purposes, but also in order to collect opinions from my students, the French students, who had expressed some concerns about the unit. Although there was a limited number of questionnaire responses (ten students answered out of eighteen in the group), they provide valuable insights into student reaction to the module.

in a group. The initial impetus is a need for group cohesion; members of the group contribute information and influences to create meanings and rules; routinization of group activities occurs; the small culture is thus formed; and products such as artefacts are produced (Holliday, 1999, pp. 241, 249).

The Global Classroom participants comprising teachers, guest speakers, and students created a small culture that traversed continents, countries,institutions, disciplines, and languages in cyberspace and that devised and adopted practices to overcome any potential obstacles to teaching and learning collaboration in this hybrid digital space.The partnership of universities from South Africa, Brazil, and France meant that English, Portuguese, and French were the native languages of the students. As the participants were fourth year students, all had a proficient level of English, and so English was chosen as the lingua franca for the module with occasional use of the other languages. The interdisciplinary aspect stemmed from the fact that for the University of Pretoria and for FAAP, the students were from the discipline of political science (mainly majoring in international relations), and the students at Le Mans were enrolled on the Masters in International Cultural Studies which has a focus on literature and media. Given this disciplinary mix, it was decided that the unit would not be focused on theory, but rather on topics of current political and social interest that could be approached from various perspectives. Each week was devoted to a particular topic with the following titles: "Green Action: The Politics and Possibilities," "Media,Misinformation and Society," "Democracy in Action," "Public Services: Myth or Fact," "Elections 2022: Is Anyone Listening?", and "Actions Speak Louder thanWords:What Have we Learnt About Good Governance?" (2022 syllabus).

In order to promote knowledge exchange and student participation, the format decided on for each session was a talk by a guest speaker on the weekly topic, student presentations on current events in their country that related to the weekly topic, and questions and discussion. Within this framework, the emergent nature of practices was evident in the on-going negotiation among staff and students concerning content and activities. For example, the topic relating to national elections evolved into a student-led discussion on youth attitudes towards participating in politics. Of course, for online teaching, effective and reliable technology is essential. In addition to e-mail for communication and a google drive for sharing and storing documents, the practice of video-conferencing was used for the synchronous online classes. In the early days of 2018 when the module was first devised, the use of video-conferencing platforms had been highly innovative, but by 2022, and the changes initiated

by the Covid pandemic, the use of Zoom (and similar platforms) had become a normalized part of academic life.

For international classrooms, it is commonalities across nationalities and educational and peer experiences that are the building blocks for a new small culture (Holliday, 1999, p. 249). Staff and students collaborating on Global Classroom brought similarities in knowledge with regard to institutional, academic, and digital practices. It was noticeable, for example, that directly from the first class where a guest speaker addressed the group on the topic of the environment, all of the students took to using the Zoom chat function in order to ask questions, thus demonstrating their joint familiarity with this practice in digital (learning) cultures.

# **3. Postdigitality**

Let us now consider the concept of postdigitality that raises central issues for an online module today. In its colloquial use, digital refers to computational electronic devices. Rather than "post" signalling an 'afterwards' or a completely new period, postdigitality signifies rather a fundamental continuation in the same manner as terms such as postcoloniality (Cramer, 2015, p. 15), but with differences in experience and perspective. One feature of postdigitality is that our fascination with digital information systems has become historical, because digitality today has become a normalized part of everyday life where the online and offline are almost seamlessly intertwined. Certainly, in the Global Classroom module, this was apparent in the phenomenon of the hybrid classroom which was experienced simultaneously as a 'normal' physical classroom with teacher and students face-to-face, and as an online experience where we communicated with students and staff overseas who appeared on the Zoom platform screen in the classroom.

Cramer (2015) points out how postdigitality involves hybrids of older and new media technologies where older technologies (e.g. newspapers, movies, television, radio) are remediated – that is embedded and repurposed via the Internet (p. 20). User creation is at the heart of these postdigital activities, giving the impression of assertion of agency, although we are always part of systems. Every week for the Global Classroom, small student groups, one from each university, made a presentation. The students usually used Canva as a tool that facilitates online collaborative work. For the end of semester project, student groups (one per university) were required to produce a video based on

individual students' self-filming (via smartphone), that linked the theme of being an active global citizen to one of the weekly topics they chose to review. Embedded in the digital presentations and videos were traces of older media technologies: graphic design, texts, photographs, drawings, mathematical graphs, extracts from television programmes and films, music tracks. What is interesting to note is that all of the students had already acquired the technical and artistic skills to make these products, demonstrating how digital design is now a competence firmly established in educational (and extra-educational) environments internationally. Postdigitality has both transformed the experience of learning through opening up new possibilities of virtual relations and activities and had an impact on formal educational procedures: As evidenced in this module, the old traditional form of assessment through individual written assignments has been replaced by collaborative digital audio-visual productions.

Another important feature of the postdigital era is adopting a more reflective critical stance than previously with regard to the digital. Focussing on education, Knox (2019) takes a critical approach along three lines: He points out how digital technologies rely on hidden exploitation of labour and natural resources, how the influence of digital technology is increasing the mechanical metrification ofinstitutional quality, and how the economic rationales that underpin digital technology, as seen in corporate platform models and the datadriven technology industry, are encroaching on teaching and learning. Global Classroom is reliant on using the Zoom video-conferencing platform. While the module could not operate without such a tool that allows efficient interpersonal and international connection and communication, use of the platformincorporates themoduleinto themodel of subjectivity andidentity linked to the profit-seeking data-driven economy of 'shareveillance'. This is largely hidden since no privacy messages appear upon opening the platform. Nevertheless, the Zoom privacy statement (Zoom, 2023) reveals that cookies on Zoom share data with third party partners for the purposes of advertising,marketing and analytics. For Knox (2019), the postdigital era must acknowledge assumptions associated with digital technologies, and ideally build public collective ideals into digital systems.

The critical focus of postdigitality may be used to analyze the Global Classroom module in further ways. Hall (2019) argues that the Internet can be conducive to democracy, as it allows decentred and non-hierarchical communications where a networked public connects to wider public spheres vertically (through timespace) and horizontally (by reaching different publics) (pp. 412–413). It is true that the Global Classroom module allows students and

staff to interact with their counterparts in other countries whom they normally would not have met. However, as is well-known, the Internet also harbours what one might call anti-democratic tendencies: It fosters homophily in the form of virtual communities that are socio-spatial enclaves (our restricted group of staff and fourth-year university students), and, as mentioned above, it is subject to a state-corporate surveillance apparatus that extracts and commodifies data (Hall, 2019, pp. 408, 412). Furthermore, information that appears on the Internet may be propagated beyond the original intended recipients. As such, the democratic value and practice of freedom of speech may be hampered where Internet users are concerned about confidentiality of the content they produce. In the questionnaire undertaken with the Le Mans students, I provided a series of statements to which the students had to react in terms of level of agreement. The following statement concerned freedom and openness of speech:

*Fig. 1: "I am careful about what I say in the digital classroom, since recordings of the class may potentially be seen by people outside the class participants."*

The results are quite diffuse, showing a lack of uniformity of response among the students. Nevertheless, 50 % of the students agree with the statement that they are careful about what they say in the digital classroom. In addition to the matter of cookies, the Zoom privacy policy reveals that content (such as recorded class sessions) may be provided by Zoom to judicial or regulatory authorities when requested (Zoom, 2023). It is the porousness of the Internet environment that arouses the students' distrust, and therefore their

self-surveillance of expression. Of course, in face-to-face communication, we also survey what we say, but a digital environment that involves uploaded recordings of sessions increases this phenomenon. Where students (and staff) are possibly not voicing their opinions openly and honestly, this is problematic for a university module whose aim is to foster open communication across national boundaries.

Another area of critical reflection that relates to democratic potential and that is relevant for the Global Classroom module is the issue of the digital divide. Although across the world access to the Internet has greatly improved, there are still disparities. With regard to the three countries whose universities collaborated in the Global Classroom module, according to Datareportal in early 2022, the Internet penetration rates were: France 93 %, Brazil 77 %, and South Africa 68.2 %. One factor related to Internet penetration is age: Older people may not have adapted to this technology. But what explains the difference between the three countries is the level of poverty.

During the course of the module, we became directly aware of the difficulty of living conditions in South Africa: We often saw our colleagues and the students in South Africa plunged into darkness, as they were subjected to loadshedding, rolling electricity cuts due to rationing of the electricity supply that does not meet demand. Of course, the Global Classroom participants represented a privileged sector of their country's population, as university students and staff generally do. In the case of FAAP (Brazil), thisis a private university, so the issue of an elite is compounded even further. In their presentations, Brazilian and South African students mentioned the issue of poverty but tended to do so in a distant and statistical way. No images or videos were shown, for example. This gave the impression of masking inequality and, together with the elite nature of the bubble of tertiary students, meant that this Internet-based module was somewhat lacking in horizontal connections reaching out to certain publics (Hall, 2019, p. 413).

# **4. Virtual Exchange**

However, discussion surrounding the concept/practice of virtual exchange provides a different perspective and even a partial counterargument to the charge of elite staus made above. Previously, to the turn of the century, internationalization of higher education study programmes was associated with student and staff mobility, that is, physically moving to a different country, which was limited to those who had the financial means for such travel. Contemporary information and communication technologies allow internationalization at home to occur, that is, the provision of opportunities through virtual exchange for international and intercultural contacts, connections, and learning for all students, not just the mobile elite (Helm & Guth, 2022, p. 265). With regard to the French students on the Global Classroom module, for example, a number come from modest socio-economic milieux, for which study abroad in distant countries in the traditional physical sense could not be afforded. Thus, although actually travelling to a country provides a very enriching experience, the international virtual classroom has the advantage of widening participation.

Virtual exchange can be defined as "an experiential approach that harnesses technology to engage students in online international exchanges in order to foster the development of global and intercultural competences or citizenship" (Helm & Guth, 2022, p. 265). Other terms have been used for this teaching format such as globally networked learning, collaborative online international learning (COIL), telecollaboration, and online intercultural exchange. The curriculum of a virtual exchange module may be prepared, and the module organized administratively by an organization such as Erasmus or the Sharing Perspectives Foundation, or it may be co-designed when two or more educators from different national contexts collaboratively design and implement an exchange. The Global Classroom module follows the latter model. In principle, virtual exchange espouses a social constructivist view of education whereby it is considered that all knowledge develops as a result of social interaction and language use and is therefore a shared experience. A constructivist learning approach attaches as much importance to the process of learning as it does to the acquisition of knowledge. In parallel, the aim of virtual exchange is not only acquiring subject-specific knowledge, but also acquiring intercultural skills in terms of relating to people of different backgrounds (Helm & Guth, 2022).

The first element of the definition of virtual exchange is an "online international exchange" (Helm & Guth, 2022, p. 265). For Global Classroom, the digital environment allowed collaboration across different universities in different countries that the students were unfamiliar with, creating a new experience of intersubjectivity through these connections. Virtual international study experiences can indeed cover a wider geographic scope than physical student mobility programmes that are restricted to a particular region (Helm & Guth, 2022, p. 272), such as Europe (Erasmus). The Global Classroom module was an exceptional experience in terms of the students' programmes. One could even liken it to the concept of life-wide learning: learning which takes place in a variety of spaces that are not necessarily organized or formal (Aoki, 2020, p. 42). The space created by the module is formal, but it extends learning spaces beyond what is usual for the students through its inter-continental character. The diverse international nature of the module was highly appreciated by the students, as revealed in the questionnaire. Here are some of the students' responses when asked what they appreciated about the module: "I like the fact that every week we are discussing a common subject while being from different countries," "Learning about other countries and their cultures, especially from other continents," "Having the point of view of people from other countries" (student survey). Another aspect of extension beyond the students' normal academic experience was working with students from different disciplines, namely political science and cultural studies. Generally, university students are confined to their particular disciplines that can be seen as separate small cultures (Holliday, 1999), so the module offered the perhaps challenging but interesting possibility of interaction with students specializing in different disciplines. As Henwood and Thuynsma (2019) note in their report about the module (p. 11): "Weekly discussions and student-led presentations display different disciplinary, political and socio-cultural slants […] We embrace this as essential for the aim of self-development."

The second element of the definition of virtual exchange provided by Helm and Guth is fostering "the development of global and intercultural competences" (Helm & Guth, 2022, p. 265). An important question regarding Global Classroom is whether acquiring "global and intercultural competences" is part of the objectives of the module. In the aims for the module, Henwood & Thuynsma (2019) list (pp. 9, 14): "to increase international communication and understanding of political structures and sentiments prominent in the 21st century," "to promote cross-cultural understanding (students were surprised at the different perspectives that are possible in examining topical issues)," and "to foster openness to new knowledge and respect for diverse opinions." These goals place emphasis on understanding other systems and cultures, in other words acquiring knowledge. A key element of virtual exchange is indeed that it has the potential to offer students access to a rich "ecology of knowledges" (Helm & Guth, 2022, p. 275). In my observation of the Global Classroom module, there was definitely an emphasis on acquiring knowledge that embraced similarity and diversity both across and within national units. The knowledge emphasis was enacted through the format of the weekly classes

which, as noted above, consisted primarily of a guest speaker from one country, questions to the speaker from the audience, and powerpoint presentations by small groups of students from the different countries on the weekly topic as applied to their country/continent. In this format, there was participation by students who were exposed to/acquired knowledge, but little student-tostudent interaction.

It is useful to discuss here the concepts of cross-culturality; "cross-cultural understanding" figures as a goal in Henwood & Thuynsma's (2019, p. 9) list for the Global Classroom module and interculturality; acquiring "intercultural competences" is a goal for virtual exchange modules (Helm & Guth, 2022, p. 265). For some, the meaning of the two terms is interchangeable, but for our purposes a distinction is useful. Cross-culturality can be conceived as being comparison-based, focusing on conceptual knowledge (Fries, n.d.). It is a matter, for example, of making comparisons between different cultural or political systems in different countries. This certainly occurred in the Global Classroom module. A notable occasion was the discussion of national election systems where we discovered that in Brazil voting is compulsory but not in South Africa and France, and furthermore that voting ages are different: The minimum age is 18 in South Africa and France, whereas in Brazil young people can vote at 16. Such comparisons gave rise to interesting reflections and debates that would not have taken place if students had been restricted to their own system. So, exposure to new knowledge occurred, comparisons sometimes sparked reflection, and concomitantly, it is presumed that openness to diverse ways of thinking and being, and respect for differences in cultural systems and for different points of view were fostered.

In contrast to cross-culturality, interculturality can be defined as involving interpersonal or small group interaction. For Zhu (2013), interculturality occurs when in the course of an interpersonal or small group interaction, elements of cultural similarity or difference among the interactants become salient, in other words, these differences/similarities become an explicit matter of verbal or non-verbal communication. What then is the relationship between interculturality and "global and intercultural competences" (Helm & Guth, 2022, p. 265)? In Mike Byram's well-known model of intercultural (communicative) competence, knowledge is one component. Other competences are skills of interpreting and relating, skills of discovery and interaction, attitudes such as curiosity and openness, and skills of critical evaluation. For Byram (Hoff, 2020), "these interlinked competences may not only help the intercultural speaker to achieve effective exchange of information, but also to

establish and maintain interpersonal relationships based on mutual respect and understanding" (p. 57). Achievements in terms of interpersonal relationships are thus a key outcome of intercultural (communicative) competence. In order to develop the latter, there must be opportunities for interpersonal or small group communication with cultural others. In the case of Global Classroom, there was only one occasion when students were separated into break-out groups on Zoom to allow small group interaction, and otherwise there were no opportunities for interpersonal interaction across the students from the three universities. Here are the results with regard to two relevant questions from the survey (students were asked if they agreed with the statements):

Concerning knowledge acquisition regarding different countries as a result of undertaking the module, 80 % of the students responded affirmatively and no students disagreed. In contrast, with regard to obtaining experience and skills of interaction with people from different countries during the module, 40 % of the students disagreed and 50 % agreed.These results confirm from the student experience point of view that the focus of the module was on crosscultural comparison and knowledge acquisition, rather than on the development of intercultural interpersonal competence through experiences of interculturality, interpersonal or small group interactions where cultural issues become salient.The module catered for the acquisition of knowledge and the fostering openness that are included in definitions of intercultural competence, but it did not fully correspond with the aim of virtual exchange for students to develop a range of intercultural skills in dealing with cultural others.Of course, if the teaching aim is to enhance intercultural competence, it is not sufficient simply to bring students from different countries together in small group arrangements. Care needs to be placed into the design of targeted pedagogical activities. As O'Dowd writes: "To develop skills in communicating and collaborating with people from different cultures, it is necessary to provide students with interculturally challenging tasks which require high levels of negotiation and collaboration" (O'Dowd, 2021, p. 218).

*Fig. 3: "As a result of doing this module, I gained experience/developed skills in interacting with people from different countries."*

# **5. Postdigital Critical Cosmopolitanism**

Continuing on with the issue of outcomes of the module, our final concept/practice remains postdigital critical cosmopolitanism. The term cosmopolitanism generally signifies cultural links and empathic feelings of solidarity beyond the national level (Lenehan, 2022, p. 16). The Global Classroom module fostered links beyond the national units where the three universities are based, and as discussed above, these links led to the gaining of knowledge of cultural others. Feelings of solidarity cannot come into existence without knowledge of the lives of others. During the module, some student questions indeed revealed empathy for those in other countries, notably following the talk where we learnt about state capture in Africa by business interests and warlords which has reinforced suffering of the populations. Critical cosmopolitanism is a more specific term/concept coined by sociologist Gerard Delanty that places emphasis on a particular process, namely selftransformation through coming into contact with the other:

Transnational movements, cultural diversity and hybrid cultures do not in themselves constitute cosmopolitanism, […] More important is the critical moment in which changes in self-understanding occur as a result of global challenges. […] A cosmopolitan perspective does not simply involve accepting the views of the Other but requires a problematization of one's own assumptions, as well as those of the Other. (Delanty, 2009, p. 16)

Lenehan extends the notion of critical cosmopolitanism to the digital. There are clearly downsides to the contemporary Internet that is in thrall to global North-dominated algorithmic capitalism, and is ethically neutral such that it can foster global solidarities of racism and extremism. At the same time, postdigitality provides a world-wide contact zone brimming with benign possibilities for intercultural encounters, discussions on matters of local and global concern, and thus changes in self-understanding. The Internet is viewed as a space for potential dialogical processes leading to self-reflection and transformations that may be individual or collective (Lenehan, 2022, pp. 22–25). The term transformation could apply to learning new information, enriching one's knowledge. However, Delanty's (2009) thinking goes beyond this. It is not simply a matter of amassing new knowledge, but of putting one's existing belief systems into question. Here, the notion of transculturality is useful to illuminate Delanty's ideas. As mentioned before, cross-culturality can be defined as the cognitive comparison of cultural systems, and interculturality involves cultural similarities/differences becoming salient in the course of interpersonal interaction. These types of processes are necessary for but do not necessarily give rise to self-reflection and change, whereas transculturality describes processes of change subsequent to encounter. It signifies permeation, negotiation,interconnectedness, fusions andmixes,ongoing transforming dialogues, moments of self-estrangement of one's cultural assumptions, plural affiliations and fluidity (Dagnino, 2012). Thus, creation of newness and transforming of thinking.

In the survey, students were asked if Global Classroom had led to a change in their thinking on particular issues. Here is how they responded:

*Fig. 4: "As a result of doing this module, I changed/developed my thinking on some issues covered during the classes."*

In terms of (postdigital) critical cosmopolitanism, the key occurrence for the individual must be self-transformation.Here 20 % of the students reported a change or development in thinking on topics covered during the module, whereas 80 % provided a neutral response to this question. Clearly the unit did not achieve critical cosmopolitan aims. However, just as we noted before how targeted task design is essential in promoting the goal of acquisition of intercultural competence (O'Dowd, 2021, p. 218), so too may the pedagogical choice of topics of discussion be crucial with respect to critical cosmopolitan goals. Particular topics that juxtapose highly contrasting views across the participants may challenge their thinking. Each year that the Global Classroom module is offered, weekly topics differ. In earlier iterations of the module, the topic of identity was covered. Henwood and Thuynsma (2019, p. 9)) report the following:

In the discussion on identity, some students' perspectives changed. French students moved from an assumed non-racial approach to embrace individual racial identities as a sign of respect for different cultural heritages rather than seeing a derogatory connotation associated with a race label.

In France, the republican ideology taught since childhood in the national education system is that the primary identity for all is that of being a French citizen. Since everyone is deemed equal before the law as French citizens, it is considered inappropriate to consider or mention skin colour or ethnic/national origin, and a kind of colour-blindness is promoted. If the French republican ideology inculcated in the French students was challenged by the Global Classroommodule,asindicatedin the above quote, this wasindeed an achievement.

# **6. Conclusion**

In this paper I have examined the Global Classroom module through the prism of several concepts/practices that have proved enlightening for the analysis. Global Classroom operates as a small culture. A framework for the module was set up by the group of cross-university teachers from the start in terms of the basic content and teaching format. But what emerged during the course of the module in a more spontaneous way was specific content, practices and behaviours of participants. It was noticeable that participants brought with them prior knowledge of educational and digital practices that were then embedded in the fabric of this new international small learning culture.The Global Classroom module corresponds perfectly with the concept of postdigitality whereby the entanglement of the online and offline has become a normal part of life. For some sessions, students from France were in the classroom, and for others they connected online from home; I would thus speak with students as if interchangeably in-person or online. Such technology of course does have downsides, and the concept of postdigitality also includes a reflective critical attitude towards the digital. One issue is the difficulty of keeping digital communication confidential. Awareness of this was embodied in some of the students' reluctance to "tell all." The implications for free speech and democracy are worrying. Another negative aspect is the digital divide. My impression of presentations from South African and Brazilian students was that the poverty of sectors of their countries whose population has no access to luxuries such as the Internet was a subject that was mentioned abstractly and, thus, downplayed.

The concept/practice of virtual exchange was found to correspond partially to the Global Classroom module. Certainly, Global Classroom allowed staff and student groups from three different countries and continents to collaborate in an international exchange via means of electronic communication, in particular a video-conferencing platform. The module allowed students to discover information and opinions from their counterparts in the other countries, and comparison of different national systems led to some interesting discussion. Enrichment of knowledge was achieved, and through the students' exposure to different perspectives, it is possible that openness towards cultural others was fostered. Such openness is typically considered to be a feature of intercultural competence. However, the aim of virtual exchange units to enhance intercultural skills in interacting with cultural others was not fully taken on board by Global Classroom, because developing such skills normally requires opportunities for interpersonal or small group interaction. In the iteration of Global Classroom observed, these opportunities were lacking.

A greater amount of student-to-student interaction across the three universities could also have fostered the students' sense of forming a unified group of global citizens, a sense of cosmopolitanism enabled through postdigitality. The key feature of (postdigital) critical cosmopolitanism is that through contact with the other, one challenges one's own thinking as well as that of the other, with the result that some self-transformation occurs. For Global Classroom, it was found that transformation did not seem to take place to a significant extent, but that this may depend on the topics studied. Thus, whether it is a matter of fostering the development of intercultural skills through specific targeted activities, or choosing particular topics for discussion and study that might lead to transformation in thinking, some careful activity planning by the pedagogical team is essential.

To conclude, we will consider what might be ways forward in planning further iterations of this module.The module involves a teaching team that incorporates cultural and disciplinary diversity: Staff some from the South African, Brazilian, and French educational systems. Several staff are from the academic discipline of political science, with one teacher from history, and one from languages and communication. This diversity is enriching but may also necessitates more time in reaching consensus on the module's on-going goals. One topic for discussion concerns representativity and power differentials: To what extent has coverage of issues been representative of all socio-economic sectors of each country? Because we, staff and students, tend to originate from an elite sector of society, does this prevent us from providing a broad view?

There are also questions to be discussed concerning trans/inter/cross-culturality. Transculturality (transformations in thinking subsequent to contact with a cultural other) may not be appropriate as an explicit module goal. However, a question that needs to be asked is: Should cross-culturality (knowledge sharing and comparison) continue to be privileged, or could there also be room for interculturality (interpersonalinteraction and negotiation) such that developing intercultural interpersonal skills could be added to the explicit goals for the module?

With regard to student recommendations from the survey for future iterations of the module, the French students made two main requests. Firstly, they supported the idea of greater disciplinary integration, specifically the inclusion of more cultural studies-oriented topics in relation to politics. Secondly, they were strongly in favour of more student interaction in the form of small group student-to-student discussions, and some students also supported the idea of a small group cross-university assessment. Given that students would like more opportunities for interpersonal interaction, there is support from the student body surveyed for the practical conditions necessary for interculturality which targeted pedagogical activities can enhance in order to develop intercultural skills. Since the practices of a small culture are always dynamic and shift in accordance with changing circumstances (Holliday, 1999, p. 248), it is to be expected that Global Classroom will evolve in its aims and content.

# **References**

practice.*Intercultural Communication Education*, 3(2), 55–74. https://doi.org/ 10.29140/ice.v3n2.264

# **Virtual Exchange as a Mechanism for Digital Education**

*Rawan Tahboub*

Abstract *Virtual exchange(VE),apedagogicalapproachtowardsinterculturaldialogue among young people supported by technology, has been prominent over the past two to three decades. In this chapter, I offer a general introduction to the different types of Virtual Exchange and focus on a particular approach provided by the Sharing Perspectives Foundation (SPF). The logic and theoretical foundation on which the SPF programmes and courses are built are presented and the efficacy of using Virtual Exchange as a tool to prepare the ground for the seeds of social inclusion and civic engagement are debated, while various virtual exchange programmes offered by the SPF and its partners are also discussed.This chapter combines scientific research with years of practice to offer a holistic view of the application of Virtual Exchange in peace education. I dwell on my own ten years of experience in the field of VE, wearing the various hats of participant, facilitator, coach and mentor, trainer, programme officer and partnership coordinator at the Sharing Perspectives Foundation (SPF), as well as a lecturer at Hebron University in Palestine.*

Keywords *Virtual Exchange; Facilitative Learning; Online Education; Social Reconciliation; Dialogue*

# **1. Introduction**

The words digital, virtual, and hybrid are not new terminologies; however, they have become very well-known with a significant shift to online and/or hybrid learning models, pre- and post-pandemic. For example, for the past two decades, Virtual Exchange (VE) has been a prominent tool that has brought people from geographically distant places to discuss, debate, and exchange perspectives, while also sharing expertise, experience, and knowledge, as well as beliefs, ideas, and customs. This may lead to mutual understanding, appreciation, and the acquisition of knowledge regarding various cultures.

A yearinto the pandemic, screen fatigue was a common syndrome of online education, and educators and institutions desperately needed new strategies to engage students while offering intercultural communication opportunities. Theinflux of high demand for VE and tailored courses and workshops on online teaching flushed the web; luckily, organizations who had already been developing the field of VE, such as SPF, Soliya, UniCollaboration and others, were able to assist lecturers and institutions with pedagogically tested approaches. It is worth mentioning here that these three organizations (SPF, Soliya, and UniCollaboration) retain different programming when offering their Virtual Exchanges, however, they share the same pedagogical approaches and strategies and collaborate in trainings and workshops.

Although there has been quite a substantial momentum in building and offering Virtual Exchanges, scientific research has not given it its due right; most of the publications in this arena are case studies of specific exchanges, conference proceedings, or project reports. Therefore, in this chapter I combine my experiences with scientific approaches to help the reader visualize VE as a concept, an approach, and a practice.

# **2. What is Virtual Exchange?**

Like any terminology, there are debates and controversies on what exactly VE is, and which models are included and which are not. Thus to convey a better understanding of the concept in use, I build on the definition of the project EVOLVE (n.d.)1 :

Virtual Exchange (VE) is a practice, supported by research, that consists of sustained, technology-enabled, people-to-people education programs or activities in which constructive communication and interaction take place between individuals or groups who are geographically separated

1 The Erasmus + EVOLVE (Evidence-Validated Online Learning through Virtual Exchange) project, launched in January 2018 and led by the University of Groningen, aims to mainstream virtual exchange as an innovative form of collaborative international learning across disciplines in higher education institutions in Europe and beyond.

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.

# [...] VE is:

In many aspects, Interactive Open Online Courses (iOOCs), as one form of VE, differentiates itself from other forms of online education like MOOCs, virtual mobility, and blended mobility to name a few. According to Mühlbauer and van der Velden (2022, p. 8), those four are comparable in terms of sustained interaction and are defined as follows:

IOOCs "combine content presented in a similar format to MOOCs, with an interactive component which includes weekly synchronous discussion sessions in small groups with the support of a dialogue facilitator, to encourage people-to-peopleintercultural communication."(Mühlbauer & van der Velden, 2022, p. 8) While Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are "courses usually delivered online through a platform such as EdX, Coursera or Futurelearn […] the focus of these is primarily on content delivery – they are mostly based on recorded video lectures and learning materials. Although many now do have a forum component and encourage students to interact, the interaction is not sustained and is optional." (Mühlbauer & van der Velden, 2022, p. 8)

However, Virtual Mobility allows "students from one educational institution to follow courses organized at a different institution (usually based in a different country) without having to leave home." (Mühlbauer & van der Velden, 2022, p. 8) The primary aim of Virtual Mobility is to impart subject knowledge, potentially in a field or on a specific topic not covered at the student's home university. This is achieved by leveraging complementary expertise but without necessitating student interaction with peers from the host institution.

Lastly, Blended Mobility is "the combination of physical mobility with a virtual component, aimed at facilitating collaborative online learning and teamwork." (Mühlbauer & van der Velden, 2022, p. 8). The virtual element can serve multiple purposes: It can prepare students for physical mobility, or it can be utilized post-physical mobility to further enrich cultural learning. Alternatively, it can be integrated during physical mobility itself to directly enhance certain aspects of the experience (Mühlbauer & van der Velden, 2022, p. 8).

# **3. Why Choose Virtual Exchange?**

As already mentioned, the present author has worn and exchanged various hats of participant, facilitator, coach and mentor, trainer, program officer, partnership coordinator, and lecturer within the world of Virtual Exchange. I started my journey in 2013 as a participant in the first program offered by the Sharing Perspectives Foundation – "Perspectives on the Euro(pean) Crisis" – while undertaking my MA degree at Osnabrück University, in Germany. The following year I underwent intensive advanced online facilitation training and began as an online facilitator, becoming then an experienced facilitator, mentor and coach by 2017. From 2018, I led the development of the first Arabic Virtual Exchange "Technology and Society", and managed programmes and partnerships while facilitating groups in various Virtual Exchanges. Those manifold experiences provided me with transversal, pedagogical, and conflict transformation skills. Likewise, exploring with partners the possibilities of the integration, accreditation, and institutionalization of Virtual Exchange heightened many benefits for the lecturers, their students and institutions, and Hebron University (Palestine), the institution at which I teach.2

As a lecturer, I used Virtual Exchange as a complementary component to enrich my students' experiences on topics they would not otherwise have tackled and offered them opportunities to meet with young people from other cultures and geographically distant places. Knowing that Palestinians suffer severely from movement restrictions, even the chance to meet other Palestinian students from the West Bank and Gaza was a new experience for them.3 I also used my personal experiences with my students to engage many universities and coordinators to join us and offer virtual exchange courses to their students. Mine is not the only success story for the integration of VE into the academic curriculum. Other success stories of implementation partners can be found in the EVE reports4 and the *Journal of Virtual Exchange*5 .

The question that comes to mind is: Why chose virtual exchange, not other forms of blended learning? As Helm and van der Velden (2019, p. 139) write:

Virtual Exchange is a potentially more inclusive medium for connecting a greater number and diversity of youth to a space for dialogue and relationship-building with their global peers. Through facilitated, meaningful, and multilateral interaction, young people have the opportunity to build greater understanding of the relationship between different societies, expand their worldview and build critical 21st century skills and attitudes such as communication skills, self and global-awareness, critical and analytical thinking, curiosity, and media and digital literacy, which are also important for employability.

VE strives for intercultural awareness and sensitivity through opportunities to explore assumptions, beliefs, values, feelings, attitudes, behaviours, and self-

2 For more information see the Toolkit for Integrating Virtual Exchange in Higher Education, see: https://frames-project.eu/outputs/toolkit/

3 In my courses at Hebron University, my students mainly took part in the Technology and Society and Cultural Encounters Virtual Exchanges, where they met with participants from other universities in Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria, and EU countries, mainly Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, as well as Venezuela in Latin America.

4 https://youth.europa.eu/d8/sites/default/files/eyp\_eve/files/ec-01-21-404-en-n\_final. pdf

5 https://journal.unicollaboration.org

reflection in a safe space and constructively engage with differences. Likewise, it assures the facilitation of a group process built on inter-group, dialogue, and conflict resolution theories while empowering the development of 21st-century communication skills that emphasize active listening, empathy, and understanding. Similarly, VE tackles digital literacy by introducing ways technology could be used to build a more sustainable and inclusive world. Finally, VE works on deepening and widening perspectives on life situations, exemplified by the testimonials of numerous alumni from various programmes.6 One example is from a participant who joined the Cultural Encounters course offered by the Sharing Perspectives Foundation in 2018. She reflects:

[W]e learned to put oneself in somebody's position which is a skill that will be helpful far beyond this [virtual exchange] course. Even in the case of disagreement, we acquired a degree of empathy because of which we were able to try to understand the reasons for someone's divergent opinion instead of judging this person because of his or her view. This is a very essential ability in order to talk with each other as equals and being openminded in regard of other understandings and beliefs.7

# **4. Which Model of Virtual Exchange?**

There are various emerging models within the intricate realm of Virtual Exchange ranging from, but not limited to, Interactive Open Online Courses (iOOCs), Online Facilitated Dialogue (OFD), Transnational Exchange Projects (TEPs), and Advocacy Training (AT).8 These four models remained the principal VE activities for the Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange project (EVE)9 which ran from 2018 to 2020. Each component was led by a different partner in the consortium headed by Search for Common Ground (Belgium)10. iOOCs were

6 https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/impact/

7 https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/impact/

8 For more information on those different formats, see Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange Impact Report 2020 https://youth.europa.eu/d8/sites/default/files/eyp\_eve/files/ec-01-2 1-404-en-n\_final.pdf

9 Erasmus + Virtual Exchange (EVE) 2018–2020 is a pilot project part of the Erasmus+ programme funded by the European Commission. For further information on the programme and the project, see: https://youth.europa.eu/erasmusvirtual/

10 https://www.sfcg.org

led by the Sharing Perspectives Foundation (Netherlands), OFDs by Soliya (USA and Tunisia), TEPs by UniCollaboration (Italy), and AT by the Anne Lindh Foundation (Germany).

The fundamental principle of all models lies with the use of technology to facilitate connections among young people across geographical and cultural boundaries; however, there also exist notable differences between these models. Broadly speaking, two typologies can be discerned within EVE (Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange): 'ready-made' exchanges, which are developed and implemented by project consortium members, and 'grassroots' exchanges, organized by educators or youth workers who have undergone specialized training programmes. Additionally, further differentiations may be made based on content, participant activities, duration (measured in weeks), and the intensity of engagement in various activities. These distinctions provide invaluable insights into the level of participant involvement in Virtual Exchange endeavours.

Table (1) compares between the four types of Virtual Exchange in terms of the above-mentioned criteria:

*Table 1: Models of Virtual Exchange Activities Based on the Table of Helm and van der Velden (2021)*

Each model has its specificities, and each model may have multiple formats. In this chapter, I only focus on iOOCs offered by the Sharing Perspectives Foundation (SPF)11 as the format I am most acquainted with and also the form of VE implemented in the project in Palestine, which I focus on.

SPF developed its model of educational exchange on facilitative learning12 to encourage deep exploration of topics related to identity, empathy, perspective-taking, critical reflection, and intercultural understanding. It also aims at equipping participants with 21st century skills relating to employability and transversal skills, tolerance of ambiguity, curiosity, confidence, serenity, decisiveness, and vigour (Helm & van der Velden 2019, p. 24).13 The iOOCs designed by the SPF are based on three core elements: multimedial material, facilitated dialogue, and interactive assignments (Millner, 2020, p. 157).

# Multimedia Materials

On a weekly basis, participants are stimulated by bite-size (i.e. shorter) materials prepared by experts and further practitioners on the exchange topics. Those include short articles, infographics, videos, and podcasts on the week's theme. Participants read, watch, and/or listen to the weekly materials, reflect

12 See the following sub-section.

11 Sharing Perspectives Foundation is a nonprofit organization based in the Netherlands. It offers contemporary online learning experiences, enabling people to interact constructively across differences and divides. Since its foundation in 2012, the Sharing Perspectives has engaged more than 10,000 young people in virtual exchange courses, worked with over 80 institutions, trained and coached 250+ facilitators, facilitated 1000s of online dialogue sessions, and implemented over 10 different virtual exchanges in English as well as Arabic. See: https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.c om/about/.

13 SPF bases its approach to developing transversal skills based on the following definitions: "**Tolerance of Ambiguity** (Acceptance of other people's culture and attitudes and adaptability): A range, from rejection to attraction, of reactions to stimuli perceived as unfamiliar, complex, dynamically uncertain or subject to multiple conflicting interpretations (McLain, 1993); **Curiosity** (Openness to new experiences): The orientation toward seeking novel and challenging objects, events and ideas with the aim of integrating these experiences and information; **Confidence** (Trust in own competence) A favourable or unfavourable attitude toward the self (Rosenberg, 1965, p. 15); **Serenity** (Awareness of own strengths and weaknesses): Beliefs in one's capabilities to mobilise the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands (Wood & Bandura, 1989); **Decisiveness** (Ability to make decisions Decisiveness) Ability to reach decisions as quickly as possible (Kosic, 2004)." (van der Velden et al., 2016, pp.219-220)

individually, and then meet for group reflection in the facilitated dialogue sessions.

# Facilitated Dialogue

On a weekly basis, participants meet at the same time and place in the same group with the same facilitator for two hours of dialogue. Along with trust/relationship-building, work on identity, critical thinking, process-reflection, conflict resolution, forward-thinking, activation, and group work activities, participants discuss and share their knowledge, experience, thoughts, and culture with the help of experienced dialogue facilitators. During the facilitated dialogue sessions, participants also plan for activities and initiatives to engage their peers and communities. Similarly, they are motivated to take actions during the course, where an ideal example taken from the "Climate Movements" course would be the planting of a tree in the name of the group. In order to ensure best facilitation, the EVE consortium introduces the figure of the mentor, who is an expert facilitator who supports 'newbies', and the coach who observes the session and gives feedback to the facilitator(s). In debate contests the figure of the adjudicator (or judge) has been introduced, i.e. the person determining the outcome and ranking of debaters or debater-teams.

# Interactive Assignments

Participants have interactive assignments throughout the process, including content and process reflections, initiative developments, and community engagement.

Reflection is an integral part of the learning process. Participants have two short self-reflection written assignments every week: one on the content before the session (preparation assignment), and one on the discussion after the session (reflection journal). Likewise, participants go through meta-discussions on the process, as well as content reflection through dialogue but also activities stimulating in-depth analysis, critical thinking, and problem solving.14

Another main assignment is the community engagement assignment. It has multiple formats differing from one course to the other. For example, the flagship courses "Cultural Encounters" and "Climate Movements" contain a video dialogue assignment, where each group agrees on a question to ask their

14 Such activities can be found here: https://www.sessionlab.com/library

peers, teachers, and family members who are not taking part in the course. The peers they choose for the video dialogue will then respond to each other in an asynchronous dialogue. The videos are posted on a private platform for the course, and each group has a separate group account where they post their peers' contributions. The participants show the videos and responses of the other respondents and ask their peers to respond to one or more discussions. This constitutes the discussion threads for the asynchronous dialogue. Another example would be the final assignments for the courses "Countering Hate Speech" and "Youth, Peace and Security", where participants were asked to create their initiatives for the cause they are working on. They had the option to work either independently or collaboratively, with mutual support through suggestions and sharing of information being an integral part of the process.

# **5. Facilitative Learning**

Since a distinctive feature of VE is the combination of synchronous/asynchronous elements, a better understanding of the synergetic interplay is needed. The asynchronous element constitutes the preparation and reflection journal, the interactive assignments, the email communications between the facilitator and the participants, and the course team and the participants. The synchronous element is mainly the facilitated dialogue sessions – arguably, where most of the learning happens.

Each step of the VE is important, and the facilitative learning approach plays a key role in the learning process. Facilitative learning refers to an instructional approach that emphasizes the role of a facilitator in promoting effective learning experiences. In this approach, participants are at the centre of the learning process and the leaders of it (Hardika et al., 2018, p. 187). Their experiences, knowledge, and thoughts are main resources for the learning process, where peer-learning especially in an international setting is an added value to the participants. In this setting, participants are encouraged to share the full leadership of their group, initiating the discussion, asking each other questions, reflecting respectfully on others' thoughts and experiences, actively listening and showing empathy.

Reaching this genuine stage of exchange requires fostering safe spaces for participants to open up and speak freely; hence an experienced facilitator/s are needed here (Conti et al., 2022, p. 201).

# **6. The Role of the Facilitator**

In this approach, the facilitator serves as a guide or mentor rather than a traditional teacher who solely imparts knowledge. The facilitator's role is to create a safe environment that supports and encourages the participants' active engagement and knowledge construction, ensuring understanding and ability to contribute to discussions (Baraldi, Joslyn & Farini, 2022a, pp. 6–9). In addition, they provide guidance and opportunities for participants to explore and discover information, develop critical thinking skills, and apply their knowledge in real-world contexts (Helm, 2018, p. 112). Facilitation is composed by an array of actions, such as questions, invitations to talk, minimal responses, reformulations of the participants' contributions (Farini & Scollan, 2022), summaries, and also emotional support which starts with the initial greetings and ends with leave-taking (Helm, 2018, p. 112).

As an experienced facilitator, mentor and coach, I have worked with and trained many different facilitation styles. All styles incorporate empathy as an underlying element and share the same core principles of neutrality – in terms of refraining from sharing their opinions – and impartiality – i.e. fairness towards all participants, giving them the same opportunities to share their opinions and to make sure their statements are understood, Facilitators of the EVE consortium organizations are highly trained to refrain from sharing their opinions and ensure equal participation of all group members. In order to do that, they practice active listening and further facilitation techniques to react properly to non-verbal communication of the participants and make sure that all statements are correctly understood by providing summaries in both written chat messages and spoken explanations, asking follow-up questions or rephrasing the ideas shared. Facilitators are also prepared for the challenging situations of conflict, politically sensitive situations, and disengaged groups. Through tailored activities for critical thinking, conflict resolution, and teambuilding, like but not limited to the Ice-Berg, The Rose-Bud-Thorn, Walk a Mile in My Shoes, and many others15, meta-discussions, and individual checkups, facilitators help transform conflicts into positive experiences, challenging biases and stereotypes and creating a common ground for understanding the issues addressed. A significant challenge for facilitators is to read group dynamics and power imbalances and offer activities and reflections, posing thought-provoking questions to keep the discussion flowing and ensuring

15 For more information on activities, see: https://www.sessionlab.com/library

understanding, active engagement, and genuine learning. Facilitators help participants lead their discussions and retain the task of deepening understanding and developing trust, honesty, and empathy as the course progresses (Millner, 2020, p. 158–9).

Facilitators of SPF are equipped with a group process framework that guides the group through different phases, ensuring participants become progressively more comfortable in articulating their perspectives (Millner, 2020, p. 158–9). SPF has designed its group process to encompass different stages, recognizing that not every group follows a linear development. Facilitators utilize this framework as a guiding tool to facilitate genuine exchanges from the first encounter to winding down, understanding that groups may need to adapt and sometimes skip stages as they naturally progress. In my personal experience as well as in the literature (see e.g. Conti 2021; and Baraldi et al. 2022b), the more the group members trust the group, feel heard and confident of opening up; sharing personal stories and discussing openly challenging topics, the more they advance towards genuine discussion. Similarly, in my personal experience, the more the group addresses differences and selfmanages disruptive conflicts and discussions tending towards creative solutions, the more the group moves towards effective dialogue and community engagement.

Facilitators are an integral component of the process, therefore, and investment in training and coaching for them has become a priority for organizations working in the arena of VE, such as SPF, Soliya, UNICollaboration and others.

# **7. Virtual Exchange in Education**

Over the years VE has been integrated by lecturers and universities in many formats to offer students a wide range of opportunities to network and learn through intercultural exchange, also as part of their internationalization strategies. The demand for VEs increased during the pandemic and more lecturers and institutions began exploring the various types of VE to integrate to their strategies and budgets.16 The popularity of virtual networking fairs and

16 A list of some of the partnering universities can be found here: https://sharingperspe ctivesfoundation.com/partnerships/

info-sessions on VE like the ones offered by UNIMED17 and COIL18 indicated both a need and an interest in virtual exchanges.

Since the focus of this chapter is on iOOCs, I will delve into the integration of iOOCs into educational programmes and summarize the experience undertaken with VE in the SPF Programm19 and present some observed benefits of incorporating iOOCs into the curriculum.

Building on my experience in partnership management, iOOCs were offered either as a standalone course (rarely due to accreditation bureaucracies), and more frequently as a replacement of a language course (mostly English), as an extra-curricular activity, and/or as part of an ongoing course which does not necessarily link directly to the theme of the VE, however it relates to it in terms of learning objectives (e.g intercultural communication, building 21stcentury skills). The choice of the delivery method considered the needs of the partners and of their students.

In the following I will draw on the experience acquired at the University of Bordeaux and at Hebron University.

In her 2020 chapter, "Erasmus Virtual Exchange: An Authentic Learning Experience", Alexandra Reynolds explores the transformative impact of the participation to the flagship course "Cultural Encounters" delivered by SPF of the University students in Bordeaux. Utilizing their reflection journals, she assessed the authenticity of their learning based on four key factors: emerging community membership, altered world views, English language learning, and pedagogical conditions. Reynolds observed a progression from initial shyness and hesitation to confident group participation in the journals. Likewise, participants' journal entries indicated a growing self-awareness and a shift in their worldviews (Reynolds, 2020, p.91).

In relation to the English language learning, Reynolds reflected on overall satisfaction concerning improved English language skills. She used a comparative approach between English classes offered at the university and the VE based on the number of participants, place of residence/origin, and format, where participants in the VE emphasized the benefits of being in a smaller group compared to general classes, speaking with non-French speakers as a

17 https://www.uni-med.net

18 https://coil.suny.edu

19 I refer to a SPF-project involving the University of Bordeaux University in France, the University of Limerick in Ireland, the University of Bethlehem as well as the Hebron University in Palestine and many other universities in the MENA and EU.

motivation for speaking English only, as well as interdisciplinarity (Reynolds 2020, p.92-3). Finally, she measured authentic learning in VE in relation to the pedagogical conditions of "engaging in meaningful and transformative interaction using English as a lingua franca; topic-focused study on a theme which is relevant to students as global citizens; learner autonomy and responsibility; an emerging sense of belonging to an online E+VE [sic] community; and interacting in a third (neutral) place." (Reynolds, 2020, p.95) She concluded by indicating the authentic nature of learning using VE as a "positive, existential, and positioned learner experience(Reynolds,2020, p.96)".As a result Bordeaux University continues to partner with SPF and offer VE courses for its students.

Wearing the hat of lecturer, I can relate my personal experience with students at Hebron University. I engaged my students in the "Technology and Society"20 course delivered by SPF in which SPF involved mainly students of the MENA region: Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. The course was in Arabic. The VE was counted as their final assignment for their course. During the VE, I regularly offered participants the possibility to share their reflections regarding their VE-experience with me and their peers. Positive feedback in the reflections related to the atmosphere, the opportunity to meet other Arab youth whom they would not otherwise have had the opportunity to meet, and the interactive aspect of the experience. Alongside this bright side of VE and its successful incorporation into the regular structures of the curricula, difficulties regarding access to the Internet remained a main frustration and constraint to full engagement in some cases.

Thereupon, and since VE in education has been gaining in popularity globally, efforts to support the integration of VE in existing formats and the accreditation of standalone courses were put in place by various other organizations. Examples include, but are not limited to, the project FRAMES21, COIL, UNI-Collaboration22, and the Stevens Initiative23 projects.

20 https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/programme/technology-and-society/

21 https://frames-project.eu

22 https://www.unicollaboration.org

23 https://www.stevensinitiative.org

# **8. Potential New Areas for the Use of Virtual Exchange**

So far, most of the relevant research in facilitative learning and Virtual Exchange has tackled the essence of the connection between exchange and learning. Throughout my work in Virtual Exchange and education, I have come to the idea of exploring the efficacy of using VE for social reconciliation in reference to Palestinian civil society,in a case study using cycles of virtual exchanges as described below. This project is described here, as it will be implemented in cooperation with SPF.

# **9. Virtual Exchange in Peace Education – Reconciliation**

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Education (UNESCO, 1945) has placed in its constitution the importance of peace education, by indicating that "since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed." Peace education is a "process of acquiring the values and knowledge and developing the attitudes, skills and behaviour to live in harmony with oneself, with others, and with the natural environment. It aims to reduce violence, support the transformation of conflicts, and advance the peace capabilities of individuals, groups, societies and institutions" (Jäger in Berghof Foundation, 2019, p. 49).

Peace education can be approached through dialogue, where dialogue is initiated to acquire a better judgement of the argument and to overcome differences on the political and societal levels and to transform conflicts (Breitmaier and Schram in Berghof Foundation, 2019, p. 47). Virtual exchange is built on the modalities of dialogue. In dialogue, one listens to the different side(s) to understand and find meaning. My experience confirms that dialogue reveals assumptions for re-evaluation and acknowledgment of biases, causes introspection on one's position and its origin, and may promote an open-minded attitude. Furthermore, successful dialogue is collaborative and leads towards a sense of community understanding, brings out areas of ambivalence, looks for shared meanings, re-examines and destabilizes long-held ideas, articulates areas of conflict and differences, builds and empowers relationships, and honours silence.

Virtual Exchange as an ICT tool aims at fostering empathy, acknowledging differences, accepting the 'other,' challenging stereotypes, and building relationships based on mutual respect (Millner, 2020, p. 157), all of which adhere to the reconciliationmethod for social changeintroduced by Bar-Tal and Bennink (2004), who discuss a list of principles entailing the transformation of conflict into new goals; the re-definition of the 'other', usually perceived as an adversary, in order to build peaceful relationships among people; the challenging of one's own biases and the stimulation of awareness of one's own position in power dynamics; and the transformation of the relationship between the conflicting groups towards acceptance and mutual respect (Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004, pp. 20–38).

Therefore, utilizing Virtual Exchange in conflictual socio-political settings is believed to contribute to fruitful dialogues and finding common ground on the issues under discussion.

#### Social Reconciliation

Reconciliation is about finding a way of dealing with the issues that divide in a creative and viable manner. It is the beginning of learning to live together, not the culmination of a process that occurs after all alienating obstacles are removed. It is about serious talk, in-depth listening and a willingness to enact a new way of living together in which we can productively work with the most stubborn problems, practices and behaviours of the past (du Toit, 2003, p. 26).

"Toenadering," or coming together, is a core element of reconciliation and social transformation according to Fanie du Toit (2003). Toenadering entails bilateral or multilateral discussions, though it goes beyond involving diverse stakeholders from geographically and ideologically separated groups, with the main focus on the power of civil society to drive change. Reaching this stage entails, as one of the steps of social reconciliation, intra-community dialogue with the participation of various stakeholders. Intra-community dialogues retain three principal goals: 1) "preventing the complexity of ever-growing numbers of factions and splinter groups within communities"; 2) "helping to prepare communities for a process where their social identities, shaped by years of conflict, isolation and oppression, may be challenged"; and 3) "empowering marginalized communities to find a stronger communal voice" (du Toit, 2003, pp. 153–154). In addition, this process of intra-community dialogue helps create safe spaces for expressing and dealing with the residual anger, mistrust, and hurt, debating courses of action, and the inclusion of all players and stakeholders (du Toit 2003, pp. 153–154).

#### Virtual Exchange for Reconciliation – Palestine

The active role of Palestinian civil society in politics has been receding since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993.The creation of a new body of authority has shifted away many of the previous political roles played by the societal elites and tribal heads of Palestine, roles held during the Ottoman period, during the British Mandate and the Israeli occupation, roles now held by the new authority (Pappé 2010, pp. 11–21). This society has been further divided geographically, socially, and politically by the West Bank and Gaza Strip division and the different political movements acting as parties. These include the two dominant parties/movements (Fatah and Hamas), many fringe parties and groups, Arab Israelis – or as they are often called "Arab 48" (Arab citizens of the state of Israel) – and Palestinians in the diaspora.

This society has been through many shocks that have further entrenched the gaps and have created fanatic supporters of the two dominant parties Fatah and Hamas. The feeble relations among the society were ruptured in the 2006 elections, continued to show areas of disagreement, were evident in the worsened circumstances preceding the proposed elections in May 2021, and fully damaged with the postponement of the elections until further notice. Regardless of the local, national and international attempts at reconciliation over the past 17 years, starting with the 2006 Document of the Prisoners agreement to the reconciliation attempts in Cairo to prepare for 2021 elections, reconciliation has not taken place on the ground. On the contrary, reconciliation among the parties' leaders undermined the effects and power of civil society to ignite the spark of the aspired change, of a perpetual internal calmness and serenity.

According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), the Palestinian population for 2020 in Palestine is circa 5 million: 3 million in the West Bank and 2 million in Gaza (PCBS 2021). In addition, in 2019, the registered Palestinian refugees totalled circa 5.6 million (PCBS 2020).Those numbers exclude most of the unregistered refugees, refugees who left the country after the 1967 war, and about 1.6 million of the so-called Arab 48 (PCBS 2020).24 The

24 For a better understanding of this division of registered and unregistered refugees I refer to the definition of UNRWA of Palestinian refugees as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine from 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict;" who are registered by UNHCR and UNRWA mandates; or who are also residing in one of the 58 recognized refugee camps by UNRWA in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Ten new recognized camps were added after the

geographical distance, the impediment to movement, and the lack of dialogue among those sections of Palestinian society urge the need to find alternative approaches and tools for starting dialogue and reconciliation among the wider society using ICT. VE can certainly be one of these.

In collaboration with higher education institutions, such as but not limited to, Hebron University, Bethlehem University, the Islamic University of Gaza, Al Azhar University, Al Najah University, and Birzeit University, civil society organizations and the Sharing Perspectives Foundation, I am engaging at present in testing VE towards social reconciliation. In this project, Palestinian youth (18–30 years old) across the spectrum are invited to explore bottom-up social reconciliation.25 The participants come together in cycles taking place over 9–10 weeks, where they meet weekly in facilitated sessions to discuss and brainstorm challenging topics (e.g. identity, inclusion/exclusion, citizenship, political and social participation, democracy) which they would not otherwise discuss in such diverse groups. Thus, they learn to acknowledge differences while also realizing their many similarities, resolve and transform conflicts, challenge their biases and stereotypes about the 'other'26, develop empathy, and collaborate in conceiving and implementing together social initiatives.

The outcomes of each cycleinform subsequent cycles.Weekly reflections on materials and discussions in pre– and post-reflections are promptly analyzed to extract lessons for designing or updating the next cycle/s. The final projects initiated by participants aim at further supporting subsequent project steps and contribute to long-term reconciliation efforts.

1967 war for the new wave of Palestinian refugees (https://www.unrwa.org/palestinerefugees).

These refugees do not include internally displaced Palestinians residing in cities, villages, and around the refugee camps (https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees). Likewise, the term Arab 48 (Arab citizens of the state of Israel) refers to Palestinians who stayed inside the borders of the newly created state of Israel. They were internally displaced but remained inside the new borders. (Pappé 2011, p. 37)

25 Social reconciliation is a special type of reconciliation which focus on the relationship among individuals in a community. By using the term bottom-up social reconciliation, I refer to the Toenadering with a twist, where community leaders' role will be minimal at the pilot stage and the focus will be mainly on individuals.

26 The other in this context can entail different political affiliations, residences, economic situations, and/or might belong to another religion; although religion plays a minor role in the Palestinian Civil Society division, it is still relevant for a future social contract.

As this project retains rootsin a Community-Based Participatory Approach (CBPA)27, it entails actively engaging lecturers, researchers, and actors from civil society organizations in identifying the topics to be discussed in the VE andin preparing the weeklymaterial which will activate the youthin their community.

# **10. Conclusions**

In this chapter, Virtual Exchange has been presented as a multifaceted concept, an approach, and a practice, offering a wide array of benefits. VE provides valuable opportunities for interactive learning, networking and skills development. Various formats of VE have been explored, with a particular emphasis on iOOCs offered by SPF.This examination has shed light on effective strategies to offer young people who are geographically separated, a genuine intercultural experience. Hereby this chapter has tackled the decisive role of facilitation for ensuring the aspired outcomes of the VE: Trained facilitators are essential to support dialogic discussions on contested topics and fruitful collaboration and to promote the engagement of the participantsin their community.Examining the integration of VE into formal education and featuring examples from various universities that have seamlessly incorporated it into their academic curricula, this chapter underscores how VE has paved the way for broader adoption and the exploration of its untapped potential.

The showcased project being implemented in Palestine for social reconciliation stands as a promising milestone for a wider application of Virtual Exchange as a powerful tool for peace education and reconciliation processes. Through VE, participants engage in online dialogue, immersing themselves in a culture that encourages openness towards 'the other' – and indeed, any 'other'– while actively seeking a change in perspective. VE programs have a transformative impact on the participants themselves and through them on their wider community. The attitudes and skills gained through these programs unlock doors to lifewide learning, influencing and reshaping their everyday lives.

27 CBPA is an approach "in which stakeholders or community members become active participants in many phases of the research—helping to determine the problem, assisting in the design of the research questions, collaborating in data collection and analysis, and serving to disseminate the results" (Creswell, 2014, p. 17).

# **References**

### Websites

https://frames-project.eu/outputs/toolkit/ https://journal.unicollaboration.org

https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/

https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/about/

https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/impact/

https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/partnerships/

https://sharingperspectivesfoundation.com/programme/technology-and-so ciety/

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000033144

https://www.sessionlab.com/library

https://www.soliya.net

https://www.stevensinitiative.org

https://www.unicollaboration.org

https://www.uni-med.net

https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees

https://youth.europa.eu/d8/sites/default/files/eyp\_eve/files/ec-01-21-404-en

# **Digital Competences in the Educational Sphere** A Case Study From Italy

*Tanja Schroot, Giulia Maria Cavaletto and Roberta Ricucci*

Abstract *Digital skills are one of the most contested key competences in the educational sphere. On the one hand, they have become essential to guarantee standards of educational quality and progress, on the other hand they tend to further hamper educational inequalities among the contemporary highly-diversified student population.*

*This paper ties into these premises with a case study located in Turin, Italy based on 19 teachers and educators from all school levels (primary, lower-secondary and upper-secondary education) to highlight the transformation of needs and challenges related to the different phases of the life cycle of students.*

*Threemainissueswereinvestigatedfroma comparativeperspectiveamongthe studyparticipants:(1)the coherence oftheir knowledge regarding opportunities andthe challenges of digitalization; (2) their skills to implement digital instruments in their working context; and(3)their attitudetowardsthetransfer ofpotential benefitsthat enhancelearning outcomes through digital instruments.*

*Findings suggest that high-quality and effective staff formation represents one of the most critical issues when talking about digitality in the educational sphere. A chronic lack of time for training, the ongoing work in emergency conditions, the heterogenous institutional endowment with technical devices (PCs, digital infrastructure, etc.), and the suspicion towards the benefits of digitality in the classroom are some of the major barriers to the forwarding of digital competences as a set of skills, knowledge and attitudes within the educational context.*

Keywords *Digital Gap; Teacher Training; Peer-to-peer Education; Cooperative Learning; Lifelong Learning Competencies*

# **1. Literature Review, Scientific Debate and Public Policy**

The issue of digital competence is of growing interest for public policy as their possession confers very useful qualities and characteristics, both individually and collectively, and thus qualifies as one of the new possible declinations of the broader theme of inequalities. The European Recommendation of 23 May 2018 on lifelong learning introduced digital competence as a basic skill that European citizens should be equipped with. The very recent DigComp 2.2 European framework (which inherits and incorporates the previous DigComps from 2013 onwards) has taken this approach further and recalls the need for educational policies to train people how to exercise active citizenship, both in a traditional and a digital sense. DigComp 2.2 also revises the concept of digital competence in five areas: literacy, communication and cooperation, digital content creation, security, and problem solving.

The scientific community and European policies share the meaning of digital competences as a universe of technological skills (Save the Children, 2021), made up of a hard aspect (digital hard skills) and a soft aspect (digital soft skills), that range accordingly from practical skills (such as using a computer, accessing and using a connection, mastering the various devices) to relational and character skills.The latter allows an effective, aware and responsible use of digital tools, and accordingly involves all areas in which these skills can be deployed: digital identity, digital use, digital safety, digital security, digital emotional intelligence, digital communication, digital literacy, and digital rights. What has inspired European directives, recommendations and guidelines over the last twenty years has been the idea that educational credentials are at the heart of a process of cultural construction of the European space, and that lifelong learning, based on knowledge and competences, is the only effective tool for active citizenship, greater inclusiveness, and improved employability.1

Moving now towards a reflection upon social practices, despite the immersive condition present in the technologies that pervade the biographies of adolescents, even the generation of digital natives is in reality neither as technologically aware as one would expect, nor are they subject to specific training

1 See the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning; the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on promoting common values, inclusive education, and the European dimension of teaching; and the Council Recommendation from 28 June 2011 on policies to reduce early school leaving.

in formal, informal and non-formal educational contexts. In fact, we can witness scientific awareness of the difficulties that digital natives encounter in the processes of identity definition, socialization (Pellai, 2018) and in the development of socio-emotional and character skills (Maccarini, 2022). In this regard, the 'spoon and tablet' metaphor has been used (Prensky, 2001) to indicate a socialization process in which growth spurts are measured both through the use of common objects (the spoon) and through the mastery of technologies of information and communication with the related devices. What is important to point outis the fact that the condition of digital natives neither cancels any possible digital divide, nor does it automatically render the individuals themselves necessarily digitally competent.

There is extensive evidence that inequalities in the use of technologies are linked to birth cohort, social and ethnic origin, and gender (Hargittai, 2002, 2004; Di Maggio et al., 2004; Pirone et al., 2008; Ala-Mutka, 2011; Lythreatis, 2022), but inequalities in the development of digital competences also exist among those who were born in a society steeped in technology – digital natives. For these reasons, we no longer speak only of a digital divide but of digital inequalitiesin a broader sense (DiMaggio et al., 2004; van Dick, 2005; Argentin et al., 2013). Digital competences retain an impact on educational processes, training and learning and are, therefore, in continuous exchange with other key competences. Their acquisition, development, reinforcement, and updating also constitute an effective tool to counteract digital educational poverty (Pasta & Rivoltella, 2022; Marangi et al., 2023; Gui, 2009), to be understood not only as the availability of devices and access to the net, but as the possession of new literacies necessary in the post-medial society. In a more specific focus, digital is one of the most contested key competences in the educational sphere (Green, 2014). However, the very concept of competence requires elucidation. The competence set on which the eight key competences indicated by the European Union are built consist of three elements: knowledge, skills, and attitudes.2 Whereas *knowledge* refers to the set of concepts, facts, ideas, and theories that are already established and shared and which support learning and understanding processes,*skills* points to those competences necessary to achieve results using previous knowledge. Finally, the competence *attitude* translates into dispositions and beliefs to act and react to ideas in interactions with other social actors and in different situations.

2 See more at: https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/improving-quality/key-com petences.

The relevance of digital competences has been pronounced in different areas. On the one hand, they have become essential to guarantee standards of educational quality and progress as specified in the 2021–2027 Digital Education Action Plan at European level and in the National Plan for Digital Schools for the Italian context. Moreover, they are crucial skills in the labour market. Indeed, according to the World Economic Forum's report "The Future of Jobs 2020", nine out of ten jobs in 2030 will require advanced digital skills, but 44 % of the European population aged 16–74 have low digital skills and 19 % have none (World Economic Forum, 2020). The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI, 2022) shows that four out of ten adults lack basic digital skills. Furthermore, according to the same source, girls/women are little represented in techrelated professions and studies, with only one in six ICT specialists and one in three science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduates being women.Over 70 % of businesses have staff with inadequate digital skills.

The discussion on how to bridge the digital divide and enrich the skills portfolio of future workers obviously involves the fields of education (mainly compulsory) and vocational training courses (Kluzer et al., 2020; Barnes et al., 2017). In fact, the key role of learning digital skills during compulsory schooling has been emphasized in many quarters, resulting in the revision of teaching programmes and the updating of the teaching profession itself (Instefjord & Munthe, 2016; CECE, 2017).

In this framework it becomes important to clarify the relevance of the 'digital' issue in relation to ascribed and acquired variables.The topic is in fact relevant for public policy in general (and for educational ones in particular) as the digital gap constitutes one of the most pressing contemporary challenges: A gap related to birth location, gender, employment status, and social class (Hippe & Jakubowski, 2022; Barboutidis & Stiakakis, 2023).

Each of these elements is the subject of specific policies, highlighting broad, diverse investment in the development, updating and enhancement of the digital skills of all citizens (Ferrari et al. 2013; OECD, 2016).

The reason, however, that leads one to dwell in particular on digital natives stems from the fact that, in spite of their immersive condition in Internet technologies which characterizes their biographies, they are often not very aware of the risks and potential of technology: They possess a low level of critical thinking regarding sources and content conveyed by new media, and have a low awareness of ethical implications related to the use of social media and the Internet in general (Gkioulos et al., 2017; Fabbri, 2020). Furthermore, digital natives encounter difficulties in the processes of identity definition, socialization (Pellai, 2018), and the development of socio-emotional and character competences (Maccarini, 2022).

That schools are directly involved in this social transition (towards the pervasiveness of technologies in education, in society, in services, in welfare, and at work) and are faced with new educational, curricular, and relational challenges is beyond doubt. School is the place where learning,mostly in a certified manner, comes to fruition, both of cognitive curricular skills (defined by teaching programmes and certified by credentials andmarks) and of normative relational skills (deriving from secondary and normative socialization), and finally in relation to social and emotional skills.

Another crucial point, at the centre of national and European public policies, concerns the school-to-work transition. In society 4.0, the nexus between training and work is, even more than in the previous information society (Castells, 1996), a central element to prevent inequalities from increasing and to succeed in equipping young people with the knowledge and skills needed for the labour market (Brunello & Wruuck, 2019). Schools are accordingly at the centre of attention (and severely judged) when it comes to the training of young people, rendering them potentially attractive to businesses, service agencies, and international/national/local productive firms. But they are also guilty of failing to prepare their teachers to face the latest knowledge challenges, remaining anchored in outdated educational methods (Argentin et al., 2013; Ranieri, 2022; Cortoni, 2021). And this is particularly relevant in the Italian context (Esposito & Scicchitano, 2022). Indeed, as Unioncamere (Italian Union of Chambers of Commerce) data (2020–2025 scenario) shows for Italy, there has been an increase in the demand for digital, STEM, and innovation 4.0 skills, which employers require with an e-skill mix (the possession to a high degree of at least two e-skills), with an estimate of between 886,000 and 924,000 staff units. Regarding digital skills, both existing and new emerging professions will be in demand, such as those of data scientist, big data analyst, cloud computing expert, cyber security expert, business intelligence analyst, and artificial intelligence systems engineer.

This chapter tiesinto this overall premise with an Italian case study to highlight the transformation of needs and challenges related to the different phases of the life cycle of students, from primary school to upper-secondary school, in a period characterized by the post-Covid aftermath and highly heterogeneous educational contexts. These feature a high number of students regardless of their socio-cultural, religious, ethnic, and economic backgrounds who have had a heterogeneous range of teachers and educators with regard to age, gender, experience, training and, therefore, very differentiated didactic and methodological traditions and attitudes towards learning. This first section has just set the contextual scene; in the following chapters we will present the case study (section two) and the findings (section three) that will be concluded with a summary and suggestions for further analysis.

# **2. The Case Study**

The research was conducted within the framework of the Horizon 2020 project named KIDS4ALLL (Key Inclusive Development Strategies for LifeLong Learning) which aims to foster the development and implementation of the eight lifelong learning key competences in fifteen participating partner institutions from eleven EU and non-EU national contexts. The basic assumption of the project is that every individual should have access throughout their life to highquality, inclusive education, as well as to qualification and retraining opportunities3 that contribute to the building of key competences. This objective concerns all levels of education and training, but particularly involves certain categories of learners, who are more fragile and exposed to skills deficits, obsolescence or inadequacy. These categories include both students with a migratory background4 and those with individual and family fragility factors (mainly linked to the possession of different capitals: social, cultural, human), from which the phenomena of early school leaving, poverty and social exclusion, and NEET(i.e.Notin Education,Employment or Training) situationsmay result(di Padova & Nerli Bellati, 2018).

The research for this contribution is operationally based on a model called inside a KIDS4ALLL project 'buddy collaboration', which provides for work in pairs or small groups (in a peer-to-peer manner) within formal, non-formal,

3 The Italian educational system distinguishes between "education, training and instruction" applied to compulsory (primary, lower and upper secondary school) and post-diploma study courses; it also provides for "qualification" to refer specifically to a process aimed at aligning future workers' knowledge and skills with the needs and demands of the labour market; to these are added specific professional updates and training modules.

4 This expression tries to overcome the contested labels of second-generations, see the European Migration Network Glossary: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/netwo rks/european-migration-network-emn/emn-asylum-and-migration-glossary/glossar y/person-migratory-background\_en.

and informal contexts aiming at knowledge and skills acquisition through apprehension and creative re-elaboration of learning contents related to the eight Life Long Learning (LLL) key competencies.5 This study tested a method inspired by, but going beyond, the peer-to-peer orientation: It is a 'buddy method' in which pairs of students learn in an innovative way, using digital resources and a platform created ad hoc, the definitions and content related to one of the competencies indicated by LLL. They also acquire and revise these competences in a creative and original way, and then produce their own content and resources (textual, visual, audiovisual, etc.), which they pass on to other pairs of younger peers in a peer-4-peer process, with a pair of less experienced peers.

Focus groups and interviews were used to obtain participants' opinions of this method and obtain some useful information regarding educational policies.

In this framework, we developed a specific case study, located in the city of Turin. The data was retrieved from February to June 2021 from a total of 19 study participants (nine teachers, six educators, four transversal stakeholders) who wereinterviewed onlinein six focus groups(FG) and twointerviews(I)(see Table 1).

Our research questions were formulated as follows:

The participants of the focus groups were recruited through reasoned choice sampling that guaranteed the heterogeneity of perspectives starting from dif-

5 The KIDS4Alll project foresees that teachers and students use a platform with online resources for LLL competences, organized in learning units, and a synthetic manual presenting the same approach in paper and reduced form.

ferent education cycles (primary, lower and upper secondary), different territorial locations (urban, peri-urban, extra-urban) and finally diversified situations of hardship and fragility as an ethnic and social mix (Besozzi & Colombo, 2020).

The context in which the research was carried out offers an overview of various Italian metropolitan realities, in which compulsory schooling is characterized by investment in terms of cutting-edge projects and initiatives, even in the field of digital skills (Demartini et al., 2020). Furthermore, the city of Turin is recognized nationwide for its inter-institutional collaboration in promoting educational activities, as well as for a significant vitality and participation of civil society organizations (Davico & Staricco, 2019, 2020; Ricucci, 2020). For these reasons it can be used as a case study, with transferable elements to other contexts.

The study sample has been composed and selected in accordance with several critical elements that emerged:

ondary education, teachers from technical and vocational schools6 , as research in the local and national Italian context confirms that these school tracks or paths are preferably chosen and frequented by a high number of students with amigratory background, compared to the high school/grammar school tracks (Palmas, 2002; Cavaletto et al., 2015; Ricucci & Premazzi, 2020).The comparison with teachers and educators working with students of different ages, as it has been previously mentioned, had the purpose of highlighting the transformation of needs, critical aspects and challenges related to the different phases of the life cycle of students.

3. Non-formal context: associations. Also, socio-culturalindicators were considered for the selection of experts from non-formal contexts. Therefore, focus groups and interviews were conducted with highly significant institutions in the local Turin context that put the education of young people at the centre of their concern.

The collected data has been analyzed according to a grounded theory approach: Qualitative data software analysis has not been used due to the number of interviews and focus groups.

# **3. Findings**

The results that emerged from this small-scale study provide an overview of the needs, methods and lacunae of digital skills and digitalization exemplified by the Italian educational context. Indeed, the study sample provided corresponding considerations and suggestions that have been categorized into three thematic areas, according to the research questions specified above. Below are the results for each of these points, highlighting suggestions for a further debate in the field and ideas regarding educational policies.

6 The Italian school system has three levels of education: primary schools (from 6 to 10 years), lower-secondary school (from 11 to 13 years) and upper-secondary school (from 14 to 19 years). The latter is divided into different types of pathways: high schools/grammar schools, vocational schools, and technical schools, with different curricular programmes, different users, and different social reputations.