Keywords

Introduction

International students represent a significant and growing population of open, distance, and digital education (ODDE) students, supported through increasing provisions for international distance education (Simpson, 2013; Subotzky & Prinsloo, 2011; Tait, 2018). Such trends provide potential opportunities for higher education students to learn from institutions based around the world without ever leaving “home.” In this regard, it has been reflected that some of the underlying values of ODDE – such as openness, increased participation, or equity in access – converge with the recruitment of international distance students through extending intercultural learning opportunities across geographic borders (Pumela, 2012).

Although data about the number of students who participate in ODDE internationally are not systematically collected globally, there is evidence of its prominence in the higher education field. For example, the growing prevalence of open universities around the world (Tait, 2018) provides greater possibilities for international engagement through the enrollment of students from other countries. Other distance-based institutions have expanded their international reach; one example is the University of South Africa, which enrolls around 29,000 international students based in 90 different countries (Mittelmeier, Rienties, Rogaten, Gunter, & Raghuram, 2019). Other more limited country-specific data shows a similar picture, such as in the UK, where data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA, 2021) highlight that over 400,000 students enrolled in a British institution are based outside the country. These trends are likely to increase alongside growing interests in ODDE following the COVID-19 pandemic, whereby restrictions on international student mobility positioned international distance learning as a “panacea in a time of crisis” (Dhawan, 2020, p. 6). This had led to questions about whether such modes are the way forward for international higher education, with some arguing that we might move towards a “post-mobility world” (White & Lee, 2020) through the increased use of ODDE across borders.

This chapter reflects on the “third spaces” that ODDE creates for higher education, whereby students no longer must choose between relocating “abroad” and remaining “at home” due to the rising prominence of online and distance programs across borders. Within this, one particular notion in need of reimagining under the context of ODDE is that of international students. After all, existing tools or definitions for conceptualizing who “counts” as an international student are disrupted by removing geographic mobility from the equation. This chapter unpacks these complexities by bringing together existing definitions of international students in higher education and highlighting where they are problematic in light of ODDE. The second half of the chapter reflects on the ways that experiences may differ between international students in face-to-face context and international distance education, arguing for a need to see each group’s experiences as distinct. Framing this argument is the concept of “internationalization at a distance,” in which attention is turned to next.

Introducing Internationalization at a Distance

Prior research on international students and internationalization in higher education has classically organized activities into two categories: internationalization abroad and internationalization at home (Knight, 2004). On the one hand, internationalization abroad is typically framed through the lens of mobility and the movement of students, staff, or programs across geographic borders (de Wit, 2013). On the other hand, internationalization at home focuses on developing international and intercultural dimensions into existing provisions “at home,” primarily for the benefit of home students who are not internationally mobile (Crowther et al., 2000).

However, ODDE has created new forms of internationalization that are difficult to classify within either category, particularly considering the increased opportunities for learning across international borders. In online and distance learning, for example, students can learn through the educational approaches of a country based “abroad” all while remaining “at home.” For instance, a student may live in the USA and enroll through online distance education in an institution based in Brazil without relocating to that country. Such a learning experience would differ from the education obtainable within a students’ own country of citizenship or residence, considering that issues such as the curricula and pedagogy are influenced by the culture, history, and educational values of the places where they are developed.

One way to frame international students’ experiences under such circumstances is through the lens of “internationalization at a distance,” a third space conceptualized within the existing dichotomous framework of internationalization (Mittelmeier et al., 2019; Mittelmeier, Rienties, Gunter, & Raghuram, 2021b). Internationalization at a distance is distinct from internationalization abroad (which assumes geographic mobility) and internationalization at home (which assumes affiliation with an institution “at home”). This concept can be defined as:

“All forms of education across borders where students, their respective staff, and institutional provisions are separated by geographical distance and supported by technology.” (Mittelmeier et al., 2021b, p. 269)

Internationalization at a distance, then, includes students who are geographically immobile (at least for the express purposes of academic study); they remain “at home” while simultaneously learning from an institution located “abroad.” In this way, internationalization at a distance may provide alternatives to geographic mobility, as argued by Breines, Raghuram, and Gunter (2019), by providing avenues for students not to move. After all, the opportunities to obtain a degree from an international institution are expanded via ODDE through increased access to universities around the world without the necessity of crossing national borders. This conceptualization was intended to recognize that what is mobile under ODDE is not necessarily people but rather a mobility of knowledge and ideas. This broadens the space that is occupied by institutions internationally, as universities’ student reach is expanded beyond their own campuses or national boundaries under ODDE.

This shift requires new considerations about what constitutes an international student, particularly when typical markers of difference – mobility, visas, and citizenship – may no longer apply or hold the same meaning in a more fluid online international space. In face-to-face contexts, for example, the designation of students as either “international” or “home” is often a question of place: home students as those already “here” and international students as those who are from “there.” But these designations (already oversimplified and debatable – as expanded on below and in Jones, 2017) start to lose their meaning when institutions themselves begin to transcend national boundaries. Such situations raise a complex question, which will be addressed next: who, then, is an “international student” in ODDE?

Problems with Defining “International Students” in ODDE

Within ODDE, complications arise when one attempts to narrow down who “counts” as an international student, considering many of the categorizations typically used in face-to-face contexts are made more complex in internationalization at a distance. For example, international distance students are typically not eligible for student visas and are not usually geographically mobile for the purposes of education. International distance students, therefore, transcend the existing binary classification of student identities as “home” or “international.” This section illuminates these issues, particularly in reflection of how international students are conceptualized and defined globally and how such approaches may make problematic assumptions about their underlying mode of study.

Defining International Students According to Mobility

Many definitions of international students focus on their mobility across national borders. For example, one prominent international higher education data source is the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), which defines international students as those who “have crossed a national or territorial border for the purpose of education and are now enrolled outside their country of origin” (UIS, 2021). The inclusion of the verb “crossed” within this definition highlights assumptions about the movement and mobility of students from Country A to Country B. In this regard, the OECD (2021) highlights that more than five million students worldwide are currently geographically mobile for the purposes of higher education. However, one distinctive quality of ODDE, as often perceived by students, is that it increases opportunities to obtain a degree abroad without being mobile (Breines et al., 2019). This also means that many sources of international data about international students fail to capture or record the number of international distance students studying via ODDE. One result is that, at present, there is no systematic global data collected about how many students study internationally via ODDE and there is no clear international picture of this trend over time.

Defining International Students According to Visa Status

Another common definition of international students focuses on visa status, which, in turn, also assumes international mobility for the purposes of study. The OECD (another prominent data source about international students), for example, defines international students as “those who received their prior education in another country and are not residents of their current country of study” (OECD, 2021). This is similarly defined by the Migration Data Portal (2021) as students who “typically hold a non-resident visa status (sometimes called a student’s visa) to pursue a tertiary degree (or higher) in the destination country.” Such definitions assume that international students are temporary visa holders in the country of their enrolled institution but are not permanent residents or citizens.

These arguments are problematic in the case of internationalization at a distance. In many countries, for example, distance learners are not eligible for student visas and are not granted rights for temporary residency (although a systematic global analysis of this is suggested for future research). This might be viewed through multiple lenses, as on the one hand, it could be argued that internationalization at a distance transcends existing national borders by allowing knowledge and learning opportunities to permeate geographic barriers. Yet, on the other hand, an alternative perspective is that internationalization at a distance perpetuates existing barriers to movement by closing off opportunities to be mobile that may have been possible via face-to-face learning arrangements. Thus, defining international students according to visa status falls into the same trap of assuming geographic mobility, of which international distance students do not or are not eligible to partake.

Defining International Students According to Geographic “Otherness”

Beyond mobility and visas, discourses about international students tend to label them according to what they are not: permanent residents or citizens of the country from which they study. For instance, ODDE and other higher education researchers frequently label international students as those who are simply based abroad – a binary opposite of home students. However, such definitions are rooted in problematic categorizations of “us” and “them,” lending to tendencies for international students to be systematically “othered” or stereotyped (see, e.g., Moosavi, 2021). On a conceptual level, such labelings of international students in ODDE (and beyond) create segregated social containers that seek to divide individuals according to their perceived sameness or difference in relation to the country where their institution is based (Dervin, 2011). Thus, there are underlying, unspoken assumptions behind defining international students as “not home” that reveal (often problematically) who international students are expected to be or what their difference is expected to mean.

Defining international students according to their perceived geographic difference is also problematic on a more practical level in ODDE. One example is expatriate students, who may study at a distance from an institution based in their country of citizenship while they are living abroad in another country. For example, in research on international distance students at the University of South Africa, it was found that a significant number of “international students” were actually South Africans who were living abroad (Mittelmeier, Gunter, Raghuram, & Rienties, 2021a). This form of internationalization back home outlines a blurry gray area, where such students are geographically distant from their institution but presumably possess the cultural and linguistic knowledge or experiences that might be likely from a “home” student (although this cannot be assumed, given the complexity of individual migration experiences and identities).

Another example might be students with prior immigration histories who currently live in the same country where their institution is based, but are not citizens. Such students would not be counted as “international students” under this definition, but their experiences transitioning to learning in a new cultural or linguistic setting may have similarities to those labeled as “international” (as described in more detail in the next section). Although it is impossible to make assumptions about the unique and complex identities or experiences of individuals with various migration histories, these examples demonstrate the ways that geography cannot always be assumed to represent internationality and that there are limitations to simply dichotomizing “here” and “there.”

Problematic Assumptions of Binary Definitions more Broadly

As outlined above, there are practical and conceptual problems with labeling international students in ODDE. At the same time, it is important to reflect on how binaries of “home” and “international” are problematic on a more general level, including in face-to-face learning spaces (see, e.g., Jones, 2017). This tendency to refer to simple binaries of “international” or “not international” fails to capture the plurality of individual identities that go beyond citizenship, including students’ cultural, ethnic, racial, and linguistic diversities. One outcome of this is that students who are labeled as home students may identify with “the international” in multifaceted ways left unseen by their universities. After all, the ways that individual identities might align with “international-ness” is potentially infinite and oftentimes too complex to cleanly label or categorize.

The broad labeling of “international students” also problematically homogenizes a group of students who possess significant diversities through assumptions that there is a single, collective “THE” international student experience. For example, in a systematic literature review of research in the UK about pedagogies with international students, a full 57% of 49 included studies failed to include any other demographic information about participants beyond that they were categorized as international students (Lomer & Mittelmeier, 2021). This means that international students’ intersectional identities are often ignored, both in research and in practice, by assuming their noncitizen status is a meaningful marker of diversity that signifies a shared experience. Although the intersections of international students’ experiences and other identity markers such as race (Bardhan & Zhang, 2017; Madriaga & McCaig, 2019) or gender (Song, 2020) have received more recent attention, these reflections remain limited, particularly in research about ODDE.

One outcome of this homogenisation is that intranational differences are frequently ignored through latent assumptions that nations are homogeneous and culture is static (see, e.g., the argument in Lomer & Mittelmeier, 2020). For instance, claims are often made about “THE” Chinese learner (Carr, 1999; Gu & Schweisfurth, 2006), which fails to recognize that China has 55 recognized ethnic minority groups and dozens of regional language varieties. Such homogenization lends to limited reflection for international students on issues such as widening participation (Gayton, 2019), despite significant differences in their classed experiences in ODDE (Breines et al., 2019). It is also reflected through a pervasive deficit narrative, whereby international students are frequently assumed to, as a collective group, “lack” certain skills for successful study or “struggle” with integration into their host communities (Lillyman & Bennett, 2014; Moosavi, 2021).

Defining “International Students” in ODDE

These critical reflections form a backdrop for discussing who “counts” as international students in ODDE settings, demonstrating that the labeling of international students is complex and results in problematic outcomes even in face-to-face settings. As indicated in the previous sections, many of the assumptions underpinning the binary labeling of international students are made even more complex in ODDE, namely, through assumptions around mobility, visa status, and citizenship or residency. In reflecting on this plurality, Stewart (2017) has provided a helpful model which categorizes the multifaceted ways that students study through internationalization at a distance. This includes four distinct categories of students:

  • National: Those who study online or distantly from within their own country of citizenship.

  • International: Those who study online or distantly from an institution abroad while based in their own country of citizenship.

  • Transnational: Those who study online or distantly from an institution abroad while living in a different country that is not their country of citizenship.

  • Expatriate: Those who study online or distantly from an institution in their own country of citizenship while they are living abroad elsewhere.

This is visualized in Fig. 1, which helps demonstrate the complexity of the ways students can be categorized in internationalization at a distance.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Visual mapping of student categorizations in internationalization at a distance

Full size image

Although it could be argued that such attempts to categorize students fall into similar traps of oversimplification of individual identities, this model does help demonstrate the multifaceted ways that students may engage within and across national boundaries in ODDE. This also demonstrates a need for researchers and practitioners to purposefully reflect on how they are categorizing “international students” in their work, with explicit justification and reflection on the underlying assumptions of taking such approaches.

Additionally, these issues highlight challenging gaps in systematic knowledge about the scope of internationalization at a distance, given that definitions of international students vary between data controlling bodies and that ODDE students are not systematically included or differentiated in major international student datasets. Yet, there has been limited recognition of the distinct experiences between students in these two groups, which necessitates their division in the data. Relatedly, there is also more limited knowledge about international distance students’ experiences in ODDE settings, particularly compared to the wealth of research about this in face-to-face contexts, which is drawn into attention next.

Understanding International Students’ Experiences

In face-to-face settings, international students’ social, cultural, and academic experiences have received much interdisciplinary research attention over the last few decades (see, e.g., a review by Kesnold Mesidor & Sly, 2016). For instance, it has been outlined that there are over 200 publications each year about the broader internationalization of higher education (Tight, 2021), of which research about international students plays a significant role. Although a full review of the literature in face-to-face contexts is beyond the scope of this present chapter, it is worth recognizing the established knowledge that international students may experience significant and multifaceted transitions while living and learning in a new cultural context (Jindal-Snape & Rienties, 2016). International students’ transitions can be defined as “an ongoing process that involves moving from one context and set of interpersonal relationships to another” (Jindal-Snape & Rienties, p. 2). Thus, much research about international students has focused on their experiences as temporary sojourners, such as their sense of agency (Tran & Vu, 2018) or identity development (Bond, 2019) in new cultural and linguistic settings.

One key area of this research focuses on academic transitions and support, particularly international students’ experiences with and perspectives towards learning in a new cultural context (e.g., Lillyman & Bennett, 2014). One extensive topic within this has been linguistic transitions and the ways that international students develop their knowledge of academic language (for instance, Dippold, Heron, & Gravett, 2021). Other work has focused on pedagogies, for example, by considering experiences of intercultural group work, including the social complexities of teamwork between peers from different countries (such as Reid & Garson, 2017). There have also been reflections on developing more explicit support provisions for international students, such as through strengthened approaches to feedback (Chew, 2014). Nonetheless, it has been previously argued that research about pedagogies with international students tends to be methodologically limited or focus on single-site case studies within lecturers’ own practices, meaning there is significant room for development on this topic in the future (Lomer & Mittelmeier, 2021).

It is also recognized in the existing literature that geographic mobility means the uprooting of students from their established social support networks, often requiring international students in face-to-face settings to navigate social complexities and develop new support structures (Jindal-Snape & Rienties, 2016). As such, much research has also focused on international students’ experiences developing social friendship networks (e.g., Rienties, Héliot, & Jindal-Snape, 2013). For example, Kudo, Volet, and Whitsed (2020) have conceptualized a three-stage ecological model for how students from different cultures develop friendships in higher education. It has been acknowledged that further support is often needed for international students’ social transitions through the building of new social resources and networks (Arthur, 2017).

Despite the proliferation of research on this topic, it has been argued that much of it tends to be under-theorized, pragmatic, and developed through a deficit lens (Lillyman & Bennett, 2014). For example, a discourse analysis of research about internationalization more broadly found limited criticality about underlying issues of power, privilege, and inequality in international education engagements (Mwangi et al., 2018). However, there has been a recent shift towards what has been called “critical internationalization studies,” which seek to problematize underlying issues of “the continuation of enduring patterns of Eurocentric knowledge production, exploitive relationships, and inequitable access to resources” (Stein, 2019, p. 3). For work with international students, this means a growing recognition of the ways that they may be stigmatized and unfairly depicted through deficits (Moosavi, 2021). There is also a growing recognition for social inequalities, such as how international students’ experiences may be racialized (Madriaga & McCaig, 2019). Thus, the subfield is slowly shifting towards critical recognitions of existing barriers and the framing of international students as “epistemic equals” (Hayes, 2019) – although Stein (2019) argues such approaches remain on the margins and require greater engagement.

Linking this back to ODDE, the research about international students in face-to-face contexts is shaped by mobility and the ways that immersion in a new country or culture impacts individual experiences. This work focuses on the impact and outcomes of being – physically, socially, and emotionally – uprooted and removed from existing known support systems. The social experiences of international students in face-to-face contexts also exist in spaces where difference is made more visible and is informed by everyday micro-interactions. Thus, there is caution needed in assuming the transferability of findings about international students in face-to-face contexts to the experiences of learning through internationalization at a distance. These, it can be argued, are two entirely distinct learning and social experiences, despite the tendency for some literature to conflate the two through the shared terminology of “international students.”

Understanding International Distance Students’ Transition Experiences

The lack of geographic mobility in ODDE means that the notion of “transition” takes on different meanings for international distance students. As international distance students remain for the most part “at home,” this means that their social and cultural structures remain in place, limiting the sense of “uprooting” that is commonly experienced by international students in face-to-face contexts. International distance students also typically remain within their own cultural and linguistic settings, meaning there are fewer life transitions experienced compared to those inherent to migration. However, this raises other potential questions, considering international distance students do not have opportunities to “immerse” themselves in the cultural and linguistic settings of their host institution (Ramanau, 2016) and may encounter greater barriers of assumed knowledge. Some authors, for example, have argued that international distance students may have more limited understandings about the learning expectations of a country that they have less experience with or have perhaps never visited (Zheng & Kenny, 2010). For instance, research has reflected that international distance students may have fewer opportunities to engage with acquiring socially situated language and vocabulary (Fenton-O’Creevy & van Mourik, 2016).

Thus, it is recognized that transitions do still exist in ODDE and that international distance students still encounter new educational norms and values while undertaking a degree abroad (Ramanau, 2016). This may include transitions to using new technologies or encountering uncertainties about expectations for new communication mediums. For instance, research has reflected on cultural differences in online communication styles that may impact learning experiences (Zhang, 2013). This may help explain findings in a wide range of studies about international students’ perceived “silence” or lack of engagement with online tools such as forums (see, e.g., Harrison, Harrison, Robinson, & Rawlings, 2018). This has led some to argue for a need for greater intercultural awareness in international distance settings and purposefully designed transition supports for international distance students (Kung, 2017).

Other researchers have considered the extent to which physical distance may create additional hurdles for international distance students. For example, in comparing the experiences of home and international distance students, Gemmell and Harrison (2017) found that international distance students more frequently encountered technical troubles with accessing required resources for study. This links to findings from Mittelmeier et al. (2019), where it was identified that some international distance students found it difficult to access required study materials, influenced by global inequalities in access to high-speed internet. Administrative barriers, such as the payment of tuition fees in foreign currencies (Raghuram, Breines, & Gunter, 2020), can also add additional stressors to routine student activities. Thus, there are practical considerations for international distance in addition to pedagogic reflections.

Previous research has highlighted the sense of social isolation or loneliness that distance learners may feel in the absence of tangible campus spaces for networking (Kaufmann & Vallade, 2020). In this regard, international distance education may create more hurdles for social involvement, though issues such as limited student networks outside of the host institution’s country or time zone differences. For example, Madge et al. (2019) found that some international distance students relied on informal support networks through social media to develop a sense of belonging and community with peers. Yet, despite perceptions of limited social engagement, international distance students in some contexts have been shown to still hold a strong sense of belonging and appreciation for their institution (Mittelmeier et al., 2019), prompting consideration for future research about the meaning that distance learning may hold for international students’ lives.

While this section is not intended to provide a full review of the research about international distance students’ experiences (see, e.g., Lee & Blight, 2019; Stewart, 2019), the research conducted on this topic thus far does start to paint a picture of the complexity of international distance students’ experiences. This also demonstrates the ways that the experiences of international distance students are distinct from international students who are geographically mobile, considering the significant differences in their practical environments and the ways that distance shifts their engagement with their institutions. Therefore, these two groups should be distinct in the literature, allowing researchers to focus on their individual situations and transitions. Yet, there is much left unknown at present about international students in ODDE, which is summarized next.

Gaps and Challenges in Existing Knowledge

Knowledge about the experiences and contributions of international distance students has remained relatively under-research and under-theorized in comparison with other aspects of ODDE. For example, in a recent synthesis of trends in research about distance education by Bozkurt and Zawacki-Richter (2021), there was no mention of international distance education or international students. In the research about international students, a systematic review by Yemini and Sagie (2016) noted a growing shift towards research in online spaces, but these comprise only a small number of studies and are clustered together with educational technology more broadly. Thus, there is a need for greater synergy between these two topics, drawing upon how these dual influences converge for international distance learners.

In particular, research about international distance students remains starkly more limited in comparison with the in-depth scholarly understandings about their experiences in face-to-face settings. Given the aforementioned differences in experiences between international students studying in face-to-face versus distance contexts, this represents a significant gap in knowledge against the backdrop of the growing prevalence of ODDE across geographic borders. This issue is exacerbated by a lack of systematic global data about the size and scope of international distance education. Altogether, critical empirical and conceptual knowledge about international students in ODDE remains an area worthy of scholarly attention in the future.

It has been previously argued that research about international students is often methodologically limited to case study research within researchers’ own teaching practices (Lomer & Mittelmeier, 2021). Research about international distance students also falls into this trap, whereby much of the existing research considers the usage of highly contextualized pedagogies or technologies, primarily focusing on the use of different online tools. On the whole, there are few examples of longitudinal, cross-institutional, or comparative research on this topic (as, e.g., Gemmell & Harrison, 2017). There are also few studies that have compared issues of pedagogy or student experience between ODDE and face-to-face teaching contexts, meaning there is limited understanding of the specificities of their distinctiveness (although this has been in focus for home students, e.g., Shu & Gu, 2018).

Another issue facing research in this area is the persistent deficit narrative, which frames international students as lacking particular skills or experiences for success (Lillyman & Bennett, 2014; Lomer & Mittelmeier, 2021). In this way, perceptions of “difference” have commonly led to negative portrayals of international distance students’ contributions to online learning environments. This is well described by Lee and Blight (2019, pp. 159–160), who argued in their literature review about international distance students that “[s]pecific groups of students are positioned as being passive, conformist, uncritical and silent.” Thus, there is a need for research on this topic to position itself more from the perspective of realizing the potential opportunities available, rather than the barriers created, by international distance learning. Engagement with existing critical internationalization theories (e.g., Stein, 2019), for example, can help develop more well-rounded reflections on experiences that are culturally, socially, academically, and geographically nuanced and complex.

Conclusions and Suggestions

This chapter has highlighted the growing role that international distance students play in ODDE and the ways that their experiences are significantly different from international students in face-to-face learning settings. However, knowledge about their experiences is presently limited due to conflicting definitions or categorizations, limited systematic data, deficit narratives, and limited scholarly attention. For example, there has been limited engagement between ODDE research and existing theories and conceptualizations of internationalization and international students. Yet, this represents an important avenue for research moving forward, particularly as ODDE continues to stretch beyond national borders. Thus, the following practical suggestions for researchers and practitioners provide avenues forward for strengthening understandings of this topic:

Reflect on and explicitly describe chosen categorizations of international distance students. The issues and ambiguities highlighted in this chapter demonstrate pragmatic needs for ODDE researchers and practitioners to critically reflect on labels and categorizations of (international) students with issues of space and place in mind. On a practical level, this means clearly and explicitly defining what is meant by the label of “international student” and reflecting on what assumptions might underpin such labeling. For instance, critical reflection is needed for addressing the fundamental reasons for labeling and the mechanisms with which this has been undertaken. In most circumstances, the phrases “international distance students” and “internationalization at a distance” are preferred terminologies that can more clearly describe the distinct phenomenon being studied or undertaken.

Collect and share systematic data about the prevalence of international distance students. At present, there are no global systematic data collected about the numbers of students who study via international distance education. For data governing bodies, this means work is needed to differentiate definitions of international distance students from international students in face-to-face settings, as their distinct experiences are not currently reflected in the data collected about them. In particular, mechanisms are needed for compiling the numbers of international distance students on a global scale. For individual researchers and practitioners, this means including information, where available, in publications or through public data repositories about the numbers of international distance students in the institutional context where the research or practice has been undertaken. Together, this can help paint a clearer picture of the size and scale of ODDE across borders.

Engage with existing critical theories of internationalization. For researchers, scholarship undertaken in ODDE settings about international distance students tends to frame research through the lens of ODDE without also engaging with the critical conceptualizations developed in the subfield of internationalization of higher education. Relatedly, there is a greater need for research in this area to consider the growing prevalence of critical internationalization studies (Stein, 2019), which seek to engage with the ways that internationalization is politicized and globally uneven. Engagement with this literature also applies to practitioners, considering that there is often limited training available at institutions which focuses on developing interculturally inclusive curricula and pedagogies.

Thus, ODDE research and practice on this topic can develop more complex understandings about international distance students by engaging with the “international-ness” of students’ experiences and reflecting on how broader theories about online and distance education intersect with knowledge about internationalization (e.g., as in Pumela, 2012). In particular, one consideration is the ways that deficits currently frame research and practice with international distance students, through assumptions of experienced challenges or skills perceived to be in lack (Lee & Blight, 2019; Lillyman & Bennett, 2014; Lomer & Mittelmeier, 2021). A helpful starting point for researchers and practitioners who would like to engage more with these ideas is available at the following curated reading list: https://internationalpedagogies.home.blog/critical-reading-list-for-researchers/

For researchers, develop innovative research designs that encourage nuanced understandings about international students. The conclusion of Mittelmeier et al. (2021b) outlined a list of key questions to guide future research about internationalization at a distance and the experiences of international distance students. In this regard, one critique of the existing research about international distance students is that it tends to be limited in scope, focusing on specific tools, pedagogies, or experiences in single learning contexts. As such, there is space for more methodological and research design innovations that considers, for example:

  • Cross-contextual experiences of international distance students, comparing their experiences across disciplines, institutions, or countries.

  • In-depth and comparative analyses of students based in different countries or from different backgrounds.

  • Comparisons of the experiences of international students in face-to-face and ODDE settings.

  • Comparisons of the experiences of students based in the country of the awarding institution and those based in other countries.

  • Longitudinal understandings of experiences over time or throughout a program of study.

  • Sequential development of learning provisions over time with different cohorts of students.

Such approaches would add more nuances to emerging knowledge about this topic, which remains under-theorized compared to broader ODDE experiences or the experiences of international students in face-to-face settings.

Altogether, this chapter has argued that we presently have limited vocabulary and knowledge in both research and practice for discussing the experiences of international distance students in ODDE who learn under internationalization at a distance. However, international distance students are a growing group of learners with distinct experiences that are characterized by wide-ranging dualities, particularly in their status as both located “at home” while learning “abroad.” The nuances and complexities of such experiences are a growing topic of interest for scholars and a key area of further conceptualization in the work on ODDE to come.