Keywords

Introduction

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, discussions about international partnerships and the related curriculum design processes mainly focused on how physical mobility could be implemented in on-campus study programs. Not least due to the amount of experiences with online teaching, this focus seems to have changed now in higher education institutions (HEIs). Yet even before the pandemic reached educational settings worldwide, the value of distance education for internationalization processes had been recognized. For some time now, distance learning has been characterized as a relevant element to foster the international connection that underlies higher education in general, because it addresses collaboration and openness between international partners and invites the exchange of ideas without the necessity to travel (Coates, 2020, 41ff.). To better understand the benefits of distance education, it is vital to overcome the negative connotation of the term “distance” and to establish a better understanding of what it means to “be at university” (Bayne, Gallagher, & Lamb, 2014).

Current research on international partnerships draws from these reconsiderations of what it means to have international experiences in one’s studies and allows international partnerships to transfer their insights into their study programs via curriculum design processes. This chapter begins by focusing on concepts and designs that can help to establish joint educational initiatives based on international partnerships. Thereafter, it invites readers to explore curriculum development approaches and thus provides a foundation to initiate new curriculum processes or evaluate existing ones with regard to the involvement of international partners.

Even though most of the examples and studies underlying this chapter derive from the context of higher education, their underlying concepts – especially on the level of curriculum design – are applicable to educational settings in general. Our focus on HEI mainly derives from the fact that more studies on realized international (online) programs exist in this field. Linking this research with findings on curriculum design allows us to focus on those aspects which seem most crucial in successful partnerships: to name and to understand the benefits that the partners wish to achieve together (cf. Eddy, 2010).

Educational Approaches and Concepts in International Partnerships

In a setting with international partners, curricula can be designed along different axes. Next to double and joint degree programs – with closely aligned curricula in closed consortia that rely on the physical mobility of students as they progress through the curriculum – a number of formats have emerged that situate teaching and learning in virtual, in parts collaborative, settings. These can complement pedagogical approaches to the international (on-site) classroom (Carroll, 2015; Gregersen-Hermans & Lauridsen, 2021) in the context of purposeful Internationalization at Home and thus make international experiences more widely accessible to students (Beelen & Jones, 2015).

This is becoming increasingly relevant, since there has been, as Helm, Guth, Shuminov, and van der Velden (2020) note, “growing recognition of the limited reach of mobility” (p. 92). The Erasmus+ Higher Education Impact Study (European Commission, 2019) observes both accessibility issues and limited diversity among the students who choose to study abroad. In their widely cited definition, Beelen and Jones (2015) refer to Internationalization at Home (IaH) as “the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments” (p. 7). IaH measures thus explicitly target not only students in more exclusive double or joint degree programs but, most of all, students in rather nationally oriented degree programs. Through the integration of, for instance, case studies and literature from other cultural contexts, comparative angles, local community-based research projects, or service learning projects that touch on global issues, students may further develop their intercultural skills and build a well-founded knowledge of international issues in their discipline. IaH is explicitly not meant to substitute a study abroad but contribute to competence development regardless of mobility periods.

Virtual teaching and learning, especially in collaborative scenarios, have a particular appeal in this regard: They can provide for a more direct access to “other” perspectives and knowledge, enable students to gain insights into teaching and learning in other academic cultures, and foster intercultural teamwork. Moreover, virtual exchange formats hold the promise to boost the internationalization of so-called “underrepresented groups,” i.e., students “who cannot or do not want to be mobile because of their socio-cultural background and status, disabilities and chronic diseases, family and parental obligations, financial issues or language proficiency” (European Students’ Union & Erasmus Student Network, n.d.).

In this part of the chapter, frequently used formats will be surveyed and potential shortcomings as well as opportunities for international partnerships and curriculum design will be spotlighted.

Virtual Mobility

Virtual mobility (VM) offers – which may be understood as a loose form of international collaboration – have surged at institutions that would otherwise strongly identify as campus-based universities. In Virtual Internationalization (2020), Bruhn traces the development of VM: Already in 2002, she notes, Wächter anticipated the transformation of higher education toward flexible learning that could take place independent of time and location and “almost borderless” choices (qtd. in Bruhn, p. 24) and its potential for international activities, such as marketing and recruitment and transnational education, was soon recognized (ibid.). VM is a term commonly used to refer to students and academics in higher education studying or teaching at another institution outside their own country for a limited time without physically leaving their home. In practice, this entails following one or several online courses from a host university and acquiring credits that are recognized at the home university (van Hove, 2021, n. p.). VM therefore allows for access to perspectives and knowledge not available on the home campus, exposes students to another academic culture, as well as provides them with the opportunity to build a distinctive profile in their curriculum.

To this effect, VM can play an important role in international partnerships when it comes to aligning curricula more closely, sharing resources, and complementing each institutions’ profile. This may be particularly interesting in the context of specialized degree programs or so-called “small subjects,” such as classical archaeology or biostatistics, that only attract relatively small numbers of students and operate with limited resources. In the context of evolving partnerships, VM may also serve as a testbed for the development of international joint degree programs. Against the backdrop of the EU learning mobility benchmark of 20% mobile students as well as diverse national mobility benchmarks, VM is expected to play a significant role in the near future, since student taking part in VM offers can be formally enrolled as exchange or guest students (Joint Research Centre [European Commission], Sánchez Barrioluengo,, & Flisi, 2017). This status, together with the credit transfer from host to home institution, can prospectively count toward internationalization benchmarks (van Hove, 2021, n. p.).

However, it should be noted that virtual mobility hardly enables intercultural dialogue (Reiffenrath, de Louw, & Haug, 2020, n. p.). Van Hove (2021), too, stresses that the international dimension of the learning settings that emerge in the context of VM offers often remains untapped. He goes as far as to state that VM “is in no way guaranteed to be a useful internationalisation experience … [T]aking courses abroad and transferring credits are the traditional formal features of student mobility, and if you take the physical mobility out of the equation, this is what you are left with” (n. p.). He holds and argues that the emphasis on “mobility” is in this case misleading. During periods of physical mobility, students to a large extent develop competences not in the context of the formal curriculum they partake in at the host institution, but through immersion and the offers made available to them beyond the classroom (ibid.). What follows from van Hove’s argument is that both HEIs and policymakers should be keenly aware of the limitations of VM when distributing funding and recognizing international activities and academics’ engagement in international partnerships.

Virtual Exchange (VE) and Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL)

The intercultural dialogue that is missing from VM formats takes center stage in so-called virtual exchange (VE) scenarios. The most comprehensive and most commonly cited definition of virtual exchange is one that has emerged in the context of the EVOLVE project (https://evolve-erasmus.eu/) funded by the European Commission. Here, VE is referred to as

“technology-enabled, sustained, people to people education programmes or activities in which constructive communication and interaction takes place between individuals or groups who are geographically separated and/or from different cultural backgrounds, with the support of educators or facilitators. Virtual Exchange combines the deep impact of intercultural dialogue and exchange with the broad reach of digital technology” (EVOLVE, 2021, n. p.).

Like VM, VE has attracted considerable interest during the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet virtual exchange is by no means a recent phenomenon. In his seminal paper From Telecollaboration to Virtual Exchange, O’Dowd (2018) traces the development of approaches to virtual exchange. Already in the 1990s, just a few years after the emergence of the Internet, international virtual academic collaborations were initiated in language learning classrooms in order to enable students to interact with native speakers and create semi-authentic communication settings. Incarnations of such international teaching and learning partnerships have commonly be referred to as telecollaboration (Belz, 2003), e-tandem (O’Rourke, 2007), telecollaboration 2.0 (Guth & Helm, 2010), or online intercultural exchange (O’Dowd & Lewis, 2016). These formats use technology to connect classes across borders and facilitate asynchronous and/or synchronous communication. Often, they are bilingual with language learners and native speakers, respectively, on each side of the partnership. Under the guidance of their teachers, who serve as languacultural experts (Belz, 2003, p. 2), the students engage in joint projects or tasks: They might produce a presentation, website, media campaign, or other product together based on a comparison of their cultural contexts, analyze parallel texts, or conduct ethnographic interviews followed up with reflective essays (O’Dowd, 2018). These virtual collaborations thus serve the purpose of fostering students’ foreign language skills and increasing intercultural competences (cf. Belz, 2003, p. 2). As such, they are integrated into local foreign language programs that offer a room for preparation and reflection.

Yet also beyond the area of foreign language education, discipline-specific virtual collaboration formats have emerged. O’Dowd subsumes these under the category of the “shared-syllabus approach” (O’Dowd, 2018, p. 14). In 2004, Jon Rubin established the COIL – collaborative online international learning – methodology at the State University of New York (SUNY) and their network of international partners, which nowadays is one of the largest global VE networks (https://coil.suny.edu/global-network). COIL has become a widespread practice and the term is now used shorthand for the practice of “connecting two or more classes of similar course content in different countries” (O’Dowd, 2018, p. 14). As quite explicitly stated in the term, collaboration, and with this an exchange of ideas and perspectives from different cultural contexts, is at the heart of this practice. The intercultural exchange begins with the academics who at the onset of the collaboration need to negotiate what and how they are going to teach. Subsequently, they design units together that aim at “breaking the ice” (initiating contact between the two classes and enabling the formation of small, intercultural teams), comparing and contrasting perspectives, connecting and collaborating in the context of a joint group project (along with a presentation), and finally reflecting on the experience. Often COIL partnerships run for 6–10 weeks in order to accommodate differing semester schedules and are integrated into the context of a semester-long course at the respective institution. Their design principles have the potential to be extended to interdisciplinary contexts.

In order to be sustainable, all of these formats require strong international partnerships as their basis. Especially in the context of VE, frictions between bottom-up initiatives and top-down institutional visions emerge and can significantly affect how institutions can move forward with international virtual academic collaborations. Formalized, long-term international partnerships are central in creating a framework in which joint or shared online courses may be sustained and eventually upscaled. However, most international partnership agreements have been negotiated for the purpose of physical mobility of students and staff and may not as easily accommodate virtual collaboration. Moreover, the success of VE in particular hinges on mutual trust between the academics who facilitate it, who may have longstanding professional relationships established during joint research, previous employment, or mobility periods. The connections that individual academics harness for virtual collaboration may therefore not always be in line with their institutions’ strategic international partnerships. HEIs need to be mindful of these frictions in their efforts to connect bottom-up activities and leadership agendas so as to recognize (and ideally award) individual efforts while at the same time strengthening institutional visions in internationalization.

Curriculum Design: The Backbone of International (Online) Programs and Partnerships

This chapter addresses the topics of curriculum and curriculum design on two levels: first, on the level of study programs, and second, on the level of single courses. The aim is to substantiate that collaboration and communication on both levels are crucial for international partnerships in higher education and especially so when the academics involved seek to implement virtual exchange or other distance education formats.

Before elaborating on this in more detail, it is necessary to stipulate some basic thoughts regarding the main terms in this section: the term “curriculum” and the term “curriculum development.” Lau (2001, p. 31) stresses that both terms

“[…] are problematic themselves as they imply two well-defined stages – the stage of development and the stage where the curriculum is completed. In fact, there is no line separating the two. Curriculum development is not an entity that stops before going into classrooms and curriculum is not a package that stops developing in the classrooms. It is a continuous process of constructing and modifying.”

Therefore, in this chapter, curriculum and curriculum design are understood as overlapping and context-related educational frameworks that are continually changing due to social, physical, economic, and cultural environments (O’Neill, 2015, p. 12). Both require ongoing and detailed context analysis, not only regarding their inherent assumptions about how teaching and learning works (in higher education) but also concerning the roles that they attribute to those who teach, those who learn, and the relationship of both (Young, 2014, p. 7). Even though such an analytic perspective on curriculum (design) is advisable in all educational contexts, it seems even more relevant in international partnerships that seek to connect (elements of) their curriculum virtually or through student mobility.

Several theories and models of curriculum design can be used to approach this complex issue. In this chapter, the most prominent of them will be introduced and discussed regarding their ability to include context-sensitive aspects that might be relevant for (virtual) joint programs.

Curriculum Design on the Program Level: Common Models

Curriculum design models can help to develop a study program to structure and to fill it. Even though it is rather common that several models can be used to (further) develop a study program, it is relevant to understand their different perspectives as well as their benefits. All of these models can offer orientation to those involved in curriculum design processes, because they provide the common ground based on which programs’ content, its outcomes, and its elements can be discussed and reflected. Apart from this benefit, these models may differ immensely in their approach and thus lead to different challenges for cooperatively planned (international) programs. Especially so when the joint programs are meant to be conducted online. In addition to the more content- and outcome-focused models that will be described below, curriculum design processes for distance and online education need to consider questions of how to provide students of another HEI access to one’s virtual learning environment as well as the challenges caused by different time zones or varying data policies in the students’ home regions. Hence, the levels of “technology, pedagogy, and learner community” (Chugh, Ledger, & Shields, 2017, p. 10) should be inherent part of a curriculum design process as soon as its main structure is set. Three model types to develop such a main structure will be introduced in the following.

The first model type presented here are the so-called process models (Kelly, 2004; Knight, 2001). These models follow the conviction that if you get the “ingredients” right in a curriculum (O’Neill, 2015, p. 29) the right outcome will follow. The focus while designing the elements of a study program lies on the possible learning paths of the students and on their study process.

In process models, orientation for the development of a (new) curriculum derives from the attributes and features which an institution marks as relevant for itself (Leask, 2001). For example, a process model can closely connect to the level of strategies and policies of each institution, hence it applies an organizational perspective. It also applies a program perspective, because it focuses on the level of academic activities that are possible and desirable in a specific setting. Such a context-sensitive approach holds possibilities for an individual HEI, as it might foster the effectiveness of internal strategies (e.g., a mission statement for teaching and learning or a virtual mobility policy). Yet, as Leask (2001, p. 101) points out, “although it is logical that what is embedded in policy and administrative systems should also be embedded in and integral to the academic practices of an institution, this convergence is not always easy to achieve.” With regard to international partnerships seeking to implement virtual exchange programs or modules, the application of process models can be even more laborious. Here, not only assumptions about teaching and learning must be somehow aligned, but also the strategic orientations of the institutions involved. If such a model is applied, the desired learning journeys, which are possible in campus-based programs compared to virtual study programs, should be taken into consideration as well (Chugh et al., 2017, p. 7) and thus add another perspective in the development process. Since this can be challenging, international reforms in education (e.g., the Bologna reform in Europe) apply models that offer an easier starting point and allow for easier comparability: the so-called product models.

Product models focus on “developing and communicating transparent outcomes” (O’Neill, 2015, p. 28). They seek to define the intended outcomes of a study program and then use this focus to design necessary elements to reach these outcomes within the curriculum structure. Since product models closely relate to management ideologies – “planning, organising, leading and controlling” (Lau, 2001, p. 33) – they are being criticized despite their focus on comparability. Such critique (mostly by postmodern perspectives) emphasizes that these models suggest that the process of curriculum planning can be neutral (ibid.). Yet this is hardly possible, as becomes evident when characteristics of the outcomes of a study program are critically examined. Because, when talking about outcomes – or rather intended learning outcomes – it is necessary to differentiate between different levels of outcomes: individual courses, modules, and programs (Hussey & Smith, 2008). Moreover, and possibly even more relevant in the context of international partnerships, the desired outcomes among the individuals who are involved will differ. Those who design programs or modules might intend to reach other goals than the teachers who design the courses, and yet again, their intended outcomes most probably will differ from those of their students. Thus, when applying a product model, “care should be taken not to be overly prescriptive when writing learning outcomes” (O’Neill, 2015, p. 28; see also Hussey & Smith, 2003), especially so when a program addresses an international target group and aims at intercultural competence development in an online setting such as VE. With respect to international partnerships, however, the benefits of product models remain, since they offer an explicit starting point to discuss possible directions of a joint endeavor.

A third type of models that is particularly promising with regard to module-based international partnerships like virtual exchange are the so-called postmodern models (Doll, 1993). These seek to apply a less fixed and more relationship-based approach to designing curriculum and demand “that power needs to lie in the hands of teachers and learners” (Lau, 2001, p. 38). It focuses on the interactive and negotiating nature of educational processes and tries not to emphasize prescribed plans or fixed objectives. In doing so, postmodern models value the human aspects that influence curriculum design processes, such as attitudes, feelings, and values (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2018). Such approaches might be challenging when they are applied in the design of joint degree programs in higher education. Still, they can be exceptionally valuable for international online curricula, since they urge those who set up a study program to actively pay attention to the social contexts in which they will be realized and thus pay close(r) attention to the intended target group. Which students should be attracted with the program? Which motivations could drive their involvement in an online program instead of a campus-based program (e.g., family-related or financial aspects)? How might the social contexts of the students relate to the contexts of the institutions that offer the program? Postmodern models can help to integrate elements in the curriculum that address these aspects and thereby provide incentives for teachers and students to include these issues in their interactions.

As mentioned above, it is not uncommon to apply different models at different stages during a curriculum design process. When deciding on which model type international partners should start such a process, they might find it useful to consider the overarching characteristics of these models as introduced by Ornstein and Hunkins (2018). Will they prefer a more subjective and learner-centered approach (a so-called nontechnical approach) or rather an approach that focuses on structuring the learning environment and thus seeming more logical and efficient (a so-called technical approach) (O’Neill, 2015, p. 31)? Which will help them better to design a new program? Which might be more fruitful to evaluate it? Whichever model educational institutions (and partners) decide to use, it is crucial to keep in mind what each curriculum should focus at the following: to create a framework that fosters education by giving room for specific teaching and learning experiences to emerge. Table 1 offers orientation on the purposes and rationales for the application of these different models.

Table 1 Focus, benefits, and challenges of different curriculum design models
Full size table

Introducing these models exemplifies why curriculum development in general is a complex issue, and even more so for international (online) programs. Furthermore, when preparing such a new distance curriculum “[i]t is important to keep in mind that a great deal of the work in teaching at a distance may occur prior to the start of the course” (Restauri, 2004, p. 32). Here, experiences from online distance education elucidate that institutional support is crucial when implementing such programs. Individual approaches, in which the responsibility to design and facilitate online courses solely lies with the teachers, may cause them to “falter,” if they do not have enough time to prepare the educational environment (Restauri, 2004, p. 33). In contrast to this, collaborative approaches (ibid.) are said to offer sufficient support structures from the HEI (e.g., through instructional designers or educational technologists) and thereby ensure that teachers can concentrate on designing course material and learning activities. Crowley, Chen, and Gisbert Cerver (2018) reason that these approaches are especially efficient in international online programs and their “particularly challenging” preparation (p. 3). In both approaches, time commitment proves to be the most relevant factor why international partners should work with transparent milestones yet flexible timelines while developing a new program.

Finding the right balance between time management, a guiding structure, and considerations of social aspects is equally crucial in curriculum design that addresses the program level as it is for actions on the level of individual courses. For the latter, research offers again valuable perspectives.

Curriculum Design on the Course Level: Valuable Starting Points

In each course or module, teachers should be aware that different curriculum dimensions overlap and interact constantly, especially in higher education. Such an approach might yield insights that can be valuable for the design of the curriculum of single courses and also as a foundation for the redesign of entire study programs. Leask (2015, p. 8 f.) describes these dimensions and their connections as follows: First, there is the formal curriculum, which refers to all the planned experiences that students will make during their studies. This includes learning activities and assessments, information that is provided, and the teaching approaches one applies. On the course level, the formal curriculum is closely linked to the syllabus. The second dimension is the informal curriculum, which comprises all the additional and – most of all – unassessed activities of students, in relation to and beyond a single course. These activities can focus on the social aspects of one’s studies, like networking events, and often address currents learning needs (e.g., e-tutors supporting academic writing processes). Some of these activities are pre-organized or provided by the institution itself, others emerge thanks to individual initiatives of student groups. Even though unplanned for and sometimes unknown to teachers, the elements of the informal curriculum influence the learning experience of the students immensely. Sometimes they “[…] complement what happens in the formal curriculum” (Leask, 2015, p. 8), yet sometimes they may also be “inconsistent and opposed to it” (ibid.). However challenging these – at times conflicting – interactions between the formal and the informal curriculum can be for students, the real challenge lies in understanding the implicit elements within a teaching and learning context.

These belong to the third dimension that one should look out for while analyzing the curriculum. This dimension is called the hidden curriculum. The name implies that these elements of the curriculum include unanticipated expectations or unintended messages that students are confronted with during their studies. These implicit messages can be sent by their teachers, and also by their peers, via learning materials, the setup of a course management system, or through the mode of assessment (cf. Nahardani, Rastgou Salami, Mirmoghtadaie, & Keshavarzi, 2021; Thielsch, 2021). To better understand the complexity of the hidden curriculum, especially in distance education and virtual exchange contexts, Anderson (2001, p. 33; referring to Ahola, 2000) recommends to acknowledge that this dimension of the curriculum includes different subdimensions. Adapted to the context of higher education and international partnerships, this chapter suggests the following summary of these subdimensions:

  • Learning to learn in this course (e.g., using the tools and collaborating with peers).

  • Learning to be a student in this formal context (e.g., the role as student might differ in an asynchronous joint classroom compared to an on-campus, synchronous lecture).

  • Learning to be an expert in this disciplinary context (e.g., knowing how to act meaningfully in the courses’ disciplinary approach aka being socialized in this discipline).

  • Learning “to play the game” (Anderson, 2001, p. 33) in this learning environment (e.g., how to address the teacher in emails and other invisible aspects).

In international teaching contexts and in online courses in particular, these subdimensions need to be carefully considered and reflected on by the teachers that are involved. This is of great importance, since “[t]he online environment is infinitely changeable […]” (Nahardani et al., 2021, n. p.) due to its often (culturally) heterogeneous student group and the variety of educational technologies that can be applied to facilitate learning. This variety which allows selecting a suitable tool for a specific setting and/or target group can also cause challenges for those who are involved in a course. Related to this, Pedro, Barbosa, and Santos (2018, p. 10 f., referring to Gibson, 1986) argue that the use of a new technology or any other (pedagogical) element changes the “ecosystem” (ibid.) of the educational environment in a way that teachers and students alike must be prepared to integrate it in their educational practices.

This applies to the course level as much as to the level of study programs, their bureaucracy, laws, and regulations. But even though such administrative aspects influence the hidden curriculum (e.g., by using specific learning management systems), it is the teachers’ behavior and their teaching approach that ultimately affect the students’ learning in class (Nahardani et al., 2021). Keeping this in mind, teachers should methodically build the educational environment of their courses and discuss its characteristics with the students. Furthermore, they should reflect on their teaching environment preferences as well as their academic socialization, both of which add to the hidden elements of the curriculum in a course. Even though it can be assumed that there is never only one version of a hidden curriculum in one context, but rather multiple evolving versions (Thielsch, 2017), the students encounter these realities through the way a course is organized and facilitated. Being mindful and explicit in its design, therefore, should have highest priority in international as well as in online settings.

Based on these insights it becomes evident that curriculum design does not only depend on those who develop its frameworks, but on those who design and facilitate the courses as well. Regarding this, Beelen (2017) accurately points out that in fact teachers often are “the missing link” in higher education strategies. However well the strategies, its sustainable implementation depends on those who provide the bridge between the curriculum as framework and the curriculum as possible experiences for the students. As means to support the academic teaching staff, it is necessary to reach the relevant agents in a specific context – those who are involved in international modules – and to connect them with the “key stakeholders” (Beelen, 2017, p. 146) that can support such processes: specialists in internationalization, educational developers, and – in case of virtual exchange contexts – educational technologists. Furthermore, and especially in broader strategic partnerships, this should include possibilities to build relationships between faculty members of the different partners (Bordogna, 2018) and to initiate peer learning situations. Offering each other insights into one’s teaching realities, their contexts, preferred approaches, and technologies, may not only prepare colleagues for their international teaching experiences, but also provide the reflective impulses needed to be explicit in one’s own teaching.

Implications

As has been outlined in this chapter, curriculum design for digital learning offers in international educational contexts, especially in international higher education, is a multilayered and complex process. The resulting learning offers can be extremely rewarding experiences for both learners and teachers involved and have the potential to intensify institutional partnerships, but the process of designing such curricula may well be demanding. Educational policies – in Europe, for instance, the European Commission’s Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027) or the Communication on the European Education Area – influence HEIs strategic efforts in this domain. Here, currently more than 280 higher education institutions are part of so-called European Universities (EUNs), i.e., European HEI alliances that are piloted in two rounds of an Erasmus+ call. These aim at transforming the European Higher Education Area, a goal that will involve not only substantial efforts in linking campus (infra)structures but also a collective push to make curricula more flexible in order to allow for the “seamless mobility” – physical, virtual, and blended exchange opportunities – envisioned in the call.

Both VE and VM play a key role in European strategic partnership networks and are often conceptualized as steps toward physical mobility. More longitudinal studies such as Lee, Leibowitz, and Rezek (2021) could generate insights into how virtual opportunities for international and intercultural engagement affect physical mobility and potentially alleviate some of the perceived barriers to study abroad. In a similar vein, blended mobility (a combination of virtual and physical mobility) is to play a significant role in the Erasmus+2021–2027 program, with the first so-called blended intensive programs being funded in 2021. In the coming years, accompanying research might scrutinize success factors for intercultural exchange in blended programs.

Research in (online) distance education show that “[…] learning and teaching is seen as the result of careful design and orchestration of the learning environment, communication processes, learner support and use of learning materials” (Zawacki-Richter & Naidu, 2016, p. 249). From a curriculum design perspective, it seems advisable that future research explores the perception of the learning environment in (joint) international online programs in more depth, especially in COIL or VE courses. Analyzing these perceptions might be helpful for future academics who engage in the design of these programs. Even though each new course should be designed in a context-sensitive manner, such insights might exemplify the challenges and possibilities that can emerge in different educational environments for different groups of learners and therefore increase the awareness of what “context-sensitive” can imply in these settings.

When it comes to developing future curricula, the following points should be given special consideration: Along with other issues concerning international partnerships in higher education institutions, Internationalization at Home measures, such as curriculum development initiatives and virtual collaborations, frequently land on the desk of international officers. While international offices with their “helicopter perspective” involve in strategic processes and their good internal networks play an instrumental role (Brunner-Sobanski, Haug, de Louw, & Reiffenrath, 2021), internationalization activities as the ones outlined in this chapter strongly depend on the ownership of the academics, study program coordinators, and students involved. VE and VM in particular continue to pose a number of questions, ranging from legal implications and data protection compliance, technical solutions, and didactic scenarios to issues of intercultural communication. This urges a range of stakeholders across the institution to become involved in processes of internationalisztion, such as curriculum developers, instructional designers, and educational technologists. Building bridges inside the institution and enabling networking between these service units is thus key, as is an ongoing exchange of experiences and learnings. Interdisciplinary communities of practice inside the institution can foster such an exchange and reinforce the support structures that may already be available to teachers seeking to design a curriculum together with international partners. Making explicit that such a collaborative approach aimed for, instead of the exception, should be a strategical decision international partner institutions should make, to ensure the quality of their joint programs.

Part of such support structures should be to work with and critically reflect on the various curriculum design models, their benefits, and their limitations. This includes that HEIs should be well aware of their own approaches when (re)designing study programs or international modules and to communicate these approaches openly within their institution (cf. Hudzik, 2015). In addition to such a top-down impulse, emphasize should be put on implementing initiatives that support academic teaching staff to develop (additional) teaching competencies beyond the level of course design and active learning strategies. Such initiatives should focus on helping academics to become a reflective teacher (Ashwin et al., 2015) and to understand the hidden expectations in their own teaching practices (cf. Thielsch, 2021). Research in the field of educational and faculty development stresses that academics can best develop these (additional) teaching competencies to reflect and adapt their understanding of how teaching and learning should work in collaboration with their peers (Roxå, Mårtensson, & Alveteg, 2011), a finding that can be easily applied to situations in which teachers are getting used to designing and facilitating online courses well.

Considering the significant role of academic teachers for successfully implemented international modules and courses, the question arises how HEIs can recognize and acknowledge the efforts of this group. So far, structures to award faculty members for their participation on international endeavors and their achievements therein are seldom, if not missing in the educational sector (Eddy, 2010).

Conclusion

In discourses on internationalization (at Home), the notion of “Internationalization for All” has recently gained currency as HEIs strive to adjust or create measures in an effort to better include underrepresented groups in international activities. In 2021, for example, the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) (2021) “prioritised learning more about and supporting inclusion in international higher education in the context of Europe.” At the same time, it is well worth to critically reflect on the nexus of internationalization and diversity and inclusion and invite the question of how partnerships can serve the purpose of making internationalization activities more inclusive, especially through the role they play in curriculum design processes. A joint and thorough reflection on the influence of the hidden curriculum on the formal curriculum may, for instance, help to uncover traces of colonial thought in the curriculum and help to foster decolonial approaches or the integration of indigenous perspectives and knowledge(s) into the curriculum. Along the different subdimensions developed above, teachers will need to probe the inclusiveness of the tools and learning environments used in VE and other joint teaching settings. It is not only in North-South partnerships, but also in partnerships between Europe and its southern and eastern neighbors that issues of in/equality and the question of how technology may reinforce or remediate these need to be addressed. With regard to VE and its potential for inclusion, O’Dowd and Beelen have recently voiced scepticism and have urged practitioners not to assume that “Internationalisation at Home and VE are inherently inclusive” (O’Dowd & Beelen, 2021, n. p.). While they note that many of the issues that factor into persisting inequalities in virtual collaborations are already known from physical classroom settings, more research into “how processes of inclusion and exclusion play out in virtual settings” (ibid.) is needed.

Barnett and Guzmán-Valenzuela (2021) stress that the “socio-economic-cultural spaces” in which HEIs exist are changing, widening, and becoming more porous. Educational institutions of the twenty-first century, which are maneuvering in these new contexts, should be aware of their social and epistemological responsibilities. Responsibilities involve developing a critical awareness of hegemonic ways of knowledge production and the will to challenge them (ibid.). To significantly engage in international partnerships and collaborate in teaching and learning situations can be understood as one step toward such responsibility. Not only because of the international perspectives involved in curriculum design processes, but mostly because of the diverse perspectives that students in international contexts will encounter.

Educational institutions can support these tendencies by inviting for openness in teaching and learning. Teachers who openly engage in discussions about their teaching practices might be better equipped to engage with differing perspectives in their own (international) courses and to support their students to be equally able to do so. Further research regarding the usage of open educational resources (Mishra, 2017) or open educational practices (Ehlers, 2011) in international partnerships might be a valuable means to foster such a notion of openness. Likewise, studies on how to establish and sustain communities of practice among the members of international partners are needed to emphasize their value in curriculum design processes. Because no matter how well established an international partnership is or how sensible curriculum design processes are being approached, it depends on the teaching competencies and critical openness of teachers to make both meaningful.