Internationalization and the Intercultural Aspects of Virtual Cross-Border Learning

Key Words

International Teaching Design · Intercultural Learning ·· Distance Learning · Instructional Design

Abstract

This article reports the preliminary results of an ongoing, three-year assessment (2014, 2015 and

2016) of a Blended Learning International Collaboration (BLIC) project. The presentation describes a

qualitative case study of staff and student learning outcomes for two Bachelor level courses taught in

the U.S. and Germany which have used a case approach to collaborative cross-border teaching. The

U.S. students took the “macro” strategic perspective in assessing three to five international firms

while a parallel set of three to five German student teams took the “micro” perspective and made

recommendations on how human resource practices (recruitment and selection, training and

development) should be designed so as to best fit the strategic intent of the international firms.

Student feedback is combined with a narrative of ongoing “lessons learned” from the US and German

professors. After some assessment the authors have visualized four major potential sources of

variation, some expected, some unexpected:

The findings underline the importance of assessing, accounting for and hopefully minimizing the total

sources of variance in order to maximize the potential for learning by the two groups.

Introduction: Bridging Borders

The use of communication and information technologies for course delivery and support offers new

possibilities for the internationalization and globalization of studies which were previously only

possible by the physical mobility of students. For campus based universities, it opens various

possibilities for “internationalization at home”. For a cross-border course like the one described here,

it represents a new, and potentially very promising opportunity not only in terms of access to fellow

students abroad, but also in the chance to work together in virtual and internationally diverse groups

(Gonzalez-Perez, Velez-Calle, Cathro, Caprar and Taras, 2014). The experience can potentially

provide both an additional set of skills, competencies and perspectives as well as become the setting

for in depth cross cultural learning (Daniel and Serapio, 2014; Pimpa, 2011).

1

The pedagogical advantages of online collaborative learning are well known (see for example (Kaye,

1992; McConnell, 1994). But it is equally clear that for a variety of reasons the implementation of this

approach is more successful in some cases than in others, and Mason and Bacsich (1998) hold the

view that the degree of integration of online collaborative learning within the course will radically

influence its uptake with students.

A particular teaching and learning strategy and task – virtual team work - within a course impacts

learning activities and outcomes, but this task has also an impact on the design of assessment, because

we know that assessment, in and of itself, plays a major role in driving student learning appropriately

(Knight, 1995). In fact, it is commonly reported that that assessment related tasks attract student

attention at the expense of non-assessed tasks. In the light of the new emphasis on a skills agenda in

Higher Education, not only must the assessment be appropriate to the subject content of the course, it

must also have an important role in directly supporting course pedagogy.

If we can acquire some understanding of how international online collaboration takes place, then it

becomes easier to plan ways of supporting students to achieve competence. At the most basic level, a

knowledge of the tools and the software environment speeds up effective participation in online

meetings, although in recent years this hurdle has become less significant, with increasingly intuitive

interfaces and a greater general knowledge of email and social medias amongst students as they arrive

into the higher education environment.

Indeed Salmon (2000) suggests that there may be a number of progressive stages involved in virtual

learning. The stages include: 1) access and motivation, 2) socialization, 3) information exchange, 4)

knowledge construction and 5) development. These stages illustrate the interplay between variances

and affective factors such as growing confidence, motivation and the ongoing progression inherent in

group dynamics.

If students are to communicate effectively within an academic discipline, then they need to become

familiar with the language of a discipline and the academic genre. Lea and Street (1998) maintain that

this familiarity with the discourse is a defining factor in students’ abilities to read and write

effectively within a discipline. In fact, this familiarity grows as they practice writing conference

messages on course topics, and reading, and eventually responding to messages from others. Ashley,

Schaap and de Bruijn (2016) describe the components of understanding as being comprised of “global

and local contexts, general and specific business practices, and theoretical business concepts and

mechanisms” (p, 106).

Finally, if students are required to collaborate in an international virtual team to undertake a common

task, as opposed to making optional contributions to a face-to-face local lectures, then additional skills

must be acquired, including team working and negotiation skills, group decision making and task

2

management (see for example, Schrage, 1990). Again, affective issues in the field may be significant

here, for example the importance of group cohesion, and the evolution of mutual trust. It follows that

the whole process of international online collaboration certainly requires practice, and will take some

time to develop.

All these stages in the development of competence in international online collaboration may need to

be reflected in the design of the assessment, and how this is done will depend on initial assumptions

on the competence of students at the start of the course. For example, the use of computer

conferencing for online collaborative work means that the assessment has a conspicuous advantage

over the assessment of face to face collaboration, because the medium provides a more systematic and

formalized record of the interactions between students. This could make the process of collaboration

more transparent, because a transcript of these conference messages can be used to judge both the

group collaborative process, and the contribution of the individual to that process, thereby overcoming

one of the traditional difficulties in recognizing and rewarding collaborative work fairly. These

procedural aspects of collaboration are far from perfected and need further refinement and more

complete implementation.

The other evidence that collaboration has taken place is the product, the final project report about the

case study, which takes the form of an essay or report. In this the individual contribution is reflected,

for example each student group provided an individual critique of the level of support and

communication during the collaboration work.

This paper evaluates the role of variances with respect to the processes and products of online cross-

border collaborative studies, by describing two networked courses at the DHBW (Germany) and the

EKU (US) which employed various forms of online collaborative team work in support of course

aims and objectives. It then discusses the variances and factors influencing learning outcomes of

online cross-border collaborative study.

Elements Coming Together: International Management and HRM

The first joint course experiment took place in spring semester 2014. For the class of Eastern

Kentucky University, College of Business and Technology, Department of Management, Marketing

& International Business the course syllabus was defined around their major issues of International

Management. For the course at the Baden-Wuerttemberg Corporate State University Villingen-

Schwenningen, Bachelor program International Business, the course syllabus for International Human

Resource Management was slightly different focusing on International Human Resource

Management.

3

Participants of both classes were given the task to participate in assigned teams of three to four

students matched with teams from the partner university and to work jointly on a corporate real or

fictional case including the identification of opportunities and challenges in this submitted and

verified cultural-functional-industry context. The outcome was to provide a written and oral report

and presentation on their findings toward the end of the term. While the German students emphasized

the human resource implications of the research prospectus in their role as “consultants” in their

assigned corporate team, the American team members worked out the strategic and management

prospectus in their role as a “management team”. A more micro, international executive selection task

is reported by Zisk, Owyar-Hosseini and DuBose, 2015). This U.S. - German combined analysis a

relatively complex task, requiring a form of “real company case” feedback as described in Sternad’s

model (Sternad, 2015: 249).

To complete the task and produce a graded team result, extensive cross cultural team activities were

required between the EKU team members and the German team members. Both locations are based in

time zones of six hours difference. To prepare students for this challenge, both lecturers provided a

preparation on cross-cultural and virtual (online) team skills and competencies additional to the

curriculum in International Management and International HRM. In addition to the common Learning

Platform provided by one of the educational institutions, the DHBW BS, which hosted German as

well as American students, the students were given the freedom to use any social media or technology

for communication (see Table 1).

Due to very different semester schedules (the first and ultimately the most intense source of variance

between the two groups) at the EKU and the DHBW VS both professors had to support the student

teams in their time planning and organization. For this reason the introductory part on both sides

included a shared roadmap of collaboration for all teams (see Table 2).

Though the major responsibility for communication was with each student “corporate” team, the

common video session were planned by professors to allow an exchange and sharing of information

and communication for the total group, shared across the cross-national student teams.

While all cross-border student teams followed the same principles and criteria in working on their

corporate case problem, the subject learning was embedded in two different course curricula: while

the EKU students got their degree in a course on “International Management”, the DHBW VS

students got their ECTS upon a successful participation in class of “International HRM”.

4

Due to the different learning outcomes defined in the respective learning institution timetables and

learning sessions varied. While the EKU students were told to solve their problem based corporate

case study from an international management learning content perspective, the DHBW VS students

were taught about issues and knowledge in International HRM in order to include this content into

their cross-national team project (see Table 3).

Learning Outcome and Student Evaluation

To reduce the risk of cross-border online assessments, both professors decided to agree only on the

grading criteria, but to grade their students in their respective classes separately from each other.

However, the learning outcomes of both, the EKU course in International Management and the

DHBW VS course on International HRM, included learning outcomes defined additionally to the

main subject learning outcomes in International Management respectively in International Human

Resource Management

a) for virtual team work and

b) for Intercultural Management Skills

Despite the preparatory sessions in intercultural communication and online project management, the

results of the evaluation reveals interesting insights into how students perceived the task of working in

online cross-border teams. Despite being members of a generation commonly well versed in using

social media such as Facebook or WhatsApp for communication, the main challenge in the virtual

cross-border teams remained the communication between team members from both sides of the

ocean. The majority of students where working first time with team mates, who could only be reached

in a different time zone. This combined technical and geographic time lag became a second source of

variance in team coordination.

Use of communication technology

Despite all communication channels were offered (see Table 1) at the beginning of the course,

students in general preferred those medias which they also used frequently in their private

communication. Hence, for discussion and chats mainly Facebook and Skype (“other”) were

considered as useful channels for communication, while for document storage the joint learning

platform in Moodle were widely used (Table 4). Though the conditions between the course in 2015

and 2016 remained the same, the different use of both student groups shows that the choice of

communication channels can change easily. This observation is consistent with similar results

showing that students do not avail themselves of all the long-distance communication methods

available to them and often focus on one or two methods (Scheditzki, Young and Moule, 2011).

5

Key takeaways for internationally collaborative team work

Working on a joint project in a virtual team was not an overall positive experience for all team

members. Dissatisfaction with the results of the other team members were especially in one of the

courses a main source of frustration (see Table 5). It confirms the key results and learning of

corporate virtual teams in their beginning phase of collaboration.

One major reason for the dissatisfaction in international collaborative work was the speed of

responses from the partner team members. To cope with a time difference, to imagine the situation of

the other team members in a situation not known turned out to be one of the major hurdles in the

collaboration (see Table 6).

Some of this dissatisfaction with response time apparently stems from differences in the role

expectations for students inherent in the scheduling and packaging of education institutionally

embedded in the two programs. The U.S. school meets twice a week for one hour and fifteen minutes

every week. Full time students are taking five of six courses. Long, concentrated periods of team

work occur in weekly cycles. The German students are used to more extensive (three hour or more)

lecture-meeting cycles that occur weekly or biweekly. The norm is for students to meet at short

notice and concentrate as a team to meet deadlines in short order. Hence, the norm for a reasonable

response varies across the two groups of students.

Both, aspects of virtual team management as well as intercultural competence in form of cultural

awareness were also mentioned as the two main key benefits from students (Tables 7 and 8). This

even turned out to be the most common factor between the two courses in 2015 and 2016.

The DHBW students seemed to value the virtual project format (see table 9). The “baptism by fire”

led to some frustrations and a decidedly un-Teutonic lack of clarity in the learning experience, but

these same pressures were associated with the perception of improvements in study and writing skills

and the recognition that these course experiences were indeed transferrable to business work upon

graduation (Pimpa, 2011).

6

Sources of Variance: Envisioning the Collaborative Process

However, students still need to learn how to interact online with their peers from another culture, and

inevitably the extent to which their interaction contributes to their learning and understanding will

vary with their competency as well as the total sum of variances in the course set-up.

A systematic assessment of variations in patterns of responses has long been a foundation of statistical

analysis. Variance around a central tendency goes back to Gaussian distributions and the idea of

measurement error inherent in the act of measurement (Kerlinger and Lee, 2000). It is the pattern of

variations around variables that can provide insight to how these variables interact. By comparing

these sources of variance we can better model and predict future patterns of relationships between the

elements or variables of interest.

Applied to our inquiries, we saw variance as being related to instability and uncertainty in the

outcomes of our joint teaching project. By delineating, albeit crudely, the sources and degrees of

variations we might better understand how the dynamic elements at play in our joint teaching project

might lead to control problems. We set out in the beginning expecting variance in academic calendars

and institutional assumptions and foundations. But we have, after four years, added to that source.

For illustrative purposes the authors visualized four major potential sources of variation:

First, Variance between the U.S. and German student groups, that is cultural diversity, years of study,

language skills, etc. Previous authors have noted the need to pay “extra attention” to cross cultural

student teams (Ding, Bosker, Xu, Rugers and van Heugten, 2015: 210) while Stowe and Clinebell

suggest that some U.S. students prefer “kinesthetic activities” and visual learning while other cultures

(what they rather generally describe as “international students”) show a preference for auditory modes

of learning (2015: 266).

Second, variance within the U.S and German student groups, that is how uniformed were the

backgrounds, motivations, levels of preparation of the members within each of the two “local” groups.

Third, variance in the nature of the two (U.S. and German) courses in which the parallel project is

embedded. Here factors to consider are pedagogy, content basic versus advanced exposure to topics,

the nature of the topics themselves, and the content of the course.

Finally, variance between the U.S. and German teachers. We would predict that the longer the

professional and personal connection was between the two professors, the greater the reservoir of trust

existed between these two individuals. Furthermore the greater the trust the less the variance between

professors, the less the trust the greater the potential variance coming from the two professors.

7

Preliminary Conclusions and Tentative Recommendations

Unfortunately the assessment for the Eastern Kentucky University students is less developed and

sophisticated than the detailed results from DHBW. As we continue the “experiment” in the spring of

2017 more sophisticated assessment and assessment more consistent with German criteria will be

gathered for the U.S. students. Even so, certain comments at this point in our ongoing projects across

four years are in order.

First, trust between the faculty members does indeed help weather the inevitable storms that occur in

the midst of all of these (expected and unexpected) forms of variance. The first two coauthors have

worked together for some 13 years now in a variety of professional relationships. Similar efforts at

DHBW for other paired institutions have not survived the stresses and strains of dealing with all these

sources of variance.

Second, more planning and more tightly complied planning pays benefits. Potential problems can be

discovered and dealt with (U.S. vs. European holiday schedules, disharmonies in time zone changes in

the spring between the U.S. and Germany, etc.). Taking the time and expense to meet together

physically in annual workshops to coordinate, evaluate the successes and failures of the past spring

and plan extensively for the new elements that occur for the next spring. No two semesters are the

same. Student class sizes vary, the composition of the international students in the DHBW course

varies and even academic schedules (particularly those in the U.S.) have significant variations

academic year to academic year. Addressing shared platforms and communication protocols early and

often to “socialize” both groups via communication norms and transparency is helpful (Drew, 2014:

197).

Finally, more flexibility in responding to unexpected “variance events” is crucial for long term

success. A combination of careful planning, incorporating lessons learned in past projects into

modifications of future projects, and ongoing, real time tracking of events and flexibly responding to

difficulties is necessary. Variance cannot be “planned out” of the projects and so careful planning

must be combined with a willingness to flexibly deviate from the plan as required.

8

REFERENCES

Ashley, Sue., Schaap, Harmen. and de Bruijn, Elly. (2016). Defining Conceptual Understanding for

Teaching in International Business. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 27, (2-3), 106-

123.

Daniel, Shirley. and Serapio, Manuel. (2014). IB Teaching and Curriculum Development: Insights

from Members of the Pacific Asian Consortium for International Business Education and Research.

Journal of Teaching in International Business, 25, 161-164.

Ding, Ning., Bosker, Roel., Xu, Xiaoyan., Rugers, Lucie. and van Heugten, Petra. (2015).

International Group Heterogeneity and Students’ Business Project Achievement. Journal of Teaching

in International Business, 26, 197-215.

Drew, Antony. (2014). Teaching International Business Across Multiple Modes of Delivery: How to

Maintain Equivalence in Learning Outcomes. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 25, 185-

199.

Gonzalez-Perez, Maria, Velez-Calle, Andres, Cathro, Virginia, Caprar, Dan and Taras, Vasyl. (2014).

Virtual Teams and International Business Teaching and Learning: The Case of the Global Enterprise

Experience (GEE). Journal of Teaching in International Business. 25, 200-213.

Kaye, Anthony (1992). Learning Together Apart. Collaborative Learning through Computer

Conferencing, NATO ASI Series, 90, 1-24.

Kerlinger, Fred, and Lee, Howard. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th ed. Ada Ohio:

Cengage Publishing.

Knight, Paul. (1995). Education for All through Electronic Distance Education. Washington, D.C.:

Economic Development Institute, The World Bank.

Lea, Mary. and Street, Brian. (1998). Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies

Approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23 (2), 157-172.

McConnell, David. (1994). Implementing computer supported co-operative learning. London: Kogan

Page.

Mason, Robin. and Bacsich, Paul. (1998). Embedding Computer Conferencing into University

Teaching. Computers and Education, 30 (3-4), 249-258.

Pimpa, Nattavud. (2011). Engaging International Business Students in the Online Environment.

International Journal of Management Education, 9 (3), 75-89.

9

Salmon, Gilly. (2000). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Schedlitzki, Doris, Young, Pat And Moule, Pam (2011). Student Experiences and Views of Two

Different Blended Learning Models Within a Part-Time Post-graduate Program. International

Journal of Management Education, 9 (3), 37-48.

Schrage, Michael. (1990). Shared Minds: The New Technologies of Collaboration.

https://www.mysciencework.com/publication/show/cf22f93be1f6a0afcf7d47f8fab9c773

Sternad, Dietmar. (2015). A Challenge-Feedback Learning Approach to Teaching International

Business. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 26, 241-257.

Stowe, Kristin. and Clinebell, Sharon. (2015). An Examination of Learning Preferences of U.S. and

International Students. Journal of Teaching in Internaitonal Business, 26, 258-272.

Zisk, Daniel, Owyar, Hosseini, Marion and DuBose, Phillip (2015). Managerial Selection Decisions

in Multinational Corporations: Teaching International Business Using Problem-Based Learning.

Journal of Teaching in International Business, 26, 94-108.

10

Appendices

Table 1: Communication and Learning Channels offered for students

Due to very different semester schedules (the first and ultimately the most intense source of variance

between the two groups) at the EKU and the DHBW VS both professors had to support the student

teams in their time planning and organization. For this reason the introductory part on both sides

included a shared roadmap of collaboration for all teams (see Table 2).

Table 2: Shared roadmap across national borders

11

Table 3: Agenda of DHBW VS Student in International HRM

Table 4: Preferred communication channel in virtual team work

12

Table 5: Satisfaction with other team members

Table 6: Speed of responses from partner team members

13

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

How satisfied were you with the Speed of responses from partner team? 2015

2016

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

How satisfied were you with the Speed of responses from partner team? 2015

2016

Table 7: Development of intercultural competence

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I developed/improved my intercultural competence /cultural awareness

2015

2016

Table 8: Improvement of business communication skills & English language skills (for German

students)

14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I improved my English language & business communication skills 2015

2016

Table 9: Acceptance of learning format

 

15

16