Assessing the Impact of Intercultural Virtual Collaboration on Global Citizenship Education

Abstract

The development of the capabilities necessary to foster global citizenship in undergraduate university students is an important goal of many higher education institutions. We assess the impact of intercultural virtual collaboration (IVC) courses on the three key competencies of students—collaborative skills, ethical and social responsibility, and intercultural proficiency—that underpin global citizenship (GC). We analyse pre- and post-course test data related to the learning goals of three IVCs between the universities in the Netherlands and Japan, Spain, and the USA, respectively. Using one-tailed paired sample t-tests, we find statistically significant improvements in each of these competencies and conclude that IVC supports the development of GC in university students, even if they have prior international experience.

1. Introduction

Intercultural Virtual Collaboration (IVC) provides students from diverse backgrounds and locations with the opportunity to engage in collaborative learning activities, including joint research projects, cultural exchanges, and problem-solving tasks, without the need for physical travel [1]. This approach allows students to gain intercultural and international experience at their home institution, which will benefit their future professional workplaces. In the context of academic literature, the term ‘intercultural virtual collaboration’ is used in conjunction with the term ‘virtual exchange’ (VE), which is a more encompassing concept that includes various forms of online intercultural exchanges in education, for example ‘telecollaboration’, ‘online intercultural exchange’, and ‘global virtual teams’ [2].

In business education, the term IVC is also referred to as ‘global virtual teams’ or GVTs [3], which employs an experiential approach in which students work together on business cases and collaborative projects to develop, among other things, their intercultural and digital communication skills. As with the other approaches in virtual exchanges, IVC is gaining traction due to its potential to be more inclusive and less impactful on the environment. It is, therefore, vital to assess the most recent advancements in IVC and its efficacy, as this approach has the potential to facilitate a more comprehensive and inclusive framework for developing students’ intercultural competence, which aligns with global citizenship education. The current state of empirical research on the VE approach is limited [4]. The available research is predominantly exploratory in nature, qualitative in focus, or conducted on a limited scale. The purpose of this study is to make a contribution to empirical research through the application of quantitative methodology, specifically by assessing the effectiveness of three IVCs in their particular contexts.

1.1 Internationalisation and global citizenship education

For those seeking to thrive in multicultural environments, educate and engage with diverse audiences, and lead successfully in diverse institutions, organisations, and communities, developing intercultural competence is essential [5, 6]. Intercultural competence is a crucial factor in fostering the successful integration of individuals and groups into a given environment [7], whether that be domestically or internationally. As such, academic experts have emphasised the importance of incorporating international and intercultural competence as an essential component of the knowledge and abilities that all graduates should possess, regardless of their academic field of study [6, 8, 9, 10]. The initiative is aligned with one of the primary objectives of the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda [11], which is expressed in SDG 4.7, also known as global citizenship [12].

Digital technologies have the potential to play an essential role in achieving this goal [13, 14]. The recent challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic have served to highlight the critical role that technologies play in achieving the desired outcomes in education [13, 15], while also illustrating the interconnectedness and fragility of the global community. In response to those pressing challenges of globalisation and sustainability [6, 16], there is a notable trend of universities and national higher education policies embracing global citizenship education [14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. As defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), “global citizenship education (GCED) aims to empower learners of all ages to play an active role, both locally and globally, in building more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure societies [21]”. In this context, global citizenship goes beyond a legal status [22]. As noted by Rhoads and Szelenyi: “global citizenship is not so much a static identity, as it is an ability, disposition or commitment” ([22], p. 267). For Van Rompay-Bartels and Tuninga [20], it starts with “an awareness that we are interconnected and that in our choices, we have responsibilities for the quality of life of current and future generations and for protecting and preserving our environment”. The implementation of GCED, however, varies in form and extent across institutions and countries [16, 17, 18, 23]. Internationalisation plays a critical role inside this context in higher education [24, 25].

Based on the work of Knight [26], De Wit et al. ([27], p. 29, authors’ emphasis in italics) refined the definition of internationalisation of higher education as: “The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society”. The authors emphasise that internationalisation is intended to be a purposeful and meaningful contribution to society [28]. One key role of internationalisation is to foster the development of students’ intercultural competence, a crucial skill that enables effective communication and collaboration across national boundaries [9], which can be achieved through international (student mobility) or domestic internationalisation. Given the limited number of students who are able to undertake studies abroad and the environmental impacts of student mobility [29], it would be advantageous for higher education institutions to provide students with the opportunity to develop global citizenship skills in their local contexts, thereby fostering internationalisation and mitigating their environmental footprint.

1.2 A call for internationalisation at home

Recently, there has been a critical call for internationalisation of higher education for a more inclusive and sustainable approach [24, 25, 30]. The domestic internationalisation strategy or internationalisation at home (IaH) offers a solution that is both practical and beneficial, allowing more students to access international experiences and acquire the knowledge required to foster global citizenship [29]. Particularly in the current changing landscape of global higher education, it is crucial to facilitate students to learn to effectively collaborate to address global challenges at both the local and international levels.

In this study, internationalisation at home (IaH) is defined as “the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments” ([31], p. 69). The proposed definition of Beelen [31] emphasises intentionally including international and intercultural aspects into curricula in a purposeful manner. This means that simply adding random international elements or electives would not be enough to internationalise a programme. Additionally, the definition highlights the importance of internationalisation for all students in all programmes.

The acceleration of cross-cultural interaction on a global scale is the result of a number of factors. These include international trade and long value chains, globalisation of the media, innovation in communication tools, international travel, increased migration, and internationalisation in education. Globalisation, specifically greater interconnectedness between nations, presents higher education institutions with the imperative to adapt by offering international education to all students. This form of education encourages an open approach to intercultural dialogue and collaboration in order to meet the challenges we face globally [30]. Curiosity, flexibility, respect, and empathy are human traits fostered in the intercultural learning process [32], which are essential for the development of global citizenship. These traits enable individuals to demonstrate commitment to international solidarity and responsibility in an increasingly interconnected global environment [33]. As DeWit et al. [27] assert, there is a pressing need to comprehend that internationalisation is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

As online and virtual modalities for international education have become prominent in university curricula, the question arises as to whether these methods are effective in developing students’ intercultural competence, understanding of ethics and social responsibility, and ability to collaborate with diverse partners on challenging projects. A systematic literature review [34] has identified a gap in the development of methodologies for teaching and evaluating international online collaboration competencies (IOOCs), which are essential for global virtual teamwork. The present study aims to contribute to this academic debate by providing evidence of evaluations based on the assessment of the 122 student learners involved in business intercultural virtual collaborations with a focus on the global citizenship mindset and competence.

1.3 The aims of intercultural virtual collaboration

This study assesses the impact of three IVCs. IVC “connects students from different locations through technology, allowing them to collaborate in tasks or projects without the need to move physically” ([1], p. 1).

The IVC aims to enhance students’ comprehension of the course material while simultaneously developing their abilities to interact with individuals from diverse cultures, collaborate with others, and engage in critical analysis. Consequently, the IVC allows students to obtain international and intercultural exposure and experience within their institution as a form of internationalisation at home.

Bennett [35] claims that intercultural competence is most often understood “as an asset of cognitive, affective, and behavioural skills and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural contexts”. Similarly, intercultural competence is “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” [36].

This study assesses the extent to which the IVC approach—as a form of VE—contributes to the development of the aforementioned competencies among the students involved in it. Furthermore, it allows for an evaluation of the role of IVCs in the internationalisation process and GCED within the domestic context.

1.4 Empirical assessment of intercultural learning

Several studies from a variety of disciplines, including second language acquisition [14, 37], intercultural competence development [4], cross-cultural management [38], and civic competence [39], have investigated the use of virtual collaboration to identify effective virtual practices. Some of these studies concentrate on effective virtual practices that facilitate the developmental aspects of global citizenship [14, 40, 41].

Bartel-Radic et al. [38] conducted an investigation to evaluate the relationship between student acquisition of intercultural competence and their experience of participating in global teams. The researchers gathered data from 115 students who took part in one of the 22 virtual intercultural teams. Pre- and post-tests were developed by the authors using the scale of Bennett’s six DMIS stages from 1993, which were divided into two groups: ethnocentric stages (absence of intercultural competence) and ethnorelative stages (signifying intercultural competence). Although the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was low, the researchers were able to derive some insights from the sample data. The changes in intercultural competence (as measured by the six values on the DMIS scale) before and after the teamwork period were in the predicted direction (i.e., a decrease in ethnocentric stages and an increase in ethnorelative stages), but the differences were not statistically significant. The mean differences between the groups were also not significant. According to the results, which did not show a significant correlation but an improvement in the students’ learning, it can be seen that students learned from the teaming experience, especially those with more prior international experience. Furthermore, it can be seen that learning was greater when teams were in contact more frequently. The researchers recommended that faculty members provide greater assistance to students in managing conflict within teams, which is a crucial aspect of the students’ learning process when dealing with other cultures. O’Dowd [14] puts forth the proposition that engaging students in virtual intercultural collaboration with their peers from other cultural backgrounds can facilitate the acquisition of a second language, enhance intercultural competence, and foster global citizenship. The study was based on a qualitative content analysis of the reported learning outcomes of 345 students’ portfolios of Spanish students learning English (L2) at B2-C1 level, in one of the 13 virtual exchanges. The results of the study indicated that while there was no evidence that learners developed empathy, their confidence in communicating in a second language increased, and they gained insights into the cultures of their partners. This facilitated the development of curiosity and the overcoming of stereotypes. Furthermore, the author asserts that the crucial role of the teacher in guiding students through this process should not be underestimated.

In a recent study, Hackett et al. [4] employed a mixed methods approach in order to examine the impact of COIL on the relationship between collaborative learning and intercultural competence development. In doing so, the researchers made use of two cultural models, specifically the Cultural Intelligence (CQ) model developed by Earley et al. [42] and the Multicultural Personality model introduced by van der Zee et al. [43]. The COIL findings revealed a significant improvement in intercultural competence among the experimental group from the US in comparison with the US control group, which consisted solely of US nationals. However, no such distinction was observed among the students from the Netherlands (NL). This discrepancy may be attributed to the NL control group’s exposure to international students during the course, which resulted in no significant differences on intercultural competence development between the experimental and control groups.

There is disagreement in the nascent literature empirically investigating the impact of virtual collaborative and intercultural education on students with previous international experience. A few recent studies demonstrate the benefits of virtual learning for students with previous international experiences, such as Bartel-Radic et al. [38]. In contrast, some of those studies do not show significant results for students that were already exposed to international experiences, for example, Hackett et al. [4].

2. Aims of the study

The objective of this study is to evaluate empirical evidence on whether IVC is associated with the development of intercultural competence, collaborative skills, and ethics and social responsibility, as elements of global citizenship education. We draw on data from student pre- and post-tests conducted as part of three IVCs between the Netherlands and Japan, Spain, and the USA. We contribute to the literature on the empirical assessment of virtual learning with regard to intercultural competence, collaborative skills, and ethics and social responsibility. As our study involves students with pre-existing international experience, the results also have implications as to whether virtual methods support learning for those students.

3. Materials and methods

3.1 Design and sample

We evaluate the intercultural, collaborative, ethical, and social responsibility learning outcomes of the students who participated in three IVC projects during 2023. The IVC projects were implemented as an undergraduate course entitled “Crossing Borders Without Crossing Borders” (CBWCB). Each IVC project was conducted between an international business school at a university in the Netherlands and one of its partner institutions. The partners for the IVCs are located in Japan, the USA, and Spain. The first project took place from January to March 2023 between the institutions in the USA and the Netherlands. The second project ran from September to October 2023 between the universities in Japan and the Netherlands. The third project proceeded from November to December 2023 between the institutions in Spain and the Netherlands.

The CBWCB course was offered as an elective in the regular business curriculum at the Netherlands, Japan, and Spain institutions, while it was a special sessional elective at the USA university. The course was scheduled to fit the academic calendars and requirements of the institutions involved in each project. The IVC was delivered over 7 weeks for the projects involving the Japan and the USA institutions, and over 5 weeks for the collaboration with Spain. All three IVC projects were delivered in English.

The course consists of mixed sessions of instruction and teamwork. Students work virtually in diverse and cross-institutional teams of around five or six to develop a business case study related to SDGs, communication, culture, and marketing. Instructors allocate students to teams, formulating each team to include students representing both institutions and diversity of background and gender as far as possible. The size of each team and the number of students participating in the IVC depends on the number of students who have registered for the course at each institution. The business case study is the primary evaluation item contributing to students’ final grades and serves as a common goal to motivate intercultural teamwork and communication.

In each IVC, the students complete pre- and post-course questionnaires on intended and accomplished learning outcomes. We analyse the questionnaire data using paired sample t-tests to assess the effectiveness of the IVC through testing hypotheses related to the intended learning outcomes. Students also complete reflection exercises as part of the course, which have been analysed in Ref. [41]. For background on the methodology behind CBWCB and the business case study, please see Ref. [29].

3.2 Participants

Our study examines data from the 122 undergraduate students who participated in the three IVCs. All participants were enrolled in business higher education programmes at their respective institutions or international exchange students. The CBWCB course participants at the Japan and USA universities included only domestic students. In contrast, both domestic and international exchange students were enrolled in the course at the Netherlands and Spain institutions. Each student participated in only one IVC project. In the first session of each course, the instructors provided students with the informed opportunity to consent to participate in the study, as required by each institution’s research protocols. We analyse the data for the students who consented to participate, adhering to ethical guidelines to ensure the safety and data privacy of all involved. Table 1 shows the number of students from each institution participating in each of the three IVCs, as well as totals by project and for all three projects.

		Number of participants
Project	Partner University	Netherlands	Partner	Total
1	Japan	23	13	36
2	USA	24	7	31
3	Spain	26	29	55
Total	All	73	49	122

Table 1.

Participants in the three IVC projects.

Note: The table provides the number of students participating in each of the three IVCs that agreed that their data may be used for research purposes. The data is presented for each of the three IVC projects, as the number of students at the Netherlands university and the international partner, the total for each project in the last column, and the totals for all three projects in the last row.

3.3 Learning outcomes

Key ingredients for a successful IVC include close partnership at the institutional, instructor, and student levels [29]. An important aspect of the institutional and instructor partnership is ensuring that the learning outcomes of the CBWCB are consistent with those required by each institution’s curriculum. An identical and consistent set of learning objectives were used in the three IVC projects that we analyse. These reflect fundamental learning objectives for GCED.

We frame the learning objectives in the context of the Netherlands business school’s study programme (IB), which is aligned with the 2017 National Framework for International Business (NFIB), as established by the National Platform for International Business [44]. This framework was developed in close collaboration between educational experts, international businesses, and the international business school’s alumni. The framework is constructed according to the KSAVE model—Knowledge, Skills, Attitude, Values, and Ethics. It emphasises a well-rounded approach to education, including academic knowledge, practical skills, positive attitudes, and ethical values. The IB programme’s alignment with the KSAVE model ensures compliance with recognised standards and confirms its status as an internationally recognised professional bachelor qualification.

The NFIB consists of four themes: 1. Ways of thinking (WT), 2. Ways of working (WW), 3. Living in the world (LW), and 4. Tools for Working and Management (TWM). Each theme comprises several programme learning outcomes (PLOs). The framework consists of 24 PLOs in total. Each IB programme can decide how to achieve the PLOs. The Dutch programme has operationalised the PLOs into more specific Module Learning Outcomes (MLOs), also well known as intended learning outcomes (ILOs) at the course level.

The CBWCB course is related to theme 2 (WW) in that it emphasises the development of collaborative skills, and to theme 3 (LW) in that it focuses on competences such as ethical and social responsibility and intercultural proficiency. Table 2provides the ILOs specified for LW10 (ethical and social responsibility), LW11 (intercultural context), LW13 (intercultural communication), and WW6 (collaborative skills). The associated student behaviours are also provided. These are the capabilities, learning outcomes, and student behaviours used in the CBWCB course.

Capability (Theme)	Intended learning outcome (ILO)	Behaviour The student:
Ethical and social responsibility LW10 (Living in the World)	1. Formulate one’s position concerning ethical and social responsibility in a professional environment.	demonstrates insight into ethical and global issues (based on a business case).
Intercultural context LW11 (Living in the world)	2. Mitigate the pitfalls of cultural differences in business and social contexts.	identifies cultural differences and similarities. shows openness (curiosity) and sensitivity/appreciation towards cultural diversity; feels inspired to explore cultures other than theirs.
Intercultural communication LW13 (Living in the World)	3. Appropriate verbal and non-verbal communication in an intercultural setting.	demonstrates effective verbal communication styles, including listening in a virtual setting. demonstrates effective non-verbal communication styles in a virtual setting.
Collaboration WW6 (Ways of Working)	4. Collaborate effectively (virtual) with different kinds of stakeholders in different cultural organisations and political landscapes to contribute to achieving agreed goals.	establishes a virtual professional and social relationship with students from the home and the partner institution on agreed shared goals. applies the specific requirements for virtual collaboration.

Table 2.

The intended learning outcomes assessed in the pre- and post-tests.

Note: The table shows the type of competence, intended learning outcomes, and the corresponding student behaviour. The learning outcomes are based on the Netherlands international business school’s study programme which is aligned with the 2017 National Framework for International Business (IB), as established by the National Platform for International Business [44]. The relevant IB themes that correspond to the capabilities shown in the table are provided in italics as theme code: theme name. Ethical and social responsibility is also assessed in the course individual reflection task and the team business case report. A fifth theme—LW14 (Living in the World) focused on cultural differences and behaviour—is assessed based on only the team business case.

3.4 The pre- and post-test questionnaire

All students were required to complete identical pre- and post-course questionnaires developed to evaluate students’ progress towards the learning outcomes of CBWCB. The questions and associated capabilities are provided in Table 3. The questions are constructed specifically to measure one or more of the four capabilities introduced in sub-Section 3.3. For brevity, we refer to the four capabilities from this point onward as follows. ‘Responsibility’ represents ethical and social responsibility, LW10 (Living in the World). ‘Context’ represents intercultural context, LW11 (Living in the World). ‘Communication’ represents intercultural communication, LW13 (Living in the World). ‘Collaboration’ represents WW6 (Ways of Working).

Question	Capability
1. What is your name?	—
2. I consider different perspectives before making conclusions about other cultures.	Context
3. I appreciate differences between cultures.	Context
4. I am able to cope when faced with multiple cultural perspectives.	Context
5. I can make effective decisions when placed in different cultural situations.	Context
6. I can recognise how different cultures solve problems.	Context
7. I am able to recognise how members of other cultures make decisions.	Context
8. I can contrast important aspects of different cultures with my own.	Context
9. I am able to think critically to interpret global and intercultural issues.	Responsibility
10. I feel comfortable discussing international issues.	Responsibility
11. I am open to different cultural ways of thinking in any international context.	Collaboration
12. Understanding different points of view is a priority for me.	Context
13. Knowing about other cultural norms and beliefs is important to me.	Context
14. I enjoy learning about other cultures.	Collaboration
15. I actively learn about different cultural values and norms.	Responsibility
16. Knowing about other cultural beliefs is important.	Responsibility
17. I often ask questions about culture to members of other cultures.	Context
18. I appreciate members of other cultures teaching me about their culture.	Context
19. I feel comfortable in conversations that may involve cultural differences.	Communication
20. I am able to communicate effectively with members of other cultures.	Communication
21. I understand how non-verbal communication plays a role in intercultural interactions.	Communication
22. I can clearly articulate my point of view to members of other cultures.	Communication
23. I am able to interact effectively with members of other cultures.	Collaboration
24. I am confident that I can adapt to different cultural environments.	Collaboration
25. I demonstrate flexibility when interacting with members of another culture.	Communication, Collaboration
26. I prefer to socialise with people of my own culture.	Collaboration
27. I like working in groups with students from other countries.	Responsibility

Table 3.

The pre- and post-test questionnaire.

Note: The table provides the questionnaire used for the pre- and post-tests and the capability measured by each question. The capabilities are shown as follows. ‘Collaboration’ represents WW6 (Ways of Working). ‘Responsibility’ represents ethical and social responsibility, LW10 (Living in the World). ‘Context’ represents intercultural context, LW11 (Living in the World). ‘Communication’ represents intercultural communication, LW13 (Living in the World).

Students answered the questionnaire according to a five-point Likert scale with the following options: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly agree. The pre-test was administered online during the first class for each of the three projects. The pre-test score establishes a baseline against which each student’s progress towards the ILOs can be measured and allows the identification of any differences between the student cohorts of each institution at the beginning of the course. The post-test was administered in the last class of the course and used to evaluate students’ progress towards the ILOs relative to the baseline established via the pre-test.

After each CBWCB course concluded, students’ test data was anonymised and stored consistent with the relevant universities’ research ethics and data privacy regulations. Students’ Likert scale answers were scored as follows: Strongly disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; and Strongly agree = 5. Question 26 was reverse-coded for consistency in the direction of its scale with the scales of the other questions. Application of the questionnaire at the beginning and end of CBWCB provides a paired samples dataset where we have pre- and post-course observations on each of the questions for each student involved in one of the three projects.

3.5 Hypotheses

In the analysis that follows, we examine the following four hypotheses.

• Hypothesis 1: Virtual collaboration between students from different universities and cultural backgrounds has a positive effect on students’ attitudes towards ethical and social responsibility (LW10, responsibility).

• Hypothesis 2: Virtual collaboration between students from different universities and cultural backgrounds has a positive effect on students’ skills in mitigating the pitfalls of cultural differences in business and social contexts (LW11, context).

• Hypothesis 3: Virtual collaboration between students from different universities and cultural backgrounds has a positive effect on appropriate verbal and non-verbal communication in an intercultural setting (LW13, communication).

• Hypothesis 4: Virtual collaboration between students from different universities and cultural backgrounds has a positive effect on students’ collaborative skills (WW6, collaboration).

3.6 Analysis

We analyse the questionnaire data by grouping student responses in four ways. We examine all students for all projects together, all students grouped by project, students grouped by institution for all projects, and students grouped by institution for each project. For the latter two aggregations, we delineate the institutions as Netherlands versus partner (Japan or USA or Spain).

To assess the appropriateness of our pooling of the questions according to their relevant capability, we use Cronbach’s alpha, bearing in mind the guidance of [45, 46]. Table 4 summarises the proposed pooling. Cronbach’s alpha is provided with the results in the next section.

Capability	Question number	Number of questions
Responsibility	9, 10, 11, 16, 27	5
Context	2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 18	11
Communication	19, 20, 21, 22, 25	5
Collaboration	12, 15, 23, 25, 26	5

Table 4.

Summary of capabilities and corresponding pre- and post-test question numbers.

Note: The capabilities are shown as follows. ‘Responsibility’ represents ethical and social responsibility, LW10 (Living in the World). ‘Context’ represents intercultural context, LW11 (Living in the World). ‘Communication’ represents intercultural communication, LW13 (Living in the World). ‘Collaboration’ represents WW6 (Ways of Working).

We employ one-tailed paired samples t-tests to compare the mean pre- and post-test scores to evaluate hypotheses one to four on the effectiveness of IVC in developing the capabilities of responsibility, context, communication, and collaboration, respectively. We also provide means and standard deviations for the pooled pre- and post-test responses by capability.

4. Results

Cronbach’s alpha is provided in Table 5 for all three projects together in Panel (a) and for each project separately in Panels (b), (c), and (d). All of the alpha statistics are above or close to 0.7, the commonly considered level for satisfactory item interrelatedness. Given the distinction between items is not particularly fine, around 0.7 would appear reasonable [45]. None of the alphas appear excessively high [47]. Note that the number of items (or questions) is five for responsibility, communication, and collaboration, and 11 for context. Accordingly, our allocation of questions to the four capabilities is supported by the data.

	Mean		St. Dev.			Paired t-test
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	α	t	df	p
Panel (a)	All respondents
Responsibility	4.17	4.21	0.46	0.47	0.70	1.294	121	0.099
Context	4.18	4.23	0.45	0.37	0.82	1.775	121	0.039
Communication	4.10	4.18	0.48	0.45	0.76	2.130	121	0.017
Collaboration	3.89	4.00	0.48	0.44	0.75	3.329	121	0.001
Panel (b)	Netherlands and Japan
Responsibility	4.22	4.23	0.50	0.43	0.71	0.125	35	0.451
Context	4.22	4.27	0.45	0.28	0.80	0.728	35	0.236
Communication	4.13	4.27	0.55	0.40	0.80	1.871	35	0.035
Collaboration	3.92	4.08	0.52	0.36	0.69	2.116	35	0.021
Panel (c)	Netherlands and USA
Responsibility	4.30	4.34	0.42	0.51	0.75	0.549	30	0.294
Context	4.26	4.33	0.32	0.43	0.82	1.256	30	0.110
Communication	4.15	4.30	0.39	0.51	0.75	2.832	30	0.004
Collaboration	3.95	4.07	0.53	0.52	0.81	1.836	30	0.038
Panel (d)	Netherlands and Spain
Responsibility	4.05	4.13	0.44	0.46	0.65	1.434	54	0.079
Context	4.10	4.16	0.40	0.38	0.83	1.182	54	0.121
Communication	4.05	4.05	0.48	0.41	0.71	0.000	54	0.500
Collaboration	3.83	3.90	0.41	0.41	0.71	1.788	54	0.040

Table 5.

Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s 𝛼, and paired sample t-tests for participants grouped by project.

Note: The table provides the means and standard deviations of the pre- and post-test responses and paired sample t-tests for the four capabilities for the IVC courses between The Netherlands and Japan, the USA and Spain, respectively, and for all respondents. 𝛼 represents Cronbach’s alpha, t is the one-sided paired t-test statistic, df shows the degrees of freedom of the t-test, and p provides the prob. value. Prob. values for test statistics significant at the 5% level are shown in bold. Panel (a) provides the results for all participants in projects 1, 2, and 3 and all institutions pooled. Panels (b), (c), and (d), labelled Netherlands and Japan, Netherlands and USA, and Netherlands and Spain, show the results for the participants of each of projects 1, 2, and 3 pooled, respectively. The capabilities are shown as follows. ‘Responsibility’ represents ethical and social responsibility, LW10 (Living in the World). ‘Context’ represents intercultural context, LW11 (Living in the World). ‘Communication’ represents intercultural communication, LW13 (Living in the World). ‘Collaboration’ represents WW6 (Ways of Working).

Table 5 provides the results for all students for all projects together in Panel (a) and all students grouped by project in Panels (b), (c), and (d). Tests of hypotheses 1 to 4 are provided in the lines for responsibility, context, communication, and collaboration, respectively. All capabilities show statistically significant improvements under the paired sample t-tests for all respondents together, with the complete sample of 122 students. The test statistic for collaboration is significant at the 1% level, the context and communication test statistics are significant at 5% and responsibility is significant at 10%. By project, the paired sample t-tests show a statistically significant improvement in collaboration for all three projects at the 5% level. Students’ communication improves for the courses involving the Netherlands and Japan (at the 5% level of significance) and the Netherlands and the USA (at the 1% level). Responsibility shows an improvement for the Netherlands and Spain project only, at the 10% level. The samples are relatively small for the t-tests conducted on each project separately.

The means of the question scores for each capability generally increase between the pre- and post-tests for all four capabilities. The standard deviations of the question scores decrease noticeably for the Netherlands-Japan CBWCB course, but less so or not at all, for the other projects.

Table 6 shows the results for the paired sample t-tests separately for each partner involved in the virtual collaboration. This allows us to tease out whether there are differences in learning outcome improvements between institutions, both from the perspective of the Netherlands university versus all partners and in each collaboration between the Netherlands and the respective partner university separately.

	Mean		St. Dev.		Paired t-test			Mean		St. Dev.		Paired t-test
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	t	df	p	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	t	df	p
Panel (a)	All Netherlands students							All partner students
Responsibility	4.18	4.20	0.42	0.44	0.36	72	0.36	4.14	4.24	0.52	0.50	1.57	48	0.06
Context	4.21	4.20	0.34	0.35	−0.25	72	0.40	4.14	4.28	0.48	0.40	2.74	48	0.01
Communication	4.12	4.19	0.43	0.43	1.60	72	0.06	4.08	4.16	0.55	0.47	1.42	48	0.08
Collaboration	3.89	4.02	0.48	0.42	2.84	72	0.00	3.88	3.97	0.47	0.46	1.74	48	0.04
Panel (b)	Netherlands							Japan
Responsibility	4.22	4.22	0.42	0.41	0.00	22	0.50	4.22	4.24	0.64	0.48	0.19	12	0.42
Context	4.22	4.22	0.31	0.27	0.00	22	0.50	4.22	4.35	0.64	0.27	0.98	12	0.17
Communication	4.09	4.28	0.45	0.37	1.96	22	0.03	4.20	4.25	0.71	0.46	0.42	12	0.34
Collaboration	3.90	4.09	0.50	0.36	1.73	22	0.05	3.96	4.07	0.57	0.39	1.28	12	0.11
Panel (c)	Netherlands							USA
Responsibility	4.23	4.23	0.44	0.50	−0.13	23	0.45	4.54	4.71	0.22	0.34	1.44	6	0.10
Context	4.19	4.20	0.31	0.39	0.31	23	0.38	4.25	4.74	0.20	0.22	2.12	6	0.04
Communication	4.12	4.22	0.38	0.51	1.63	23	0.05	4.29	4.53	0.41	0.45	7.07	6	0.00
Collaboration	3.85	3.97	0.55	0.53	1.40	23	0.09	4.26	4.43	0.36	0.30	1.27	6	0.13
Panel (d)	Netherlands							Spain
Responsibility	4.10	4.15	0.42	0.43	0.65	25	0.26	4.01	4.12	0.46	0.49	1.35	28	0.09
Context	4.21	4.17	0.39	0.37	−0.71	25	0.24	4.01	4.14	0.39	0.40	2.08	28	0.02
Communication	4.14	4.10	0.46	0.39	−0.42	25	0.34	3.98	4.01	0.49	0.43	0.50	28	0.31
Collaboration	3.91	4.00	0.42	0.36	2.31	25	0.01	0.76	3.81	0.40	0.45	0.78	28	0.22

Table 6.

Descriptive statistics and paired sample t-tests for participants by institution and project.

Note: The table provides the means and standard deviations of the pre- and post-test responses and paired sample t-tests for the four capabilities for the IVC courses between The Netherlands and Japan, the USA and Spain, respectively, and for all respondents. t is the one-sided paired sample t-test statistic, df shows the degrees of freedom of the t-test, and p provides the prob. value. Prob. values for test statistics significant at the 5% level are shown in bold. Panel (a) provides the results for all participants in projects 1, 2, and 3 pooled by enrolment at the Netherlands university or one of the three partner universities in Japan, the USA, and Spain combined. Panels (b), (c), and (d) show the results for the participants of each of projects 1, 2, and 3 by enrolment at the Netherlands university or each partner institution in Japan, the USA, or Spain, respectively. The capabilities are shown as follows. ‘Responsibility’ represents ethical and social responsibility, LW10 (Living in the World). ‘Context’ represents intercultural context, LW11 (Living in the World). ‘Communication’ represents intercultural communication, LW13 (Living in the World). ‘Collaboration’ represents WW6 (Ways of Working).

Panel (a) gives the results for students grouped by institution for all projects, delineated between those enrolled in the Netherlands and those at the Japan, USA, and Spain institutions combined. The test statistics show a significant improvement in collaboration for both the students of the Netherlands business school and those of the partner institutions, at the 1 and 5% levels of significance, respectively. Similarly, the evidence suggests an improvement in communication for both sides of the projects at the 10% level. Responsibility and context improve for the partner institution students, at the 10 and 1% levels, respectively, but not for the students in the Netherlands.

Table 6 panels (b), (c), and (d) group students by their institution for each of the three projects separately. In Panel (b), communication and collaboration show an improvement at the 5% level, but there is no statistically significant improvement for students on the Japan side of the course. For the Netherlands and USA project in Panel (c), collaboration and communication demonstrate an improvement again for the Netherlands students, while the USA students improve in terms of responsibility, context, and communication. In Panel (d), the t-tests suggest that Netherlands students’ communication capability improves while the Spain students’ responsibility and context capabilities improve.

Interestingly, the means of the question scores increased for all capabilities for all partner universities, while only some of the means increased for the Netherlands university. The samples for the individual project paired sample t-tests are relatively small, especially for Japan (13 students) and the USA (7 students).

5. Discussion

Our analysis of the pre- and post-course questionnaire data on the learning objectives of three IVCs conducted between an international business school in the Netherlands and partner universities in the Japan, the USA, and Spain, yields valuable insights. Table 7 summarises our key results. The t-tests including all participants in all three projects, and with a sample of 122 students, provided support for hypotheses 1 to 4. That is, students made progress towards the learning objectives for (i) ethical and social responsibility, (ii) intercultural context, (iii) intercultural communication, and (iv) collaboration.

Respondents by:	Project				Institution and project
	ALL	NJ	NU	NS	ALLN	ALLP	N1	J1	N2	U2	N3	S3
df	121	35	30	54	72	48	22	12	23	6	25	28
Responsibility	Y*			Y*		Y*				Y*		Y*
Context	Y					Y				Y		Y
Communication	Y	Y	Y		Y*	Y*	Y		Y	Y
Collaboration	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y*		Y

Table 7.

Summary of paired sample t-test inference for hypotheses 1 to 4.

Note: The table summarises the inference drawn from one-tailed paired sample t-tests. Hypotheses 1 to 4 are listed in the first column as responsibility, context, communication, and collaboration, respectively. The row labelled df represents the degrees of freedom of the t-tests. ALL represents all respondents for all projects, NJ represents all respondents for project 1 between the Netherlands and Japan, NU represents all respondents for project 2 between the Netherlands and the USA, and NS represents all respondents in project 3 between the Netherlands and Spain. ALLN represents all Netherlands respondents for projects 1 to 3, and ALL represents all partner (Japan, USA, and Spain) respondents for projects 1 to 3. N1 and J1 represent all Netherlands and Japan respondents in project 1, respectively. N2 and U2 represent all Netherlands and USA respondents in project 2, respectively. N3 and S3 represent all Netherlands and Spain respondents in project 3, respectively. Y indicates that the paired sample t-test statistic is significant at the 5% level or lower. Y* indicates that the test statistic is significant at 10%. The capabilities are shown as follows. ‘Responsibility’ represents ethical and social responsibility, LW10 (Living in the World). ‘Context’ represents intercultural context, LW11 (Living in the World). ‘Communication’ represents intercultural communication, LW13 (Living in the World). ‘Collaboration’ represents WW6 (Ways of Working).

The tests for all students split by institution between the Netherlands and partners provided support for hypotheses 3 and 4 for the Netherlands students, and hypotheses 1 to 4 for the partner institution students. Looking at the results by capability, collaboration (hypothesis 4) received the most support across almost all tests, followed by communication (hypothesis 3) with most tests providing support. However, responsibility (hypothesis 1) and context (hypothesis 2) did not have broad-based support over the tests of different respondent groupings. This suggests that while collaboration and, to some extent communication, capabilities appear to improve through IVC, there is more work to do on developing the effectiveness of virtual collaboration in developing students’ responsibility and context capabilities.

Although the mean scores for responsibility are higher following virtual collaboration, only five paired t-tests of 12 are significant, and then only at the 10% level. There is substantial scope for improvement to gain a deeper understanding of IVC’s potential and effectiveness in the development of ethical and social responsibility.

Despite the improvement of the students in both campuses, the mean scores presented in Table 6 show that the differences between the pre- and post-test scores are more pronounced in the partner institutions where the students had a more homogeneous socio-cultural environment, with less experience of working with international students.

There are some limitations to our study. The sample size is small, particularly for statistical tests on the data from each individual CBWCB project separately. Typically, IVC courses are conducted with a small class so that instructors can provide intensive guidance to students as they complete their team project. However, over time, we hope to accumulate data from further IVC projects for analysis. As we do not have individual data on international experience, we are unable to make a more definitive interpretation on the benefit of IVC for students who have international experience through IaH, student mobility, an international education environment, or other means. Collecting this data would provide for a deeper analysis.

The presented outcomes contribute to the ongoing academic discourse and empirical research on the impact of virtual collaboration as a form of internationalisation at home [14, 41] which can be conceptualised as an inclusive opportunity for all undergraduate students to acquire the requisite skills to operate effectively in our globalised economy [6, 9, 29, 30].

It is imperative to expand our understanding of the long-term and contextual effects of IVC on students, including those belonging to language homogeneous groups with little or no experience of studying internationally. Future studies can use this preliminary research as a basis for understanding how IVC is established as a form of internationalisation within universities and its impact on the development of global citizenship. Subsequent studies can build on this initial research to gain insight into how IVC becomes institutionalised as a form of internationalisation within universities and its impact on the development of global citizenship. Furthermore, these studies should investigate the qualities of these programmes in achieving the development of intercultural competence, collaboration skills, and other qualities that emphasise the necessity of collective efforts to promote global competence. The results of this study provide educators and professionals with practical insights that facilitate the promotion of intercultural cooperation and global citizenship through internationalisation at home. Furthermore, the findings contribute to the broader literature on evidence-based research, which has previously demonstrated the value of developing intercultural competence and other elements of global citizenship in higher education through virtual collaboration as a form of curriculum internationalisation.

6. Conclusion

Our research has examined the practical implications of group interactions in three IVCs. We focus on how these interactions influence students’ development of intercultural competence, ethical and social responsibility, and the capacity for collaboration as important capability development in GCED. We contribute empirical evidence to assess the effectiveness of the CBWCB IVC course in fostering GC. Our evidence suggests that IVC can play a valuable role in IaH in higher education through virtual collaboration as a form of curriculum internationalisation.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the students and instructors who participated in the Intercultural Virtual Collaboration project, “Raising Global Citizens at Home”. We are indebted to them for their invaluable cooperation and support. Our sincerest thanks go to Angela M. Piccioni, Nicoleta Colun, and Lorenzo Alemany Vicente who supported the project team during this journey.

This work was supported by the Dutch Comenius Senior Fellow Program grant [40.5.22865.406] awarded in 2022 under the title “Raising Global Citizens at Home” to Dr. Ingrid Van Rompay-Bartels.