Much attention has been paid recently to the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in learning (e.g., Daniel, 1995; Ellsworth, 1995; Grint, 1992; Harasim et al., 1995; Hesketh, Gosper, Andrews, & Sabaz, 1996; Paulsen, 1995b; Szabo, 1995). And with the integration of ICTs alongside the inclination towards internationalization, universities began to adopt new technology-enhanced pedagogies and approaches for international experiential learning, most notably, collaborative online international learning (COIL).

In the literature, COIL is often discussed as a pedagogy, an approach, or an instructional method depending on the author. De Castro et al. (2018), Magnier-Watanabe et al. (2017), Marcillo-Gomez and Desilus (2016), to mention but few, define COIL as a pedagogy for international experiential learning – as a way to use digital technology to provide experiential international learning without travel abroad (De Castro et al., 2018; Marcillo-Gomez & Desilus, 2016; Soria & Troisi, 2014). Closely, the Global Learning Conference (2017, as cited in Esche, 2008) defines it as “any pedagogical activities that use technology to link classroom and students in geographically distant locations through coursework. Other definition, in spite of resemblance, foreground the act of collaboration in COIL –that students and instructors from at least two different linguacultural backgrounds collaborate virtually on a common project for four or more weeks (Kubi, 2020). This collaboration, since it employs CMC channels, can be carried out through synchronous or asynchronous communication (Garrison, 2011).

According to Saqr and Tedre (2018), COIL [...] is growing in popularity due to [its] convenience and cost-effectiveness. Moore and Simon (2015), on the other hand, assert that COIL garnered initial institutional support because it was developed by faculty in the humanities with limited experience of technology. COIL allowed these institutions to overcome boundaries in the educational community (Saqr & Tedre, 2018) and use simple digital tools and applications to customize how they wished to internationalize their courses (Labi, 2011). What renders COIL distinct from earlier international distance learning initiatives is that the latter, unlike COIL, “relied largely on reproducing established institutionally bound courses in digital environments, lacked cultural sensitivity, and disregarded the need for pedagogical innovation to re-envision learning in a globally networked world (Stark-Meyerring, 2010, p.127).

Since the formation of The State University of New York (SUNY) COIL Center in 2016, the use ICTs to promote international learning experience for students lacking the wherewithal to participate in academic mobility programs has continued to grow in higher education around the world (Esche, 2018). According to Toner (2018), the SUNY COIL Center has assisted in facilitating about 90 teaching partnerships between faculty from 27 universities in New York and 35 international higher education institutions, engaging about 3000 students in online international collaboration. The center, and indeed, COIL, achieves this through emphasizing on student-student and student-teacher engagement (de Wit, 2013, as cited in Moore & Simon, 2015) and focusing on:

Interactive shared coursework, emphasizing experiential learning [,] and giving collaborating students a chance to get to know each other while developing meaningful projects together, This broadens and deepens their understanding of course content while building cross-cultural communicative capacity through academic and personal engagement with the perspectives of global peers. (Coil Center 2013)

A number of studies demonstrate the benefits of adopting COIL as an institutional strategy to internationalize higher education. In addition to imbuing students with refined intercultural competencies and enhancing their business communication skills, COIL courses foster participatory and transformative student learning grounded in critical inquiry, cross-cultural awareness, and discipline-specific and interdisciplinary content (Moore & Simon, 2015).

Furthermore, the learning outcomes from COIL activities are not reserved to students, but rather positively impact instructors through the exchange with colleagues from diverse institutions, backgrounds, pedagogies, and practices. Given that the collaboration is carefully designed and effectively implemented, COIL not only offers instructors the opportunity to develop as global educators, but also allows students to gain digital literacy and motivates them to engage with each other and develop a growth mindset that will help them to learn in a pluralistic setting (Dweck, 2016).

This according to Laal and Ghodsi (2012) contributes to the building of a global community of learners, which leads to more student and faculty involvement in the knowledge generation process (Rivera & Cox, 2016; Schellens et al., 2007; Woo and Reeves, 2006).

While there are yet no studies critiquing COIL (Mudiamu, 2020), the challenges and limitations of the approach can be revealed through the research investigating the challenges of IoHE, IaH, Virtual Exchange, CSCL, or similar approaches such as Telecollaboration -a term mostly used in the context of foreign language learning through Virtual Exchange. The prime critiques of IaH label it as “a movement focusing on means rather than aims” (Brandenburg & De Wit, 2010, p.16); a tendency to focus on “activity and not results as indicators of quality” (Green & Whitsed, 2013); or [a process] pretending to be guided by high moral principles, while not actively pursuing them (De Wit & Beelen, 2014, as cited in Curaj et al., 2015). These critiques, however, are not related to COIL as it does stress on learning outcomes and equality.

Still, since both COIL and Telecollaboration are evidently very close types of Virtual Exchange, challenges of the latter arguably imply challenges of the former. According to Rubin & Guth, (2015), Virtual Exchange has not been widely adopted in the curriculum, even in online courses. O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) summarize the main factors that contribute to “failed communication” within Telecollaboration activities in four levels: the individual level, the classroom level, the socio-institutional level, and the interaction level.

In their inventory, the individual level concerns factors related to the knowledge, motivation, attitude, and perception of students regarding virtual communication with peers from different countries and linguacultural backgrounds. The classroom level includes factors such as the teacher-to-teacher relationship, the task design, the matching of learners, and the local group dynamic (Helm, 2015). The socio-institutional level, which has received the most attention according to the authors, involves the mediating technologies and their design, the general organization of the students’ courses of study, including differences in timetables, contact hours, workload and assessment, or recognition of student participation in telecollaboration activity.

‍

Aerden, A. (2014) A Guide to assessing the quality of internationalisation.ECA Occasional Paper. The Hague: European Consortium for Accreditation inHigher Education.

Aigner, J. S., Nelson, P. & Stimpfl, J. R. (1992).Internationalizing the University: making it work. Springfield: CBIS Federa.

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalizationof higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies inInternational Education.

Arum, S. & Van de Water, J. (1992) The Need for a definition ofinternational education in US Universities, in C. Klasek (Ed.) Bridges to theFuture: strategies for internationalizing higher education, pp. 191-203.Carbondale: Association of International Education Administrators.

Aydın, B. & Veysel D. (2016), Flipping the drawbacks of flippedclassroom: Effective tools and recommendations, Journal Of Educational AndInstructional Studies In The World, Vol. 6, Iss. 1. Pp.33-40.

Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015). Redefining internationalizationat home. In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.),The European higher education area (Vol. 81, pp. 59–72). Cham, Germany:Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_5

Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreignlanguage study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60–81.

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reachevery student in every class every day. Washington, DC: International Societyfor Technology in Education.

Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2015). The end ofinternationalization. International Higher Education, 62(62). https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.62.8533

Bunnell, T. (2006). The growing momentum and legitimacy behind analliance for international education. Journal of Research in InternationalEducation, 5(2), 155-176.

Chan, W. W., & Dimmock, C. (2008). The internationalization ofuniversities Globalist, internationalist and translocalist models. Journal ofResearch in International Education, 7(2), 184-204.

Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M. Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., &Wächter, B. (2001). Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam,the Netherlands: EAIE.

Curaj, A. & Matei, L., & Pricopie,R., & Salmi, J., & Peter, S. (2015). The European higher educationarea: Between critical reflections and future policies. Springer.

De Castro, A. B., Dyba, N., Cortez, E. D., & Pe Benito, G. G.(2018). Collaborative online international learning to prepare students formulticultural work environments. Nurse Educator. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000609

De Wit, H. (1995) Strategies for internationalisation of higher education:a comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States ofAmerica. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.

De Wit, H. (1999). Changing rationales for the internationalizationof higher education. International Higher Education 15. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans_De_Wit/publication/313407781_Changing_Rationales_for_the_Internationalization_of_Higher_Education/links/58b6d42245851591c5d52baa/Changing-Rationales-for-the-Internationalization-ofHigher-Education.pdf

De Wit, H. (2013). An introduction to higher educationinternationalisation. Milan, Italy: Vita e Pensiero

De Wit, H., & Beelen, J. (2014). Reading between the lines:Global internationalization survey. University World News (318). Retrieved fromwww.universityworldnews.com

Knight, J. (1997) A Shared Vision? Stakeholders’ Perspectives onthe Internationalization of Higher Education in Canada, Journal of Studies inInternational Education, 1, Spring, pp. 27-44.

Knight, J. (2003). Updated definition of internationalization.International Higher Education, 33, 2–3.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition,approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education,8(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832

Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities andchallenges. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of higher education: Vol.18, (pp. 207–227). Dordrecht, theNetherlands: Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_11

Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing worldof internationalization. Global perspectives on higher education: Vol. 13.Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers

Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretiveframeworks in the internationalization of higher education. In The SAGEhandbook of international higher education (pp. 27–42). Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218397.n2

Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (1995). Strategies forinternationalisation of higher education: Historical and conceptualperspectives. In H. De Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalisation of highereducation: A Comparative Study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA (pp.5-32). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE) incooperation with the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education(IMHE) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) andthe AIEA.

Kubi, P., A., & Annan, E. (2020). A review of a collaborativeonline international learning,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy(iJEP), vol 10, no 1. https://doi.org/ 10.3991/ijep.v10i1.11678

Laal, M. & Ghodsi, S., M. (2012). Benefits of collaborativelearning," Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 31, pp.486-490, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091.

Labi, A. (2011). Faculty-inspired team-teaching makesinternationalization affordable. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrievedfrom https://www.chronicle.com/article/Faculty-Inspired-Team-Teaching/127266

Rubin, J., & Guth, S. (2016) Collaborative online internationallearning: An emerging format for internationalizing curricula. In A. Moore,& S. Simon (Eds.), Globally networked teaching in the humanities: Theoriesand practices (pp. 15-27). London, New York: Routledge.

Rumbley, L. E., Altbach, P. G., & Reisberg, L. (2012).Internationalization within the higher education context. In D. Deardorff &H. De Wit (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp.3–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218397.n1

Saqr, M., U. Fors, & M. Tedre (2018). How the study of onlinecollaborative learning can guide teachers and predict students’ performance ina medical course," BMC Medical Education, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 24, doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1126-1.

Schellens, T, H. Keer, V., M., Valcke, & De Wever, B. (2007).Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: a multilevel approach to study theinfluence of student, group and task characteristics," Behaviour &Information Technology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 55-71, doi:10.1080/01449290600811578.

Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and higher education: Challengesfor the 21st century. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(1),3-10.

Soderqvist, M. (2002). Internationalisation and its management athigher-education institutinos: applying conceptual, content and discourseanalysis. Acta Universitatis Oeconomicae Helsingiensis, 206. Helsinki School ofEconomics.

Soria, K. M., & Troisi, J. (2014). Internationalization at Homealternatives to study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education,18(3), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313496572

Starke-Meyerring, D. (2010). Globally networked learningenvironments: Reshaping the intersections of globalization and e-learning inhigher education. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7, 127-132.https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.2.27

Starke-Meyerring, D., & Wilson, Melanie. (2008). Designingglobally networked learning environments: Visionary partnerships, policies, andpedagogies. Educational futures, Vol. 20. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: SensePublishers.

Stier, J(2004). "Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologiesin higher education: Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism". Globalisation,Societies and Education. 2: 1–28. doi:10.1080/1476772042000177069

Tanhueco-Nepomuceno, L.(2019). Internationalization among selected HEIs in the ASEAN region: Basisfor a proposed framework for an internationalized campus," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier,vol. 65(C), pages 152-171.

Teekens, H. (2015). The freedom to be: International education and crossingborders. Mestenhauser Lecture on Internationalizing Higher Education, presentedat the Global Programs and Strategy Alliance at the University of Minnesota,Minneapolis, MN.

Toner, M. (2018). Global connections, staying local. InternationalEducator, 27(2), 24-27

Topp, G. (2011). Flipped classrooms take advantage of technology,‖USA Today.

Valiulis, A. V., & Valiulis, D. (2006). TheInternationalization of Higher Education: a Challenge for Universities. GlobalJ. of Engng. Educ., 10(2), 221-228. Retrieved from http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/GJEE/Publish/Vol.10,%20No.2/Valiulis.pdf

Van der Wende, M. (1997). Missing links: The relationship betweennational policies for internationalisation and those for higher education ingeneral. In National Policies for the Internationalisation of Higher Educationin Europe (pp. 10–38). Stockholm: National Agency for Higher Education(Hogskoleverket),. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED432190.pdf

Vavrus, F. & Pekol, A. (2015). Critical internationalization:Moving from theory to practice. FIRE: Forum for International Research, 2(2),5–21. Retrieved from http://preserve.lehigh.edu/fire/vol2/iss2/2

Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of using computers forwriting and communication. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreignlanguage learning (pp. 29–46). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa

Woo, Y., & Reeves, T., C. (2007). Meaningful interaction inweb-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation," The Internetand Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 15- 25, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005.

Yalçıntan, M. C., & Thornley, A. (2007). Globalisation, highereducation, and urban growth coalitions: Turkey's foundation universities andthe case of Koç University in Istanbul. Environment and Planning C: Governmentand Policy, 25(6), 822-843.

‍