# Flexible fidelity in virtual exchange design:
Balancing fidelity and adaptation as factors in
sustainable practices

Liz Dovrat<fnref n="1" />

## Abstract

Virtual exchange (VE) research has established several well-accepted course design models, organized around three stages: icebreakers, group activities, and collaborative projects. However, less is known about how course and task design contribute to sustaining VEs beyond implementation. This study's purpose was to examine how course and task design support the long-term maintenance of co-designed VEs by presenting a subset of findings from my doctoral research, a descriptive multiple case study on sustainability factors in co-designed VEs. Semi-structured interviews and course documentation across six long-running VEs were deductively analyzed using implementation science constructs of fidelity and adaptation, followed by an inductive analysis. Findings show that all facilitators demonstrated "flexible fidelity" (i.e., a balance between fidelity and adaptation), maintaining learning objectives and course structure while adapting tasks, schedules, and technologies to meet students' needs. Flexible fidelity supports the sustainability of VEs and highlights the relevance of implementation science as an analytical lens for VE research. Furthermore, these results suggest that VE facilitator training should explicitly teach flexible fidelity, emphasizing how the balance between defining learning objectives early and continuous task, schedule, and technological adaptation during and between iterations can strengthen VE sustainability across diverse institutional contexts.

**Keywords:** virtual exchange, sustainability, English as a Foreign Language, intercultural communication, implementation science.

<footnote n="1">1. Tel Hai College, Israel, ddlye@telhai.ac.il, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0066-984X</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Higher education institutions (HEIs) across the globe recognize the importance of equipping students with global skills (i.e., intercultural, digital, and language competences) so they can actively participate in today's interconnected world. Although many HEIs strive to offer study abroad opportunities for their students as the main method of gaining these global skills, only 5% of students worldwide at the bachelor level take advantage of these mobility programs because of numerous challenges (i.e., high costs and job and family responsibilities) (Marinoni, 2019; OECD, 2025). The concept of internationalization at home (IaH) emerged as a strategy to provide more students with international experiences without requiring them to leave their home campuses (Marinoni, 2019). One approach endorsed within IaH is virtual exchanges (VEs), online courses where students from different geographical and cultural locations learn, interact, and collaborate under faculty guidance (De Wit & Altbach, 2021; Helm & Acconcia, 2019; Rubin & Guth, 2015). Increasingly, HEI administrations, particularly those engaged in internationalization efforts, have slowly recognized VE's potential as part of internationalization and IaH strategies (Jager et al., 2021; O'Dowd, 2021).

The most mentioned general student outcomes in VE research, beyond field-specific content knowledge, are gains in students’ intercultural, digital, and language competences, the same global skills that HEIs desire to impart to their students. Moreover, the design of VEs impacts the ability to achieve these gains – a well-designed VE increases global learning outcomes while a poorly designed one can reinforce negative stereotypes and existing inequalities (Helm & Acconcia, 2019; O’Dowd, 2003; O’Dowd & Klippel, 2006). Numerous faculty training programs and workshops have been developed to support VE facilitators in designing and implementing VEs, by prioritizing learning outcomes and addressing well-known barriers through course design (e.g., Suny COIL Center and Core Collaborative International).

However, guidance on how to sustain VEs after implementation remains limited. Existing discussions are largely grounded in practitioner reflections and experience-based recommendations for navigating common barriers, such as insufficient institutional support (Calvo & Hartle, 2024; Roarty & Hagley, 2021). Additional insights emerge from recent empirical studies that analyze lessons learned from sustaining VEs, particularly within social justice-oriented frameworks (Collett et al., 2024; Slapac et al., 2023). However, systematic, evidence-based frameworks for long-term sustainability—especially as it relates to course and task design—are still scarce. At the time of writing this paper, only a few peer-reviewed empirical research articles have examined long-running (three iterations or more) VEs (Waldman et al., 2019) or faculty with experience in running long-term or multiple VEs (Martins et al., 2024); yet none have focused on the factors of sustainability.
In the VE field, the term “sustainability” is typically associated with incorporating the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into VE learning objectives and content, rather than ensuring course continuity (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). For instance, Lenkaitis (2022) integrated SDG-related topics into a six-week VE between teacher trainees in the USA, Poland, and Colombia. Therefore, a notable gap exists in the VE research literature on sustainability, specifically the ongoing maintenance of VEs over time, regardless of their content focus or geographical location.

This article describes one set of findings from a larger doctoral thesis exploring sustainability factors and practices in VEs (Dovrat, 2024). The aim is to extend knowledge about VE design beyond implementation to the sustainability phase by focusing on the impact of course design on sustainability. Constructs were taken from implementation science, a research field that emerged from public health, which examines factors affecting the uptake and maintenance of effective, research-based initiatives. While many intertwined factors and practices contribute to the sustainability of a VE (e.g., stakeholders, socio-cultural contexts, and institutional and national policies), I have chosen to limit the scope of this article to the examination of how and to what extent course design has contributed to the sustainability of a co-designed VE using one main research question and two sub-questions:

1. How and to what extent has course design contributed to the sustainability of a co-designed VE?

a. What course design models, if any, were used by the facilitators to design, develop, and maintain co-designed VEs?

b. How and to what extent has course or task adaptation occurred over the iterations of the same co-designed VE?

## 2. Literature review

### 2.1. Virtual exchange as a pedagogy, practice, and research field

The field of VE pedagogy, practice, and research has coalesced into a cohesive field over the last two decades, expanding from grassroots initiatives of individual practitioners and researchers to include top-down initiatives at HEIs, international professional and research organizations, and research projects. The most popular definition of VE was developed by the Erasmus-sponsored EVOLVE project, which defines a VE as “sustained, technology-enabled, people-to-people education programs or activities in which constructive communication and interaction takes place between individuals
or groups who are geographically separated and/or from different cultural backgrounds, with the support of educators or facilitators" (EVOLVE, 2020, para. 1).

Over the past twenty years, research on VE has primarily focused on demonstrating the effectiveness of VE as a pedagogical practice. Numerous studies—ranging from large-scale, rigorously designed qualitative and quantitative research reports led by non-profit organizations, Erasmus+ sponsored projects (Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange, EVOLVE, and EVALUATE) and the Stevens Initiative, to smaller, survey-based case studies (Baroni et al., 2019; Çiftçi & Savaş, 2018; Dooly & Vinagre, 2021; EVOLVE Project Team, 2020; Jager et al., 2021; Stevens Initiative, 2023)—consistently show that VE offers four key benefits for students: improved intercultural, language, critical digital literacy, and transversal (i.e., skills not specific to particular disciplines) competences. In short, well-structured VEs help students develop a robust global skill set, indicating VEs' potential as an effective pedagogical practice.

Since previous research has established the potential benefits of VE for students, a logical next step in the VE research agenda is to examine how to implement and sustain VE pedagogical practices effectively so that students can continue to experience these benefits while minimizing adverse outcomes, such as the reinforcement of stereotypes or the marginalization of certain groups (Helm & Acconcia, 2019; O'Dowd, 2003). Several VE researchers have begun to address questions about VE implementation by examining task and course design as a method to maximize the potential of VE to enhance global skills and prevent adverse outcomes. In terms of task design, Çiftçi and Savaş (2018) emphasized the importance of high-quality task design, recommending the use of scaffolding instructions to help students better comprehend the task requirements.

In terms of course design, several VE course design models are discussed in the VE literature. While these models differ in certain aspects, they generally follow a similar sequence of steps aimed to foster students' global skills: building trust between learners through icebreakers or team-building tasks, incorporating group discussions or tasks, and concluding with a collaborative project (Alvarez & Steiner, 2019; Jiang et al., 2014; O'Dowd & Waire, 2009). Two widely referenced models for co-designed VEs include O'Dowd and Waire's (2009) three-stage Progressive Exchange Model (information exchange, comparing and analyzing cultural practices, and working on a collaboration product) and the four-step SUNY COIL model, i.e., team building, comparative discussion, collaborative project and presentation, and reflection (SUNY COIL, n.d.). Doscher and Rubin (2022) expand these models by introducing a preliminary student preparation phase, creating a five-step model. Additionally, Alvarez and Steiner (2019) also incorporate elements such as assessment, learning outcomes, and course evaluation into their model. Despite these contributions, discussion on sustaining VE courses beyond implementation remains scarce in the above literature.
## 2.2. Sustainability concepts of adaptation and flexibility

Implementation science emerged from the struggles of healthcare disciplines, especially public health, to translate evidence-based medicine into practice, or in other words, to close the research-to-practice gap. For public health initiatives, more successful outcomes were achieved through the combination of effective implementation and effective interventions (Albers et al., 2020). An intervention may be effective in medical trials, but it can be ineffective when introduced to the broader public due to numerous challenges in implementing it in practice. Therefore, in public health, implementation science focuses on the factors that influence the adoption and continued use of proven interventions, whereas medical research primarily examines their effectiveness (Soicher et al., 2020). Historically, most studies in this field have focused on the successful design and implementation of initiatives, with limited attention paid to sustaining these initiatives after implementation (Chambers et al., 2013). Recently, however, sustainability has gained prominence as researchers recognize that even well-implemented programs can be a waste of human and monetary investments if they are not maintained over time (Nilsen & Birken, 2020).

Education, social work, and other social science disciplines outside of healthcare have begun applying the insights from implementation science to social programs, interventions, and reforms as they also encounter the challenge of bridging the gap between research and practice (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017; Soicher, 2020). Just as in medical studies, interventions in education often work in small, controlled studies but then fail when introduced into widespread practice. Educational research, like public health research, has focused mainly on the initial implementation of evidence-based initiatives rather than their long-term sustainability (Albers & Pattuwage, 2017).

Within implementation science, sustainability refers to the practices and processes that ensure an effective intervention or program continues to operate after its initial implementation. A commonly cited definition is “maintenance of programme activities” (Lennox et al., 2018, p. 12), but this definition risks perpetuating programs that no longer deliver meaningful benefits. To address this limitation, the definition should encompass an additional phase: the continuation of benefits after initial implementation and, when applicable, after funding ends (Lennox et al., 2018; Shediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998). Accordingly, I define sustainability in VEs as the ongoing maintenance of course activities that continue to deliver benefits beyond initial implementation and, if relevant, beyond the end of funding.

Lennox et al. (2018) identified 62 distinct approaches to sustainability in their systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare. This diversity reflects the emerging nature of the implementation science field and the complex, context-dependent nature of program
Lennox et al., 2018; Racine, 2006; Scheirer, 2005; Shediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998). While implementation science researchers work to understand the role of context in implementation and sustainability, Lennox et al. (2018) advises practitioners to draw on existing sustainability frameworks when “creating a sustainability method in their own setting” (p.13) to prevent reinventing the wheel while also tailoring methods to local contexts (Albers et al., 2020; Shelton et al., 2018).

For this study, I used the implementation science constructs of fidelity and adaptation to examine the impact of course design on VE sustainability (Moore et al., 2017; Scheirer, 2005; Stirman et al., 2012). Fidelity is “the extent in which the intervention was delivered as planned, representing the quality and integrity of the intervention” (Shelton et al., 2018, p. 57). In contrast, adaptation is “the degree to which an evidence-based intervention is changed to fit the setting or to improve fit to local conditions” (Shelton et al., 2018, p. 57). Within VE courses, adaptation may include changes in the course duration, content, or technology to better meet students’ needs. Research suggests that tailoring interventions to local contexts enhances long-term sustainability (Chambers et al., 2013; Nilsen & Birken, 2020; Passey et al., 2016). However, practitioners must avoid mis-adapting the intervention, which can undermine its effectiveness (Pluye et al., 2004). A tension exists between fidelity and adaptation: the need to maintain key elements of an intervention to ensure effectiveness versus the desire to adapt the intervention to ensure its acceptance in a local context. To address this tension, Shelton et al. (2018) introduced the concept of “flexible fidelity” (p. 60), which emphasizes identifying and preserving key components of the intervention while allowing other aspects to evolve to suit local circumstances (Fixsen et al., 2005).

3. Research design

**3.1. Methods**

This research, grounded in pragmatism, employed a descriptive multiple-case study methodology. A pragmatic approach to research investigates what works within the real world by selecting the research methodology and method best suited to answering the research question (Cohen et al., 2013). No rigid research method or guidelines exist within pragmatism; instead, researchers are expected to justify the choices they make in their research (Morgan, 2014). I selected a case study methodology for its practical versatility; it does not adhere to a fixed philosophical or epistemological
instance, but instead accommodates a researcher's position to answer complex, real-world research problems (Harrison et al., 2017).

This study embodies several commonly cited characteristics of case study research. First and foremost, a case study is an in-depth, holistic examination of a bounded yet complex phenomenon. VEs fit this description as they represent a defined, contemporary pedagogical phenomenon in the real world—each delivered as an academic course during a specific academic period in the year—yet remain deeply intertwined with their local contexts. Second, scholars recommend case studies for addressing “how” or “why” research questions, particularly when the researcher has little or no control over behavioral events and the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon (Yin, 2009). The research questions ask not only how course design impacts the sustainability of VEs, but also how it develops throughout the iterations. Although I was an active facilitator in one of the cases, I had no control over the phenomenon under study, except for my own personal contribution to the VE I facilitated. Finally, most case study experts emphasize the importance of carefully planning and framing the research questions, as well as accurately recording the research process in real-time, to enhance the credibility and internal validity of the findings (Merriam, 1998; Swanborn, 2010; Yin, 2009). Before collecting data, I conducted a literature review on sustainability and selected implementation science constructs to guide my data analysis. Throughout my data collection and analysis, I created an extensive audit trail to document my research process (Bazeley, 2020).

## 3.2. Cases

I identified *typical or representative cases* of the phenomenon to examine, those reflecting the average co-designed VE in higher education (Merriam, 1998; Swanborn, 2010). The inclusion criteria were co-designed VEs in HE that had run for at least three consecutive iterations and were still active at the time of data collection. Factors such as course content, the number of students or partners, and country were not part of the selection criteria, as the focus was on co-designed VEs rather than subject matter or location.

Six potential cases were identified through a combination of key informant, purposive, and networking sampling techniques (Swanborn, 2010). These cases were subsequently classified as either primary or secondary (see Appendix), based on the available data sources. More data sources were accessible for the primary cases, including facilitator interviews, course syllabi, design documents, and course and institutional websites. In contrast, the data sources for the secondary cases were limited to facilitator interviews supplemented by institutional website content.
For the primary cases, I selected the VE I facilitated and another VE from the same Erasmus+, funded project, as both met the study's inclusion criteria. When data collection began in 2022, these two courses had been running continuously as VEs since 2018. All interviews were conducted via Zoom at times convenient for the facilitators, following written and verbal consent. The sessions were recorded using Zoom's recording feature for data accuracy. In total, I interviewed 12 VE facilitators: nine from PC1—the VE I facilitated, which included eight partner institutions across five countries— and three from PC2, which involved three partner institutions in three countries.

Four secondary cases were located through purposive and networking sampling. All interviews were conducted and recorded via Zoom, with informed consent. These four globally distributed cases resulted in a total of nine interviews: SC1, SC3, and SC4 each involved two partner institutions, while SC2 included three partner institutions.

### 3.3. Data collection

The main data collection method in this study consisted of one-hour, individual semi-structured interviews with facilitators of long-running, co-designed VEs. The two primary cases included additional data sources of course syllabi, course tasks, and the Erasmus+ project documentation (see Table 1).

<table><caption>Table 1. Data collection methods</caption><thead><tr><td>Data Source</td><td>Reason for using</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Interviews with VE facilitators involved in co-designed VE</td><td>To explore the perceived contribution of course design to sustainability</td></tr><tr><td>Documentation analysis of course tasks from course websites</td><td>To document changes and adaptations made to tasks over time and to assess the degree of fidelity to the original VE purpose</td></tr><tr><td>Erasmus+ Project Documentation</td><td>To understand the development process of the primary cases</td></tr><tr><td>Documentation analysis of course syllabi from each iteration</td><td>To compare the course changes made in each iteration for possible adaptation or fidelity of the VE</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.4. Data analysis

I postponed the data analysis until all data had been collected to minimize the potential influence of earlier interviews on my perspective of later ones (Seidman, 2013). After completing data collection, I worked on a case-by-case basis before moving to cross-case analysis. First, I created a profile of
each participant after the first reading of each interview to summarize first impressions, familiarize
myself with each interview, and play with the data before starting on detailed coding within each
case (Bazeley, 2020). Next, I conducted a deductive analysis of interview transcripts (across primary
and secondary cases) and course documentation (from primary cases), applying implementation
science constructs—specifically fidelity and adaptation—to identify how each VE was maintained or
modified over time. This deductive data analysis method follows the recommendations of several
authors to utilize previous literature and theory to create initial codes that link the data to the
research questions and existing knowledge within the field (Bazeley, 2020; Ryan & Bernard, 2003;
Yin, 1994). Then, I reviewed each case again using an inductive thematic analysis to identify
additional findings that deductive analysis had not revealed, such as the subcategories of schedule
changes, task adjustments, and the integration of new technology within the adaptation category.
This combined use of deductive and inductive approaches minimized the risk of exemplification of
my theoretical assumptions (Ashwin, 2012).

After completing the profile writing and deductive and inductive data analysis of an individual case, I wrote a summary of all the themes and factors from a case before moving to the next one. I then compared the themes and factors from each case with one another to identify commonalities. When necessary, I returned to the original data to confirm or refine my interpretations.

This research received ethical approval from the Lancaster University Faculty of Arts and Social
Science and Management School Ethics Committee. To safeguard the facilitators' confidentiality to
the best of my ability, I assigned a pseudonym to each one, and their HEIs and only relevant
characteristics relevant to this study were reported. Geographic details were restricted to country
and general area type (i.e., rural, urban), excluding specific locations within each country.

To ensure the trustworthiness of this research, I used several methods. The triangulation of multiple
data sources and multiple cases, my explicit research positionality (as an insider for one primary
case who interviewed her fellow facilitators and the VE field in general yet an outsider for the rest
of the cases) and my extensive audit trail (e.g., records of dates and times of interviews, dated
research notes, screenshots of initial and final codes) increased the internal validity and reliability
of my study. The use of thick, detailed descriptions and a multiple case approach increased the
findings' transferability, supporting readers in drawing connections to their own contexts and
considering how the insights might be adapted.
# 4. Results

The findings of this study are organized around the two implementation science constructs—fidelity and adaptation—to illustrate how balancing these elements supports VE sustainability.

## 4.1. Fidelity

Each VE had elements that remained consistent throughout the iterations, which seemed to anchor the course and the facilitators. The most notable element is the learning objectives (see Table 2), as described by all facilitators in their interviews and, for the primary cases, in the course syllabi. All cases preserved clearly defined learning objective(s) from the outset that aligned with the facilitators’ pedagogical beliefs regarding their students’ learning needs and therefore guided their course design. In all cases except SC2, all the facilitators described having at least one shared learning objective. In SC1 and SC2, some of the individual facilitators had separate but complementary learning objectives for their home students. For example, both Aaron and Gloria from the SC1 mentioned that Aaron defined the main learning objective from the start as developing online language tasks for their TEFL VE for pre-service teachers. Gloria described how Aaron asked her to partner with him by saying, “Okay, let’s have this course together. Our students [pre-service TEFL teachers] will be working on task sequences that will be developing tasks.” Aaron echoed this by stating, “from my perspective, they [TEFL pre-service teachers] need to learn how to design tasks for these [digital/virtual] environments for students.” Gloria also aimed to provide her students the opportunity to practice English, as they remained concerned about their language proficiency despite being enrolled in a TEFL master’s program, especially in comparison to Aaron’s students.
<table><caption>Table 2. Learning objectives of the cases</caption><thead><tr><th>Case</th><th>Individual or Shared Learning Objective</th><th>Learning Objective</th><th>Data Source</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PC1</td><td>Shared</td><td>To enhance students' practical language skills for today's global professional and academic environment</td><td>Course Syllabi</td></tr><tr><td>PC2</td><td>Shared</td><td>The course is designed to help you feel comfortable seeing yourself as a potential entrepreneur.<br>Understand what entrepreneurs do.<br>Be able to enter into an ideation process and come up with solutions to real problems.<br>Work in a virtual team<br>Pitch an idea</td><td>Course Syllabi</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">SC1</td><td>Shared</td><td>To have students develop online language learning tasks</td><td rowspan="3">Interviews</td></tr><tr><td>Aaron</td><td>From my perspective, they need to learn how to design tasks for these environments [digital/virtual] for students</td></tr><tr><td>Gloria</td><td>English language practice to gain language competence</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">SC2</td><td>Theresa</td><td>To practice IC and learn how non-American students live, interact, and behave</td><td rowspan="3">Interviews</td></tr><tr><td>Tiffany</td><td>Improving the English language</td></tr><tr><td>Charles</td><td>To have an international experience</td></tr><tr><td>SC3</td><td>Shared</td><td>To provide students an authentic opportunity to practice their target language (Italian or English) and "truly collaborate with someone who lives a very different experience from yours" (Charlotte)</td><td>Interviews</td></tr><tr><td>SC4</td><td>Shared</td><td>For students to gain linguistically and culturally through peer interaction</td><td>Interviews</td></tr></tbody></table>

Furthermore, four cases (PC2, SC1, SC2, SC3) retained an identical or similar course structure across all iterations. While PC1 and SC4 underwent the most substantial structural modifications, elements of their original course design remained intact. For PC1, the unit topics remained consistent, although their sequence changed to promote team building. Similarly, SC4 preserved its foundational concept of bilingual conversations, even as it was lengthened and a collaborative project was added. Only one case, SC1, consciously chose to design their VE according to a research-backed VE course design model, O'Dowd and Waire's (2009) three-stage Progressive Exchange Model. Aaron from SC1 stated, "this [course design model] has been established by researchers for quite a while now, Robert O'Dowd and others... there's this three step to exchanges and this basically what we work with as well."
However, it is noteworthy to mention that the course design in the rest of the cases either initially contained the basic three steps recommended in VE course design (team building tasks, group tasks, and a final collaborative task) from inception (PC2, SC2, SC3) or evolved to align with this sequence of steps (PC1 and PC4) (see Table 3) without explicit knowledge of or training in VE course design models. Table 4 provides an analysis of quotes from two facilitators, Anna (PC2) and Charles (SC2), that highlight how their descriptions of their VE course design echo the three recommended steps for VE course design without reference to these established models.

<table><caption>Table 3. Course design of cases</caption><thead><tr><th>Case</th><th>Iteration(s)</th><th>Team Building Task</th><th>Group Task</th><th>Final Collaboration</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">PC1: English for International Purposes (EPIC)</td><td>Initial iteration</td><td>1 short asynchronous activity</td><td>None</td><td>Asynchronous academic presentation</td></tr><tr><td>Final iteration included in the study</td><td>2 short asynchronous activities<br>1 synchronous activity</td><td>Group interview</td><td>Synchronous academic presentation</td></tr><tr><td>PC2: Entrepreneurship</td><td>All</td><td>1 asynchronous activity</td><td>Ideation task</td><td>Product Pitch</td></tr><tr><td>SC1: TEFL</td><td>All</td><td>1 synchronous task</td><td>Compare and analyze how culture impacts task design</td><td>Design a digital task sequence</td></tr><tr><td>SC2: Culture</td><td>All</td><td>1 synchronous discussion - ice breakers</td><td>3 synchronous discussions -cultural questions</td><td>Collaborative video</td></tr><tr><td>SC3: Immigration</td><td>All</td><td>Asynchronous ice breakers - video and email</td><td>Comparison and analysis synchronous activities</td><td>Peer-edited essay</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">SC4: Intermediate Italian/English</td><td>First iteration</td><td>1 synchronous discussion</td><td>3 synchronous discussions</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Final iteration included in the study</td><td>1 synchronous discussion</td><td>3 synchronous discussions</td><td>Collaborative project</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 4. Course design quotes</caption><thead><tr><td>Three common steps in VE course design</td><td>Anna PC2 Quote</td><td>Charles SC2 Quote</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ice breaker/ Team building tasks</td><td>So they first have a few days to meet as a team and to work on team building a little bit. So they have a team building assignment, like a team collage and work on their, you know, team vision, etc...</td><td>the first one is more to know each other. We have a kind of.... a list of questions, suggested questions, for them talk about and know each other</td></tr><tr><td>Group tasks or discussions</td><td>And then they have a few days to define a problem within this big challenge.... And then another week to to develop this idea...</td><td>the two other meetings are more specific about cultural questions...</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborative project</td><td>...then they have another few days to wrap it up in some kind of, you know, a business model, and, you know, work on the on the impact, the skill, etc..</td><td>...And in the end of the three, they shall prepare a video where they will present similarities and differences that they discovered between America and Brazilian culture. This video, ummm need to have the participation of all the members of the group.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.2. Adaptation

All the cases demonstrated multiple types of course design adaptations, with an emphasis on flexibility in schedule and task design. Student feedback and facilitator experience informed most of the adaptations, with the aim of easing course logistics and workload for students and facilitators while ensuring that key learning objectives remained. Table 5 outlines the types of adaptations observed across the cases with examples. The most common ones were scheduling adjustments, such as reordering units, extending the VE duration, or providing flexibility with due dates. For example, PC1 reordered the units in spring 2022 to employ new synchronous group tasks for team building, moving a synchronous group task with the least amount of preparation before a more complicated one to provide students more time to build a working relationship through a lower-stakes synchronous interaction. PC2 facilitators lengthened the hackathon from a three-day weekend to a seven-day workweek after two iterations. The asynchronous format of the activities, combined with misaligned religious observances across the countries (Israel on Saturdays, France and the UK on Sundays) created challenges for students to collaborate within a three-day timeframe. Lengthening the hackathon eased communication. Tiffany and Theresa from SC2 mentioned adjusting due dates for tasks to overcome difficulties in aligning the partner HEIs' academic schedules.
Another common adaptation was task modification, which included developing new tasks to achieve the same learning objectives, refining instructions, incorporating new topics into existing tasks, and updating source materials. For instance, the SC1 facilitators added more tasks on cultural exchange and integrated more reflective tasks throughout the VE to help students better understand their collaborative processes, particularly when challenges arose. They also tailored the tasks to each iteration's circumstances and student makeup. Regarding improving instructions, Ashley from SC4 described the never-ending process of crafting group discussion questions by noting how she constantly reflected on "How I formulate the question in a way that they can feel free to say whatever they want, but they are also invited to go a little bit deeper, and this is so hard. I don't have this solution."

<table><caption>Table 5. Task adaptation per case</caption><thead><tr><th>Adaptation category</th><th>Sub-category</th><th>Individual Cases</th><th>Example</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Schedule changes</td><td>Lengthen</td><td>PC2</td><td rowspan="3">Adding more days to the VE to provide students with more time to collaborate</td></tr><tr><td>Order of units/tasks</td><td>PC1</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility with due dates</td><td>SC1, SC2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Task adjustments</td><td>New tasks</td><td>PC1, SC1, SC4</td><td rowspan="2">Creating new tasks to encourage team-building</td></tr><tr><td>Improved instructions</td><td>PC1, SC1, SC2, SC4</td></tr><tr><td>New topics for tasks</td><td>PC2, SC3, SC4</td><td rowspan="2">Updating topics to reflect current events</td></tr><tr><td>Updating sources</td><td>PC2, SC3</td></tr><tr><td>New technology</td><td></td><td>PC1, PC2, SC1, SC4</td><td>Moving from asynchronous written communication (e.g., forums) to synchronous oral communication (e.g., videoconferencing)</td></tr></tbody></table>

The facilitators in PC2 and SC3 adapted the overall topic of their VE to reflect current events, with PC2 shifting from solving problems for cities to addressing health crises in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and SC3 moving from general immigration issues to the effects of the Ukrainian war on immigration in 2022. Moreover, the SC3 facilitators continually updated their journalistic sources annually to reflect current events, as Charlotte explained: "Generally, we revamp the journalistic sources every year."
A final adaptation was a willingness to experiment with new technology tools, such as videoconferencing, to better serve the learning objectives. In PC1, smaller graded individual and asynchronous group tasks gradually evolved into larger graded synchronous group ones due to the emergence of reliable synchronous communication tools. Gloria from SC1 stated, “Many changes reflect the changes in the technology in the technology landscape ... We’ve been changing platforms, as well, depending on what was needed.” For example, they replaced a website creation tool with a free LMS for students to showcase their final collaboration, a digital task sequence. Gloria viewed the LMS as a more practical option, given its relevance to the students’ future professional contexts.

## 5. Discussion

The main research question of this study was to examine how and to what extent course design has contributed to the sustainability of a co-designed VE. The first research sub-question examined which, if any, course design models were used to design, develop, or maintain co-designed VEs. Only SC1 mentioned using a specific VE course design model in their design process. The course design in the rest of the cases slowly evolved through the facilitators’ trial and error, without professional training, to include common steps in VE course design models (see Table 5), such as team building activities, group tasks, and collaborative tasks. Several facilitators also incorporated a preparation step, consistent with Doscher and Rubin’s (2022) recommendations. Several adaptations found across the cases, such as revising task design and integrating new technology, moved the cases’ course structures closer to the established VE models by adding more team-building tasks, collaborative tasks, or improving synchronous and asynchronous communication. This finding contributes to the accumulating evidence validating VE models found in the literature, particularly those of O’Dowd and Waire (2009) and Doscher and Rubin (2022).

The second research sub-question asked to what degree course or task adaptation occurred across the iterations of the same co-designed VE. Every case demonstrated “flexible fidelity”, the balance between preserving key course components while adjusting to suit local and historical contexts (Shelton et al., 2018). The most significant adaptations occurred in course schedules and task designs (see Table 5), driven by feedback and experience, while the primary learning objectives and overall course structure remained consistent. Although not using the same terminology, Dooly and Sadler (2020) described experiencing flexible fidelity in their long-term VE, where their learning objectives remained the same while their task design became increasingly scaffolded over time. The shift towards greater scaffolding and explicit task instructions observed in most cases aligns with current recommendations for VE task design: high-quality, scaffolded tasks that can be adapted to meet
students' immediate needs (Çiftçi & Savaş, 2018; Waldman et al., 2019). Moreover, several cases adopted new technology that better aligned with the learning objectives, echoing the experiences of long-term VEs described in the literature (Oswal et al., 2021; Stornaiuolo, 2016). Overall, the practice of flexible fidelity displayed by all cases appears to play a key role in sustaining these VEs. This finding is consistent with implementation science literature, which suggests that tailoring interventions (such as VEs) to local contexts enhances long-term sustainability (Chambers et al., 2013).

In summary, course design appears to play a significant role in sustaining co-designed VEs through the adoption, intended or not, of established VE course design models and flexible fidelity. The emergence of three common steps in course design across all cases (i.e., team building, group tasks, and a final collaborative task) appears to reinforce the value of models that include these steps. However, this pattern might reflect the exemplification of theory within the VE field, where researchers apply theoretical frameworks and highlight outcomes that confirm them (Ashwin, 2012). This interpretation is plausible given that all the cases included at least one facilitator or institution engaged in the IaH/VE field during their facilitation of the VEs' understudy, whether through research, international projects, or an institutional globalization/internationalization office dedicated to IaH. However, I claim that these findings provide additional evidence that validates these models, not exemplifies them, since most of the facilitators mentioned incorporating more team building tasks based on their experiences in facilitating the VEs, not from information gained from professional training or support, and felt the quality of the students' experience improved. The facilitators demonstrated flexible fidelity by upholding their original learning objectives and core course structure while adjusting course schedules, tasks, and technologies in response to informal feedback, enabling the VEs to address students' needs better.

**6. Conclusion**

This article seeks to contribute to the growing body of VE literature by examining the role of course design in sustaining co-designed VEs, addressing a notable gap in empirical research. This study found that all the cases either initially followed recommended VE course design models or evolved to do so, even though many of the facilitators had no prior knowledge of these models. This finding provides additional empirical support for the validity of existing VE design models in achieving desired learning outcomes and promoting VE sustainability.
Furthermore, all the cases displayed flexible fidelity, the balance between the fidelity of learning objectives, the adaptation of course tasks and schedules, and the adoption of new technology. This finding provides evidence to support recommendations in the literature for developing explicit learning objectives as a guide throughout iterations while adapting tasks, schedules, and technologies to address students' needs better.

This study has several implications for VE training and design. Firstly, this study raises awareness within the VE community about the issue of VE course sustainability and the impact of course design on this sustainability. This study's findings can be incorporated into VE trainings by providing research evidence of the importance of VE course design models for successful VE implementation and sustainability. Additionally, the phrase "flexible fidelity" used in this study provides clear language to describe the balancing act that facilitators must perform between clarifying learning objectives early in the design process and adapting course schedules, tasks, and technologies throughout implementation.

Further research is needed to validate and expand on the findings of this study. Additional research can examine whether facilitator training on VE course design models eases the implementation and sustainability phases, as most facilitators in this study did not consciously apply these models but rather stumbled upon them through experience. Future studies might examine course documentation (VE or other course types) across multiple iterations, applying the concept of flexible fidelity and other implementation science constructs to gain deeper insights into the design process and assess the validity of existing design models.

## 7. Limitations

This study faced several limitations. The primary limitation of this research lies in its dependence on interviews with facilitators. A critical component of case study research is the use of multiple perspectives taken from diverse sources on the phenomenon under study. While facilitators offered multiple perspectives on the same phenomenon (i.e., their shared VE) due to diverse local contexts, their views also showed similarities because each was personally responsible for implementing and running a VE. Due to time constraints, I was not able to conduct member checks. Moreover, although I gathered various documents for triangulation (course syllabi, tasks, internationalization policies), only the two primary cases provided complete syllabi and task descriptions. This limited the degree of triangulation available for findings related to course design.
## 8. Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my doctoral supervisor, Professor Don Passey, for his support and guidance throughout this research.

## 9. References

Albers, B., & Pattuwage, L. (2017). *Implementation in education: Findings from a scoping review* (Tech. rep.). Evidence for Learning. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29187.40483

Albers, B., Shlonsky, A., & Mildon, R. (2020). En route to implementation science 3.0. In B. Albers, A. Shlonsky, & R. Mildon (Eds.), *Implementation Science 3.0* (pp. 1–38). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03874-8_1

Alvarez, L., & Steiner, M. (2019). Collaborative online international learning: From a systematic review of literature about barriers to an implementation plan. In *ASEM Education in a Digital World: Bridging the Continents-Connecting the People* (pp. 18–29).
https://sonar.ch/global/documents/312717

Ashwin, P. (2012). How often are theories developed through empirical research into higher education? *Studies in Higher Education, 37*(8), 941–955.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.557426

Baroni, A., Dooly, M., García, P. G., Guth, S., Hauck, M., Helm, F., Lewis, T., Mueller-Hartmann, A., O'Dowd, R., & Rienties, B. (2019). *Evaluating the impact of virtual exchange on initial teacher education: A European policy experiment*. Research-publishing.net.
https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.29.9782490057337

Bazeley, P. (2020). *Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies*. Sage.

Calvo, L. C. S., & Hartle, L. (2024). Teacher education in a virtual exchange between Brazil and the U.S.: Balancing preservice teachers’ guidance and affording autonomy. *Journal of Virtual Exchange, 7*(SI-IVEC2023), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.21827/jve.7.41391

Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., & Stange, K. C. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. *Implementation science, 8*(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-117
Çiftçi, E. Y., & Savaş, P. (2018). The role of telecollaboration in language and intercultural learning: A synthesis of studies published between 2010 and 2015. *ReCALL, 30*(3), 278–298.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000313

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). *Research methods in education* (7th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720967

Collett, K., Slapac, A., Coppersmith, S. A., & Cheng, J. (2024). Towards a “response-able pedagogy” in teacher development through collaborative online international learning (COIL): An American-South African partnership. In A. Slapac & C. A. Huertas Abril (Eds.), *Encouraging Transnational Learning Through Virtual Exchange in Global Teacher Education* (pp. 79–107). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7813-4.ch004

De Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future. *Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5*(1), 28–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898

Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2020). If you don't improve, what's the point? Investigating the impact of a flipped online exchange in teacher education. *ReCALL, 32*(1), 4–24.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000107

Dooly, M., & Vinagre, M. (2021). Research into practice: Virtual exchange in language teaching and learning. *Language Teaching, 1–15*. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000069

Doscher, S., & Rubin, J. (2022). Introduction to what instructors and support staff need to know about COIL Virtual Exchange. In J. Rubin & S. Guth (Eds.), *The Guide to COIL Virtual Exchange: Implementing, Growing, and Sustaining Collaborative Online International Learning* (pp. 187–199).
Stylus. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447832

Dovrat, L. (2024). *A descriptive multiple case study of the factors and practices of sustainability in co-designed virtual exchanges* [Doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University]. Lancaster EPrints.
https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/223421

EVOLVE. (2020). *What is virtual exchange?* https://evolve-erasmus.eu/about-evolve/what-is-virtual-exchange/

EVOLVE Project Team. (2020). *The Impact of Virtual Exchange on Student Learning in Higher Education: EVOLVE Project Report*. http://hdl.handle.net/11370/d69d9923-8a9c-4b37-91c6-326ebbd14f17
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., Wallace, F., Burns, B., Carter, W., Paulson, R., Schoenwald, S., & Barwick, M. (2005). *Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature*.

Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. *Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 18*(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.1.2655

Helm, F., & Acconcia, G. (2019). Interculturality and language in Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange. *European Journal of Language Policy, 11*(2), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2019.13

Jager, S., Peng, H., Alba Duran, J., & Oggel, G. (2021). *Virtual exchange as innovative practice across Europe: Awareness and use in higher education: EVOLVE Project Monitoring Study 2020*. European Commission / EVOLVE Project.

Jiang, S., Wang, H., & Tschudi, S. (2014). Intercultural learning on the web: Reflections on practice. In D. M. Chun (Ed.), *Cultura-inspired intercultural exchanges: Focus on Asian and Pacific languages* (pp. 121–137). University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Lenkaitis, C. A. (2022). Integrating the United Nations’ sustainable development goals: Developing content for virtual exchanges. *Language Learning & Technology, 26*(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10125/73470

Lennox, L., Maher, L., & Reed, J. (2018). Navigating the sustainability landscape: A systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare. *Implementation Science, 13*.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A546082044/AONE?u=unilanc&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=dcb2a4b4

Marinoni, G. (2019). *Internationalization of higher education: An evolving landscape, locally and globally: IAU 5th global survey*. International Association of Universities. https://www.iauaiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau_5th_global survey_executive_summary.pdf

Martins, C. E., Martins, S. J., & Risner, M. E. (2024). Beyond borders: Building capacity and enhancing institutional resources for US-Mexico virtual exchange initiatives. *Journal of Virtual Exchange, 7*, 18–37. https://doi.org/10.21827/jve.7.41464

Merriam, S. B. (1998). *Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from "Case study research in education"*. Jossey-Bass.

Moore, J. E., Mascarenhas, A., Bain, J., & Straus, S. E. (2017). Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. *Implementation Science, 12*.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A509119401/AONE?u=unilanc&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=0117a83c

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. *Qualitative Inquiry*, 20(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733

Nilsen, P., & Birken, S. A. (2020). *Handbook on Implementation Science*. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975995

O'Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the "other side": Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. *Language Learning & Technology*, 7(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/25202

O'Dowd, R. (2021). Virtual exchange: Moving forward into the next decade. *Computer Assisted Language Learning*, 34(3), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1902201

O'Dowd, R., & Klippel, F. (2006). *Telecollaboration and the development of intercultural communicative competence*. Langenscheidt.

O'Dowd, R., & Waire, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. *Computer Assisted Language Learning*, 22(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220902778369

OECD. (2025). *What are the key trends in international student mobility?* Education Indicators in Focus, No.88. https://doi.org/10.1787/2a423a76-en

Oswal, S. K., Palmer, Z. B., & Koris, R. (2021). Designing virtual team projects with accessibility in mind: An illustrative example of cross-cultural student collaboration. *Journal of Virtual Exchange*, 4, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.21827/jve.4.37192

Passey, D., Laferrière, T., Ahmad, M. Y.A., Bhowmik, M., Gross, D., Price, J., Resta, P., & Shonfeld, M. (2016). Educational digital technologies in developing countries challenge third party providers. *Journal of Educational Technology & Society*, 19(3), 121–133.

Pluye, P., Potvin, L., Denis, J.L., & Pelletier, J. (2004). Program sustainability: Focus on organizational routines. *Health Promotion International*, 19(4), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dah411

Racine, D. P. (2006). Reliable effectiveness: A theory on sustaining and replicating worthwhile innovations. *Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research*, 33(3), 356–387.

Roarty, A., & Hagley, E. (2021). Analysis of using virtual exchange to develop intercultural understanding in EFL students. *TESL-EJ*, 25(3). https://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej99/a14.pdf
Rubin, J., & Guth, S. (2015). Collaborative online international learning: An emerging format for internationalizing curricula. In A. S. Moore & S. Simon (Eds.), *Globally networked teaching in the humanities* (pp. 27–39). Routledge.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. *Field Methods*, 15(1), 85–109.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x02239569

Scheirer, M. A. (2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. *American Journal of Evaluation*, 26(3), 320–347.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005278752

Seidman, I. (2013). *Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences*. Teachers College Press.

Shediac-Rizkallah, M. C., & Bone, L. R. (1998). Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. *Health Education Research*, 13(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/13.1.87

Shelton, R. C., Cooper, B. R., & Stirman, S. W. (2018). The sustainability of evidence-based interventions and practices in public health and health care. *Annual Review of Public Health*, 39(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014731

Slapac, A., Collett, K., Wessels, F. J., Gamiet, G., & Knudsmoen, H. (2023). Social justice pedagogy and Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL): Across three partner higher education institutions. In P. Escudeiro, N. Escudeiro, & O. Bernardes (Eds.), *Handbook of research on implementing inclusive educational models and technologies for equity and diversity* (pp. 252–272). IGI Global.

Soicher, R., Becker-Blease, K., & Bostwick, K. (2020). Adapting implementation science for higher education research: The systematic study of implementing evidence-based practices in college classrooms. *Cognitive Research Principles and Implications, 5*. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00255-0

Soicher, R. N. (2020). *Implementation Science in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Utility Value Intervention in General Psychology Courses*
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/j3860f30t

Stevens Initiative. (2023). *2023 Virtual Exchange Impact and Learning Report*.
https://www.stevensinitiative.org/resource/2023-virtual-exchange-impact-and-learning-report/
Stirman, S. W., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. *Implementation Science, 7*(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-17

Stornaiuolo, A. (2016). Teaching in global collaborations: Navigating challenging conversations through cosmopolitan activity. *Teaching and Teacher Education, 59*, 503-513.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.001

SUNY COIL. (n.d.). *What is COIL?* Retrieved July 27, 2025, from
https://online.suny.edu/introtocoil/suny-coil-what-is/

Swanborn, P. (2010). *Case study research: What, why and how?* Sage Publications.

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). *Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development* (A/RES/70/1). United Nations. https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/70/1

Waldman, T., Harel, E., & Schwab, G. (2019). Extended telecollaboration practice in teacher education: Towards pluricultural and plurilingual proficiency. *European Journal of Language Policy, 11*(2), 167–185.

Yin, R. K. (1994). *Case study research: Design and methods* (2nd ed.). Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2009). *Case study research: Design and methods* (4th ed.). Sage.
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

Special issue IVEC 2024

Edited by Alina Slapac and Alex Masardo

Publication date: 2025/12/24

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)
Appendix

<table><caption>Table 6:</caption><caption>Case details</caption><thead><tr><th>Case Pseudonym and Topic</th><th>Number of Iterations at Time of Data Collection (Summer 2022)</th><th>Course Type</th><th>Country and HEI Pseudonyms</th><th>VE Facilitator's Pseudonyms</th><th>HEI Size and Type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Primary Case 1 (PC1)<br>English for International Purposes (EPIC)</td><td rowspan="6">10</td><td>Embedded in a CEFR B2-level English Course</td><td>PC1 Israel A</td><td>Ariella<br>Daniella</td><td>Mid-size rural public college</td></tr><tr><td>Embedded in a CEFR B2-level English Course</td><td>PC1 Israel B</td><td>Lior<br>David</td><td>Mid-size rural teacher training college</td></tr><tr><td>Embedded in a CEFR B2-level English Course</td><td>PC1 Israel C</td><td>Michal</td><td>Mid-urban public college</td></tr><tr><td>Elective course for EFL degree students</td><td>PC1 Italy</td><td>Cleo</td><td>Large private Catholic university – multiple campuses</td></tr><tr><td>Mandatory course, part of tourism track</td><td>PC1 Poland</td><td>Brad</td><td>Large urban public university</td></tr><tr><td>Embedded in an elective English discussion course</td><td>PC1 Japan</td><td>Stacy</td><td>Large urban private university</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Embedded in a mandatory English course</td><td>PC1 Brazil</td><td>Cathy</td><td>Small public technical college, part of a large technical college system (46 campuses)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Primary Case 2 (PC2)<br>Entrepreneurship</td><td rowspan="3">6</td><td>Embedded in one of the facilitator's courses</td><td>PC1 Israel C</td><td>Anna</td><td>Mid-urban public college</td></tr><tr><td>Mandatory, stand-alone course in the business management MA program</td><td>PC4 France</td><td>Karen</td><td>Small graduate management school within a large public university – multiple campuses</td></tr><tr><td>Embedded in the corporate responsibility and ethics course</td><td>PC4 UK</td><td>Melissa</td><td>Large urban public university</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary Case 1 (SC1)</td><td>11</td><td>Embedded in the first semester of a seminar in TEFL</td><td>SC1 Poland</td><td>Poland</td><td>medium-sized regional public university</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Teaching English as a Foreign Language</td><td></td><td>TELF course for undergraduates</td><td>SC1 Germany</td><td>Aaron</td><td>medium-sized public university of education in a minor urban area</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Secondary Case 2 (SC2) Culture</td><td rowspan="3">6</td><td>Embedded in the "Global Viewpoints" course, a mandatory course for the global certificate</td><td>SC2 USA</td><td>Theresa</td><td>large urban public university</td></tr><tr><td>Credit-bearing elective course on environmental management</td><td>PC1/SC2 Brazil</td><td>Tiffany</td><td rowspan="2">small public technical colleges in minor urban areas, part of a larger chain of technical colleges (Brazil Technical College System - BTCS)</td></tr><tr><td>Embedded in a mandatory organization behavior or general administration course</td><td>SC2 Brazil</td><td>Charles</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Secondary Case 3 (SC3) Immigration</td><td rowspan="2">8</td><td>Advanced Italian elective course</td><td>SC3/4 USA</td><td>Charlette</td><td>Large urban private Catholic university</td></tr><tr><td>Elective course for EFL degree students</td><td>PC1-SC3/4 Italy</td><td>Sandy</td><td>Large private Catholic university - multiple campuses</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Secondary Case (SC4) Intermediate Italian/English</td><td rowspan="2">7</td><td>Intermediate Italian elective course</td><td>SC3/4 USA</td><td>Ashely</td><td>Large urban private Catholic university</td></tr><tr><td>Elective course for EFL degree students</td><td>PC1-SC3/4 Italy</td><td>Jane</td><td>Large private Catholic university - multiple campuses</td></tr></table>