# Engagement and resistance in intercultural communication through a virtual exchange: Insights from Japanese higher education

Roxana Sandu<fnref n="1" />

## Abstract

Virtual exchange (VE) programs are often associated with increased motivation and intercultural awareness; however, less attention has been given to the complexities of student engagement and the potential for resistance during these experiences. Encouraging reflection before participation in a VE project, this study investigates how students' predispositions toward engaging (and/or resisting) intercultural communication in English are expressed before and after participation in a VE. Grounded in a linguaculture framework, the research employed open-ended questionnaires administered pre- and post-exchange to explore perceived levels of engagement and resistance. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed five distinct themes capturing students' varying responses to the VE experience. The findings highlight that VE does not automatically lead to positive engagement and that resistance, whether passive or active, can co-exist alongside motivation.

**Keywords:** English language teaching, engagement, resistance, intercultural communication, virtual exchange.

<footnote n="1">1. Toyo University, Japan, sandu@toyo.jp, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2722-973X</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Globalization has greatly influenced higher education (HE) worldwide, prompting many institutions to adopt various internationalization policies and strategies (De Wit & Deca, 2020; Jacob, 2021). In Japan, the government has implemented several initiatives aimed at attracting international students, fostering collaborations with foreign institutions, and nurturing globally minded graduates (Hofmeyr, 2021; Rose & McKinley, 2018). The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has been a driving force behind these efforts, emphasizing the need to cultivate human resources capable of leading in a global context. For instance, the Project for Promotion of Global Human Resource Development aimed “to overcome the Japanese younger generation’s ‘inward tendency’ and to foster human resources who can positively meet the challenges and succeed in the global field, as the basis for improving Japan’s global competitiveness and enhancing the ties between nations” (MEXT, 2012, para. 1).

One significant concept in internationalization is Internationalization at Home (IaH), which is defined by Beelen and Jones (2015) as “the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments” (p. 69). In the Japanese context, Hofmeyr (2021) offers various examples of such IaH initiatives, which include language exchange classes, Self-Access Learning Center language exchange programs, and regular lectures and seminars attended by both Japanese and international students.

O'Dowd (2023) furthers this discussion by positioning virtual exchange (VE) as a shift from limited mobility programs to international opportunities accessible to all students. VE, he argues, is a key strategy that can complement IaH initiatives due to its adaptability and accessibility, offering a valuable alternative for students who are unable to participate in study abroad programs (O'Dowd, 2023). VE provides a focused international learning experience, and some of the formats included as part of IaH initiatives are class-to-class VE, class-to-world VE, and externalized models of VE (O'Dowd, 2023). Known also by the name of ready-made virtual exchanges (Helm & Van der Velden, 2021), externalized models of virtual exchange imply that they are “being carried out by organisations which are dedicated to providing the curricula and online environments” (O'Dowd, 2023, p. 87) and function outside of a higher educational institution.

Building on these developments, this study explores the integration of an externalized model of VE into the regular curriculum of a Japanese university course to examine its impact on student engagement with intercultural communication in English. It aims to investigate whether such integration fosters increased student engagement or reveals resistance toward using English as a medium for intercultural interaction. The following sections will first define VE and the concepts of
engagement and resistance, and then position the study within the linguaculture learning framework (Shaules, 2019).

# 2. Literature Review

## 2.1. Virtual exchanges and foreign language learning

Various terms in the literature are utilized to refer to activities related to VE, such as telecollaboration (Belz, 2002), teletandem (Telles & Leone, 2016), online intercultural exchange (O'Dowd & Lewis, 2016), and collaborative online international learning (Rubin, 2016). However, these definitions can vary based on context, making it difficult to reach a universal consensus on terminology (O'Dowd, 2023).

VE typically occurs in educational settings, utilizing computers or digital tools to foster social interaction and collaborative learning. This study adopts O'Dowd's (2023) definition of VE as "online learning initiatives and methodologies which engage learners in sustained online collaborative learning and interaction with partners from different cultural backgrounds as part of their study programs and under the guidance of teachers or trained facilitators" (p. 11). VE offers learners the opportunity to communicate with peers from diverse cultural backgrounds, enriching education through collaborative learning and fostering autonomy via self-directed activities and teamwork (Higgins, 2024). The Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Project (TAPP) is an example of this, where students design and execute projects that demand independent research and problem-solving skills (Petts & Gutiérrez, 2024).

VE programs have proven to enhance language proficiency. One study noted substantial improvements in participants' English skills, despite challenges such as technological constraints (Higgins, 2024). In a project involving universities from Hungary, Tunisia, and Turkey, students were able to practice foreign languages in real-world contexts, which led to improvements in their communication skills (Horváth-Csikós, 2024). Moreover, intercultural competence is a critical outcome of VE. Students are tasked with understanding and adapting to different cultural norms, fostering openness and adaptability. The TAPP project reported enhanced intercultural communication skills among students (Petts & Gutiérrez, 2024). Similarly, a Chinese-American VE project revealed that students developed a deeper understanding of cultural differences and improved their ability to communicate across cultures (Xu, 2023).
Dooly and Hauck (2012), Hagley (2020), O'Dowd (2021), and Skidmore (2023) report on students' satisfaction with VE participation, as well as increased motivation and engagement. Skidmore (2023) discusses how online intercultural exchanges can affect specific motivational drivers to study a second language. His findings suggest that VE positively impacted his students' motivation by enhancing self-perception, future language use, and attitudes towards the global English-speaking community. However, while numerous studies highlight the benefits of VE, little attention has been paid to the potential resistance students may exhibit during these programs. To my knowledge, there is little research that has examined the attitudes or behaviors of students who may be disengaged or reluctant to participate in a VE. Understanding such resistance is crucial to designing more inclusive and effective VE experiences that respond not only to motivated learners but also to those who may be hesitant to engage with intercultural communication.

## 2.2. Virtual exchanges in Japan

In Japan, VE is increasingly utilized, as institutions seek to develop global competencies among students without relying solely on physical mobility. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this shift, making virtual mobility a necessary alternative (Enkhtur et al., 2023). The Japanese government has also been supportive of these initiatives, as seen with the establishment of the Japan Forum for Internationalization of Universities in 2021, aimed at enhancing internationalization through information and communication technology (ICT) integration (Enkhtur et al., 2023). Okumura (2024) illustrated that VE significantly improved Japanese students' motivation and engagement in English language learning, using technology-mediated task-based language teaching principles that align with MEXT's goals in a study involving Japanese and Australian primary students. However, this study did not specify what engagement entails, other than active involvement with a task. VE programs in Japanese higher education have similarly shown positive results in enhancing intercultural competence.

A successful VE initiative is the International Virtual Exchange (IVE) (Hagley, 2022), which has gained considerable recognition within Japan's educational landscape. The project allows students to communicate and share multimedia content via various forums. Hagley (2022) describes the IVE as a lingua franca VE, where English, used as a common language, enables communication between students from various countries.

Although recent studies in Japan highlight the motivational and educational benefits of VE, the concept of engagement is often used vaguely, typically referring to general participation or task completion without deeper exploration of its dimensions. Most studies focus on successful outcomes
and positive responses, overlooking the possibility that some students may experience discomfort, reluctance, or even active opposition to intercultural online interaction.

## 2.3. Defining student engagement and disaffection

Hiver et al. (2024) argue that “engagement defines all learning” (p. 202), a concept that Sinatra et al. (2015) have referred to as the “holy grail of learning” (p. 1). Although there is no universally accepted definition of student engagement, the prevailing view in the literature presents it as a multidimensional construct encompassing behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions (Reschly & Christenson, 2012). Behavioral engagement involves participation in academic and extracurricular activities, effort, attention, and adherence to classroom norms, reflecting a student’s active involvement in learning tasks and school life (Fredricks et al., 2004; Fredricks et al., 2016). Emotional engagement refers to students’ affective reactions, such as interest, boredom, happiness, and anxiety, and includes a sense of belonging and identification with school or subject domains (Fredricks et al., 2004; Fredricks et al., 2016). Cognitive engagement involves the investment of mental effort and the use of self-regulated learning strategies to comprehend complex ideas and master difficult skills (Fredricks et al., 2004; Fredricks et al., 2016). Some scholars incorporate disengagement, often labeled as disaffection, into their models (Skinner et al., 2009; Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). Skinner et al. (2009) describe disengagement as “the absence of engagement, including the absence of effort or persistence” (p. 495), highlighting behaviors such as passivity, lack of initiative, minimal effort, and giving up. Disaffection also involves mental withdrawal and superficial participation, while on an emotional level, disaffection includes feelings of fatigue, sadness, and boredom, as well as alienation through frustration and anger, and participation driven by anxiety or pressure (Skinner et al., 2009).

The concept of engagement has evolved from various theoretical traditions, including motivational theories, which explore the links between contextual factors and engagement patterns (Fredricks et al., 2016). Some scholars (e.g., Martin, 2007) use the terms engagement and motivation interchangeably, while others (Appleton et al., 2006, 2008; Reschly & Christenson, 2012) see them as separate but related constructs. In studies related to language learning engagement (Dörnyei, 2019; Philp & Duchesne, 2016), motivation is traditionally seen as the intention behind actions, while engagement is the action itself. The distinction between motivation and engagement lies in their nature: motivation represents an internal drive or intent, whereas engagement refers to the outward actions or behaviors resulting from that motivation (Reschly & Christenson, 2012). Commonly defined in educational contexts as students’ active involvement in learning, engagement is often linked to motivation, participation, and investment in academic tasks. However, in intercultural
learning contexts, engagement also involves a learner's openness, adaptability, and willingness to navigate unfamiliar cultural and communicative situations. The following section will discuss the dynamic process of engagement and resistance from an intercultural adjustment perspective.

**2.4. Defining engagement and resistance in linguaculture learning**

Engagement would appear to be a complex and multidimensional construct crucial to language learning. However, the intertwined nature of language learning with cultural learning in language education must also be considered. This is referred to as languaculture (or linguaculture), a term coined by Agar (1994) to define the intrinsic link between language and culture. From an intercultural adjustment viewpoint, Shaules (2007, 2017, 2019) isolates engagement and resistance as distinctive constructs. Language learning is viewed as a process entailing both language and culture learning; this process forces learners to certain levels of adaptation, which further requires adjustments of students deeply rooted cognitive patterns. Shaules (2019) explains that

> ... an encounter with foreignness imposes adaptive demands on the learner—their normal socio-cognitive processes are disrupted. ... Learners respond to these demands with more or less openness to change—a willingness to engage with and integrate foreign patterns. This generates either engagement (an integration of foreignness) and/or resistance (a defensive exclusion of foreignness). (p. 80)

This psychological resistance and/or openness (engagement) refers to learners' negative and/or positive reactions towards foreign language communication and is understood as a natural part of the foreign language and intercultural learning process. Emphasizing the idea of increased and decreased openness towards engagement resistance, Shaules' (2019) model depicts students' first steps towards negotiating their readiness to embrace cultural differences.

Foreignness is defined “as a gap between habits and both patterns internal to the learner together with patterns the learner encounters in her environment” (Shaules, 2017, p. 69). The foreignness of the language itself can lead to learners’ curiosity and openness (engagement) and/or to their resistance, a psychological defensive mechanism towards the demands of learning a foreign language and culture. Students’ reactions to the foreignness of a situation are what determine engagement and/or resistance to foreign language and intercultural learning. Shaules (2017) also mentions how some students may experience a mixed state, “as when we enjoy trying out a language when we travel but hate studying grammar in school” (p. 70). When students encounter foreignness
and some adaptive demands are imposed on them, they may get caught in an engagement resistance cycle, where being open to change becomes a variable that eventually creates either acceptance of change or rejection of change.

As previously noted, the views on student engagement and disaffection refer to student involvement and disinvolvement in learning activities in general, emphasizing the positive and negative behaviors associated with each construct (Skinner et al., 2009). However, resistance towards foreignness in Shaules' (2019) model brings to light the natural reaction of resisting change, instead of focusing on negative behaviors that may influence a student's academic performance, such as passivity or lack of effort. Different from the construct of disaffection (Skinner et al., 2009), the intercultural adjustment perspective assumes that encounters with cultural differences will naturally attract resistance—"a defensive reaction that seeks to maintain the primacy of one's internal configuration in the face of an environment perceived as threatening" (Shaules, 2014, p. 83).

Viewing language learning as intercultural adjustment shifts our understanding of motivation (Shaules, 2019). Traditionally seen as an internal state that drives action, motivation was often viewed as something learners possess or lose over time. However, as Dörnyei's work (Dörnyei et al., 2014) has shown, motivation cannot be explained in either linear or process-oriented terms. His work reveals the dynamic nature of motivation, which is shaped by a complex interplay of internal and external forces, meaning that what motivates a learner at one moment may lose relevance or gain unexpected significance, based on shifting circumstances. Although built on a similar idea of a dynamic process, the intercultural adjustment perspective sees motivation as a reaction to learning challenges, which is shaped by the demands of teachers, classrooms, and the foreignness of the language itself. Shaules (2019) further argues that engagement and resistance are seen as opposing responses to these challenges, with motivation emerging from the interaction between the learner and the environment.

The study discussed here adopts this intercultural adjustment view of engagement, resistance towards foreign language communication, and aims to answer the following research questions:

1. Can participation in a VE enhance students' engagement in foreign language communication?

2. Does reflecting on their motivational profiles both before and after participating in a VE help students reveal their disposition towards engagement and/or resistance in foreign language communication?
## 3. Methods

### 3.1. Teaching context and course design

The study was conducted at a national university near Tokyo (Japan). All participants were first-year students enrolled on *English Intercultural Communication*, a compulsory 15-week course that focused on intercultural awareness development. Participants’ level of English proficiency was intermediate to upper-intermediate, B1-B2 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2020) as ascertained via the university’s placement test.

I designed the course syllabus around intercultural topics, such as greetings around the world, communication styles, personal space, nonverbal communication, the perception of time around the world, and stereotypes. Most topics were selected taking into consideration Bennett’s (1998) overview of the topics/dimensions commonly addressed in the field of intercultural communication. Students were given a brief training session on online communication and a list of dos and don’ts when interacting with students from different cultural backgrounds.

Participation in the VE was encouraged as a way to explore these topics outside the classroom with other learners of English in the hope of enabling students to gain more interest in intercultural communication and develop more intercultural awareness. Integrated into the regular syllabus, participation in the VE accounted for 20% of the final grade. The type of VE project and the reasons for selecting it are explained in detail in the following section.

### 3.2. The International Virtual Exchange Project (IVE)

According to its homepage, the IVE originated at a Japanese university and is an initiative that connects students from different countries through online platforms, fostering language and intercultural learning through cultural exchange. The IVE project model (Hagley, 2022) was chosen in the present research over other VEs for its specific characteristics. First, VE was an add-on to the regular syllabus and not the main aim of the course, and the fact that the class teacher did not need to deal with technical and other administrative issues (for example, looking for exchange partners) was seen as an advantage. Second, since IVE offers various forums for students to explore, it was seen as an effective way to foster interaction. Students were free to choose the type of forum and interaction that best fit their needs and interests. Third, there are tutorials and explanation sessions, as well as a teachers’ forum and an “online lounge”. Teachers can ask questions and interact with other teachers participating in the exchange, which provides a great opportunity for collaboration.
According to Johnson and Tuncer (2023), the IVE project, which began in the early 2000s, has grown substantially, supported by a Japanese government grant. Hagley (2024) reports that the project engaged over 40,000 students and 600 teachers from 25 countries, fostering extensive interaction among participants. As stated on the IVE project homepage, the exchange allows students to interact asynchronously in English as a common language. Moodle, a popular learning management system around the world, is the platform used for the exchanges. The exchanges are carried out over eight-week periods using Moodle forums, and participants post and reply using student-created text, audio, and video posts.

The IVE allows students to participate in various forums depending on their topics of interest, such as food, festivals, music, travel, sports, to name a few. Students can either start their own discussion threads or choose to post replies to existing threads that address questions of their interest. Along with a forum for intermediate to advanced level students, there are opportunities for students to interact and explore various topics, such as “my life in videos” and “images forum”, where students are encouraged to share self-created videos and photos that better illustrate certain aspects of their daily lives, or make your own group or join one depending on your interests, where students create their own small international groups and discuss in depth a topic of interest.

### 3.3. Data collection: Pre-IVE and post-IVE questionnaires

Sustained reflection on intercultural experiences both throughout and post-VE is a valuable process that can lead students to deeper forms of learning and understanding (O'Reilly, 2021). However, the premise of this study was that reflection before a VE could raise students' awareness towards their own predispositions, be it engagement and/or resistance to foreign language communication.

All 115 enrolled students were asked to answer a pre-IVE and a post-IVE questionnaire. To this end, 115 responses to the pre-questionnaire and 110 responses to the post-questionnaire were collected. All participants gave informed consent prior to the study. To ensure accurate insights into students' motivational dispositions before and after IVE participation, only 110 students, who completed both questionnaires, were included in the analysis. Some students chose to respond to the questionnaires in Japanese; these responses were translated by the author, as indicated in the examples provided in the results section below. Questionnaires included two questions about students' educational background, four open-ended questions about intercultural communication, and two open-ended questions about the VE. Table 1 labels questions on students' attitudes toward intercultural communication as IC. These questions were included to better understand students' feelings and thoughts towards interaction with people from different cultural backgrounds.
<table><caption>Table 1. Pre and post IVE questionnaires</caption><thead><tr><td>Pre-IVE questions</td><td>Post-IVE questions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(IC) How would you describe people from different cultures?</td><td>(IC) How would you describe people from (name of the country that participated in the IVE)?</td></tr><tr><td>(IC) What do you like/ dislike about interacting with people from different cultures?</td><td>(IC) What did you like/ dislike about interacting with people from different cultures?</td></tr><tr><td>(IC) How do you feel when interacting with people from different cultures?</td><td>(IC) How did you feel when interacting with people from different cultures?</td></tr><tr><td>(IC) What are the most important things to consider when communicating with people from different cultures?</td><td>(IC) What are the most important things to consider when communicating with people from different cultures?</td></tr><tr><td>(VE) What do you think about participating in the virtual exchange program?</td><td>(VE) What did you think about participating in the virtual exchange program?</td></tr><tr><td>(VE) What do you expect to learn from taking part in this program?</td><td>(VE) What did you learn from taking part in this program?</td></tr></tbody></table>

According to Byram (1997; 2021), attitude is the foundation of intercultural communicative competence. All questions were created to explore and find out more about students' attitudes towards intercultural communication and VE participation. While the questions about IC aimed to understand students' preferences and perspectives on interacting with diverse cultures, the VE questions focused on students' feelings about participating in a VE and their expected learning outcomes without pushing them to think in terms of engagement or resistance.

### 3.4. Data analysis and interpretation

Reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) was used to interpret the collected data. RTA is a qualitative research methodology that allows the researcher to develop, analyze, and interpret patterns across a dataset (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Terry and Hayfield (2020) explain that in RTA, themes do not simply “emerge” from disorganized data (p. 430). Instead, they are actively constructed, tested, and refined through several iterative phases of analysis. What makes RTA unique is its emphasis on its theoretical flexibility, not to be mistaken for theoretical neutrality (Braun & Clarke, 2022). RTA involves a reflexive engagement with the data, which places the researcher's positionality at its center, without demanding objectivity in relation to the dataset, but instead focusing on the subjective and active engagement of the researcher.

RTA involves six phases for analysis as follows: (1) familiarization with the dataset, (2) coding, (3) generating initial themes, (4) developing and reviewing themes, (5) refining, defining, and naming
themes, (6) writing up. This process of analysis and interpretation was iterative, as per Braun and Clarke (2006). In the first stage of data familiarization, I became immersed in the data through casual note-taking and rereading students' responses to both pre-VE and post-VE questionnaires repetitively over an extended period. A bottom-up, inductive perspective was applied, with themes being developed from the data, rather than assuming a predefined framework. Recognizing my role as a researcher in the co-creation of themes (Braun & Clarke, 2013), I tried not to have my themes guided by categories from previous research, to allow a more data-driven approach. However, students' use of terms such as "I am resistant to participate..." or "I am reluctant...", for example, led me towards Shaules's (2019) perspective of engagement resistance. The process of coding was intended to include both descriptive and interpretive components. The descriptive component refers to students' explicit responses, and the interpretive component, while drawing on my subjectivity, refers to more indirect patterns found in the dataset.

The initial themes were developed around the concept of an engagement resistance cycle, as the preliminary analysis showed that for some students, participating in the VE was not as interesting or fun as they had thought it would be, while for others, it was better than they thought it would be. Moreover, for some, participating in the VE appeared to be more difficult than imagined. These initial themes were then reviewed and refined, and five different patterns were defined as follows (see Table 2).

<table><caption>Table 2. Patterns of engagement resistance</caption><thead><tr><td>Pattern</td><td>Definition</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>The Active Engagement Pattern</td><td>Students seemed eager to participate from the start and remained engaged throughout the exchange. They made efforts to participate in the exchange in the best way they could.</td></tr><tr><td>The Initial Engagement Pattern</td><td>Students seemed eager to participate in the beginning, but stopped being actively involved due to various factors and ended up having a somewhat unpleasant experience.</td></tr><tr><td>The Initial Hesitancy Pattern</td><td>Students seemed hesitant at the beginning, but once they participated in the exchange, they became more open to the new challenge.</td></tr><tr><td>The Resistance Pattern</td><td>Students were resistant from the start and remained resistant to participating throughout the exchange.</td></tr><tr><td>The Mixed Pattern</td><td>Students showed neither resistance nor engagement from the start, but a mixture of the above-mentioned patterns could be seen in a successive loop throughout the exchange.</td></tr></tbody></table>
# 4. Results

The following sections will discuss the five patterns identified. They will include students' responses to key questions from the questionnaires:

1. What were your thoughts on joining the virtual exchange?

2. What did you expect to learn from it?

The analysis also includes students' answers to other questions for a better exemplification of the identified patterns.

## 4.1. The active engagement pattern

The *active engagement pattern* refers to students who displayed enthusiasm and curiosity about participating in the IVE from the beginning. In the pre-IVE questionnaires, most students used words such as interesting, exciting, fun, useful, valuable, and precious to describe their feelings towards VE participation. This was interpreted as a sign of openness to the new and foreign experience ahead. The same types of words appeared in their post-IVE responses to the questionnaires, which allowed for interpreting it as a continuous engagement in the IVE.

Although students did not elaborate much on their answers, the sample *active engagement pattern* response (see Table 3) is typical for students who appeared to be engaged throughout the VE. This student's responses to the other questions in the questionnaire also showed an openness towards intercultural communication, as their answers imply curiosity towards foreign cultures. They like talking about each other's values and find interactions with foreigners interesting. From their post-IVE responses, we can also see the enthusiasm for foreign language communication. They talked about Colombian students being cheerful and loving their hometowns, while mentioning their own excitement because they were able to learn about Colombia.

<table><caption>Table 3. Active engagement pattern sample (pre- and post-IVE responses)</caption><thead><tr><td>What do/did you think about participating in the virtual exchange program?</td><td>What do/did you expect to learn from taking part in this program?</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre-IVE: It sounds interesting.</td><td>Pre-IVE: broadening my perspective.</td></tr><tr><td>Post-IVE: It is fun. We can learn a different culture and practice English.</td><td>Post-IVE: We can communicate with people from a different country through common language (English). Also, interacting with those people broadens my perspective.</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 4.2. The initial engagement pattern

The initial engagement pattern refers to students who showed some interest before joining the IVE but subsequently lost interest for various reasons. In the pre-IVE sample responses shown in Table 4, one participant mentioned “a kind of confusion and discomfort, but these contribute to my curiosity to communicate and know how they think” when describing people from different cultures. While mentioning an uneasiness around English, their comment can still be interpreted as an openness towards foreign culture and people, as they explained that this feeling is what feeds their curiosity about the upcoming interaction. However, this openness slowly faded during the exchange and turned into resistance, mainly because of the different language proficiency levels and frequency of back-and-forth interactions in the IVE forums:

> I was genuinely looking forward to interacting with people from other countries, but I found that the pace of conversation was slower than I expected. Additionally, the people I met seemed somewhat reserved, which also contributed to my enthusiasm waning at times [author's translation].

Another post-IVE response illustrated an initial enthusiasm that eventually faded: “I found it interesting initially. However, to be honest, I gradually started to feel less interested.” These are typical responses for students who were not successful in engaging their partners in interactive posts.

<table><caption>Table 4. Active engagement pattern sample (pre- and post-IVE responses)</caption><thead><tr><td>What do/did you think about participating in the virtual exchange program?</td><td>What do/did you expect to learn from taking part in this program?</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre-IVE: It is a good chance to interact with people who I can't see on normal days.</td><td>Pre-IVE: Foreign people's ideas, regions, and ways to control English.</td></tr><tr><td>Post-IVE: It was a valuable experience. However, I am not sure whether I was able to fully take advantage of it [author's translation].</td><td>Post-IVE: Various things related to Colombia. Regarding improvement in English proficiency, it may be challenging to feel progress without putting in a bit more effort [author's translation].</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.3. The initial hesitancy pattern

The initial hesitancy pattern is the opposite of the initial engagement pattern. It refers to students who initially showed signs of resistance towards communicating in English, but once they
participated in the exchange, they were able to become more open towards it. The sample responses in Table 5 indicate how nervous the student felt when interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds, although they declared their interest in foreign cultures. That feeling of nervousness changed post-IVE, when they wrote that it had been fun interacting with the Colombian students. Although many students mentioned nervousness and anxiety towards communicating in English with students who, like them, were also English L2, many were relieved to find out that communicating with other learners of English meant that mistakes were acceptable and a part of communicating cross-culturally, as long as this did not lead to misunderstandings.

<table><caption>Table 5. Initial hesitancy pattern sample #1 (pre- and post-IVE responses)</caption><thead><tr><td>What do/did you think about participating in the virtual exchange program?</td><td>What do/did you expect to learn from taking part in this program?</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre-IVE: I get nervous, but I am looking forward to participating it because I want to talk with the foreign students.</td><td>Pre-IVE: I expect to learn the other culture that we don't know.</td></tr><tr><td>Post-IVE: Participating in the project is very good for me. I could learn about the other culture that I haven't known.</td><td>Post-IVE: I learned the differences and the similarities between Colombia and Japan.</td></tr></tbody></table>

For another respondent, pre-IVE responses indicate how uneasy they felt when interacting with foreigners (see Table 6). However, their post-IVE responses showed a more relaxed attitude towards their own uneasiness, as they realized they could communicate despite their English proficiency level: “I was very happy when people from Colombia responded to my posts, even though my English was not very good [author’s translation].”

<table><caption>Table 6. Initial hesitancy pattern sample #2 (pre- and post-IVE responses)</caption><thead><tr><td>What do/did you think about participating in the virtual exchange program?</td><td>What do/did you expect to learn from taking part in this program?</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre-IVE: I think I would never do it if it weren't for the class, so I feel a bit anxious, but I'll give it my best shot [author's translation].</td><td>Pre-IVE: Learning methods to actively engage with people from overseas [author's translation].</td></tr><tr><td>Post-IVE: Due to lack of time, I always ended up posting right before the deadline, so I didn't have much opportunity to interact with Colombian students [author's translation].</td><td>Post-IVE: I used to think it would be impossible to interact with people from overseas with my poor English. However, when I tried, I found it surprisingly manageable. I learned that the most important aspect of intercultural exchange is the willingness to understand the other person [author's translation].</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 4.4. The resistance pattern

The *resistance pattern* includes students who showed strong resistance towards English communication and participation in the IVE throughout the exchange. The responses in Table 7 show that in their pre-IVE responses, one student described people from different cultures as difficult to understand but interesting. Regarding likes and dislikes when interacting with foreigners, they wrote: “I like to learn about several thoughts of them, but I don’t like to see and talk with them very much”. Like the previous participant, they were also anxious about their English: “I’m nervous when interacting with them because I’m not good at listening and speaking foreign languages [English].” The post-IVE responses show their own psychological barrier towards communicating in English due to their perceived inadequate English language skills.

<table><caption>Table 7. Resistance pattern (pre- and post-IVE responses)</caption><thead><tr><td>What do/did you think about participating in the virtual exchange program?</td><td>What do/did you expect to learn from taking part in this program?</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre-IVE: I'm reluctant to participate in this program because I'm not good at communicating in English.</td><td>Pre-IVE: I want to ease my anxiety which I feel when using English.</td></tr><tr><td>Post-IVE: I am not interested in this project, so sometimes I didn't post a topic. I should have posted.</td><td>Post-IVE: I couldn't write what I wanted to say correctly in English, so the important things we want to say should be expressed in our mother tongues.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.5. The mixed pattern

The *mixed pattern* refers to students who show both engagement and resistance at the same time. Some students showed engagement at the beginning, but it then transformed into an engagement-resistance loop as they moved through the exchange, which was, at times, caused by the lack of responses from their partner students.

When describing people from different cultures, the responses shown in Table 8 illustrate how the student was aware of cultural differences. They were open towards intercultural communication, as they stated how interesting and exciting it was to interact with people from different cultures. However, in their post-IVE responses, a different tone can be felt as they described their participation in the IVE.
<table><caption>Table 8. Mixed pattern (pre- and post-IVE responses)</caption><thead><tr><td>What do/did you think about participating in the virtual exchange program?</td><td>What do/did you expect to learn from taking part in this program?</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre-IVE: It may be safer than other SNSs, like Twitter. It would be nice if I could offer my thoughts to those who need it and meet some interesting ideas which I would not realize by myself.</td><td>Pre-IVE: To share as many thoughts as possible with not only Japanese but also foreigners.</td></tr><tr><td>Post-IVE: I couldn't join it well. Some topics were too easy and it discouraged me to join it. We could share our idea about school system, culture clash or stereotypes rather than food or festival, couldn't we? Actually, it was interesting but not exciting for me.</td><td>Post-IVE: I could learn a little about the customs of Colombia but I should have been more active to participate it.</td></tr></tbody></table>

On the one hand, the student felt sad when no one responded to her posts: “Some of the students posted with really short story and didn't reply to my comments. It made me sad.” and on the other hand, she found it interesting to compare Japan and Colombia, which made them more interested in Colombian culture. One reason for the decrease in their engagement was that the topics were easy and did not stimulate their interest enough.

## 5. Discussion

The five identified patterns of engagement resistance show students' predispositions towards increased and/or decreased openness for foreign language communication. Shaules talked about the constructs of engagement and resistance as psychological responses towards cultural differences or foreignness in general. He argued that “language learning involves a deep psychological adjustment” (Shaules, 2017, p.67), and that responses of engagement resistance are just a natural way of dealing with unknown cognitive patterns, as in different ways of thinking, behaving, and communicating. Through the identification of the five patterns and illustrating the interconnectedness between engagement and resistance, this study revealed the intricacies of these two constructs and demonstrated their dynamic nature. Added to this, there is the previously mentioned issue that VE can take students out of their comfort zone, as it differs from their expectations of what a VE learning experience should be like (Orsini-Jones & Finardi, 2024).

The question of whether this type of VE project could stimulate students' engagement towards intercultural communication remains. In some cases, the analysis showed how students became
more engaged through active participation, but at the same time, it also showed the opposite side of it. This dynamic suggests that participation in VE can both foster and challenge intercultural engagement. This could also be linked to the fact that it was an asynchronous VE and lacked the communication immediacy that VE live exchanges with tools like Zoom can provide, to which students have become used since the COVID-19 pandemic.

The results demonstrate that engagement and resistance, viewed through the lens of intercultural adjustment, are dynamic and malleable (Appleton et al., 2008). For example, students who initially felt anxious about communicating in VE settings often became more open through interaction, while others who were initially engaged later lost interest. This fluctuation suggests that resistance is not fixed and that engagement is influenced by ongoing psychological and contextual factors. Openness to new experiences facilitates, but does not guarantee, sustained intercultural engagement. Hiver et al. (2024) similarly argue that engagement is fluid, shaped by varying levels of psychological openness. These findings reinforce the idea that the development of intercultural communication competence in VE is neither linear nor predictable.

## 6. Conclusion and pedagogical implications

The main objective of this study was to investigate whether encouraging reflection before participation in a VE project could stimulate students' engagement towards intercultural communication. This was done by prompting students to reflect on their own motivational profiles before and after the VE intercultural experience. The constructs of engagement and resistance were adopted from Shaules's work (2019) and viewed in terms of increased and/or decreased openness towards "foreignness". Five different patterns were identified: (1) the active engagement pattern, (2) the initial engagement pattern, (3) the initial hesitancy pattern, (4) the resistance pattern, and (5) the mixed pattern.

The results show how prompting students to reflect on their own motivation and expectations in relation to encounters with "different others" can help teachers better understand their students' readiness towards becoming interculturally competent. Students' responses show a variety of positions: either how open and curious they are towards foreign cultures and the use of English in intercultural settings, or the opposite of this openness, or a complex mix between the two. They also illustrate a considerable amount of anxiety towards the use of English for VE communication amongst students whose mother tongue is not English. The data analysis reinforces the idea of engagement being a dynamic and fluid construct. Understanding the dynamic nature of these
constructs and identifying patterns of engagement resistance in students' intercultural interactions can help teachers better engage in guiding students towards deeper forms of learning. Where students show strong resistance towards foreignness, teachers can intervene by helping them navigate the natural reactions of resistance due to their own ethnocentric views and/or previous experiences, or lack thereof.

Students' motivational dispositions towards intercultural communication are shaped by the complex interplay of contextual and socio-cultural factors. Educators should promote reflection before, during, and after intercultural experiences to better understand engagement resistance patterns. Such reflection serves as an effective tool that can offer educators valuable insights about various pedagogical approaches tailored to the specific needs of their students. Future research should explore specific pedagogical interventions aligned with the five areas of engagement and assess their effectiveness in different learning contexts.

## 7. Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editors for their insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions, which significantly improved this paper. I am also grateful to Joseph Shraules for his constructive feedback on earlier versions of this paper and to Anthony S. Rausch for his helpful corrections. All remaining errors and shortcomings are my own.

## 8. References

* Agar, M. (1994). *Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation*. Perennial.

* Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. *Psychology in the Schools, 45*, 369–386.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303

* Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. *Journal of School Psychology, 54*(44), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalization at home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), *The European Higher Education Area* (pp. 67-80). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_5

Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. *Language Learning & Technology*, 6(1), 60–81. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25143

Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In Bennett, M. J. (Ed.), *Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings* (pp. 1–34). Intercultural Press.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology*, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), *APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological* (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). *Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners*. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353515614115

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. *Qualitative Psychology*, 9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196

Byram, M. (1997). *Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence*. Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (2021). *Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence revisited 2nd edition*, Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800410251

Council of Europe. (2020). *Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume*. Council of Europe Publishing.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages

De Wit, H., Deca, L. (2020). Internationalization of Higher Education, Challenges and Opportunities for the Next Decade. In: Curaj, A., Deca, L., Pricopie, R. (Eds.) *European Higher Education Area: Challenges for a New Decade* (pp. 3–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56316-5_1

Dooly, M., & Hauck, M. (2012). Researching multimodal communicative competence in video and audio telecollaborative encounters. In: Dooly, M., & R. O'Dowd (Eds.), *Researching online*
*interaction and exchange in foreign language education.* Telecollaboration in Education: Volume 3
(pp. 135–162). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0414-1/5.

Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2014). *Motivational dynamics in language learning*. Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z. (2019). Task motivation: What makes an L2 task engaging? In Z. (E.) Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (Eds.), *Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan* (pp. 53–66). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.04dor

Enkhtur A., Li M., Zhang X. (2023). Virtual student mobility from students’ perspectives: Case study from Japan. *Higher Education Forum*, 20, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.15027/53851

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. *Review of Educational Research*, 74, 59–109.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. *Learning and Instruction*, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002

Hagley, E. (2020). Effects of virtual exchange in the EFL classroom on students’ cultural and intercultural sensitivity. *Computer Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal*, 21, 74–87.
https://callej.org/index.php/journal/article/view/312

Hagley, E. (2022). Bringing ELF to life via virtual exchange –The IVE Project. In Stevkovska, M., Idrizi, E., and Miftari-Fetishi, I. (Eds). *Contemporary Issues in Language Teaching*, (pp. 63–80), International Balkan University.

Hagley, E. (2024, March 22). A virtual exchange for thousands of students around the globe. *UniCollaboration Blog*. https://unicollaboration.org/index.php/2024/03/22/a-virtual-exchange-project-brings-together-thousands-of-students-from-around-the-globe/

Helm, F. & Velden, B. (2021). *Erasmus+ virtual exchange handbook for international relations officers*. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2797/870428

Higgins, J. (2024). Virtual bridges to global competence: Cultivating undergraduates’ English communication and intercultural skills through online exchange. *Journal of International Students*, 14(4), 862–882. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v14i4.6545
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A., Vitta, J., & Wu, J. (2024). Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. *Language Teaching Research, 28*, 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211001289

Hofmeyr, A. S. (2021). Taking advantage of a multicultural campus: Impact of at-home intercultural initiatives on Japanese students’ skills and future goals. *Journal of Studies in International Education, 25*(2), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315320906159

Horváth-Csikós, G. (2024). The results of a virtual exchange (VE) project carried out by universities from three different countries. *GILE Journal of skills development, 4* (1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.52398/gjsd.2024.v4.i1.pp60-73

Jacob, W.J. (2021). Globalisation and higher education policy reform. In: Zajda, J. (Eds.) *Third International Handbook of Globalisation, Education and Policy Research* (pp.193–208). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66003-1_11

Johnson, A., & Tuncer, H. (2023). Facilitating Intercultural Competence Development in Virtual Exchange: The Student-Generated Survey. *Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18*(2), 159–185.
https://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/710

Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. *British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77*, 413–440.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2012). *Project for promotion of global human resource development*. Retrieved January 9, 2024, from
http://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title02/detail02/sdetail02/1373895.htm

O'Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (2016). *Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice*. London: Routledge.

O'Dowd, R. (2021). What do students learn in virtual exchange? A qualitative content analysis of learning outcomes across multiple exchanges. *International Journal of Educational Research, 109*, 101804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101804

O'Dowd, R. (2023). *Internationalising higher education and the role of virtual exchange*. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315393704

Okumura, S. (2024). Enhancing intercultural language learning through virtual exchange and technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A case between Japanese and Australian
primary schools. In R. Vurdien & W. Chambers (Eds.), *Technology-Mediated Language Learning and Teaching* (pp. 59-90). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2687-9.ch003

O'Reilly, C. (2021). Reflection on practice: An exploration of a virtual online collaboration as preparation for the year abroad. *Journal of Virtual Exchange, 4*, 50-61.
https://doi.org/10.21827/jve.4.35781

Orsini-Jones, M., & Finardi, K. (2024). Out of the Comfort Zone: The Trouble with a MOOC-Virtual Exchange Blend at the Time of the COVID19 Pandemic. In J. P Davies, J. Rattray, A. Tierney, S. McGowan, E. Gironacci, A. Nyamapfene & A. Webb (Eds.) *Threshold Concepts in the Moment* (pp. 307–325). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004680661_020

Petts, A., & Lázaro-Gutiérrez, R. (2024). Global, international, and intercultural competencies in a Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Project (TAPP) partnership. *Journal of Virtual Exchange, 7* (SI-University Internationalisation), 80–91, https://doi.org/10.21827/jve.7.39697

Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom. *Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36*, 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000094

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), *Handbook of research on student engagement* (pp. 3–19). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1

Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2018). Japan's English-medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. *The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 75*, 111–129.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0125-1

Rubin, J. (2016). The collaborative online international learning network. In O'Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (Eds.). *Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice* (pp. 263–272). Routledge.

Shaules, J. (2007). *Deep culture: The hidden challenges of global living*. Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690180

Shaules, J. (2014). *The intercultural mind: Connecting culture and cognition*. Intercultural Press.

Shaules, J. (2017). Linguaculture resistance: An intercultural adjustment perspective on negative learner attitudes in Japan. *Juntendo Journal of Global Studies, 2*, 66–78.
https://japanintercultural.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Linguaculture-Resistance.pdf
Shaules, J. (2019). *Language, culture and the embodied mind: A developmental model of linguaculture learning*. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0587-4

Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. *Educational Psychology, 50*, 1–13.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924

Skidmore, M. (2023). Effects of participation in an online intercultural exchange on drivers of L2 learning motivation. *Language Teaching Research, 1–19*.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231153622

Skinner, E. A., Kinderman, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. *Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69*, 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233

Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschy, & C. Wylie (Eds.), *Handbook of research on student engagement* (pp. 21–45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_2

Telles, J., & Leone, P. (2016). The teletandem network. In O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (Eds.). *Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice* (pp. 273–298). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678931

Terry, G., & Hayfield, N. (2020). Reflexive thematic analysis. In Ward, M. & Delamont, S. (Eds.), *Handbook of qualitative research in education* (2nd ed., pp. 428–439). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788977159.00049

Xu, X. (2023). Intercultural learning through a Chinese-American education-themed virtual exchange project. *Journal of Education and Educational Research, 6*(3), 19–22.
https://doi.org/10.54097/yv9k7b84
Published by University of Groningen Press | UGP, a not-for-profit press
Groningen, The Netherlands | UGP@rug.nl

© 2025 UNICollaboration (collective work)
© 2025 by Authors (individual work)

Journal of Virtual Exchange 2025
Edited by Carolin Fuchs and Müge Satar

Publication date: 2025/12/18

Journal of Virtual Exchange (JVE) is an online, open-access, peer-reviewed journal aimed at practitioners and researchers in the field known variously as virtual exchange, telecollaboration, or online intercultural exchange. It is the official journal of UNICollaboration, the international academic organisation dedicated to supporting and promoting telecollaboration and virtual exchange in higher-level education.

**Rights.** The whole volume is published under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0); individual articles may have a different licence. Under the CC BY-NC-ND licence, the volume is freely available online for anybody to read, download, copy, and redistribute provided that the author(s), editorial team, and publisher are properly cited. Commercial use and derivative works are, however, not permitted.

**Disclaimer.** University of Groningen Press does not take any responsibility for the content of the pages written by the authors of this article. The authors have recognised that the work described was not published before, or that it was not under consideration for publication elsewhere. While the information in this article is believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither UniCollaboration nor University of Groningen Press can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions. Additionally, the publisher makes no warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. While University of Groningen Press is committed to publishing works of integrity, the words are the authors' alone.

**Trademark notice.** Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

**Copyrighted material.** Every effort has been made by the editorial team to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permission for the use of copyrighted material in this article. In the event of errors or omissions, please notify the publisher of any corrections that will need to be incorporated in future editions of this article.

Stylesheet © 2025 Journal of Virtual Exchange, all rights reserved.

Noto fonts are open source. All Noto fonts are published under the SIL Open Font License, Version 1.1. Noto is a trademark of Google Inc.

ISSN: 2647-4832 (online only)