Figure 1 - Generated with ChatGPT with prompt “diagram of virtual exchange”

This study examines the efficacy of Virtual Exchanges (VEs) within educational contexts. The origins of VEs can be traced back to the 1920s, when early forms such as school pen pal programs and multimedia exchanges emerged. The advent of the internet in the 1990s significantly broadened the scope and accessibility of these exchanges. Although interest in VEs predates the COVID-19 pandemic, global travel restrictions during the pandemic period led to a marked increase in both the interest in and demand for such virtual modalities in education (Nyunt et al.,  2023).

VEs, also referred to as telecollaboration, online intercultural exchange, e-tandem or teletandem, virtual international programs, and global classrooms, have been investigated from a variety of disciplinary and methodological perspectives. Rienties et al. define VE as “a process of engaging students in online intercultural collaboration projects with partner classes within their programmes of study and under the guidance of teachers or trained facilitators” (2019,  578). Fundamentally, VEs represent a pedagogical approach rooted in international and collaborative learning, whereby knowledge is constructed through dialogue, interaction, and cultural negotiation with others.

Research in the field has demonstrated that participation in VEs yields a range of educational benefits, including the development of foreign language proficiency, enhanced technological and pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), intercultural competence, and increased motivation to engage in global learning communities (Rienties et al., 2019).

As a middle school world language educator, I recognize the increasing emphasis on integrating authentic resources in the target language, as well as the critique that textbook-based instruction alone does not constitute genuine language learning. Akbari and Razvi note that 'the idea of using authentic material in language teaching is supported among references and many professionals in the field of language pedagogy' (2016, p. 105). Authentic materials are typically defined as texts produced by native speakers for purposes other than language instruction. In this context, traditional textbooks fall short in fostering real-world communicative competence. Further, according to Cenoz, "Languages are not learned first and then used but they are learned by being used" (Cenoz 2015, as cited in Porto, 2019).  Thus, I contend that intercultural Virtual Exchange represents a highly effective pedagogical approach that not only qualifies as an authentic resource but also enhances learners’ intercultural communicative competence. It is imperative that educators recognize and harness its potential within language education.

This research focuses specifically on the development of intercultural competence fostered through VE participation. Consequently, the case studies discussed herein do not emphasize technological or pedagogical advancements. By employing Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural competence as an analytical framework, this study aims to demonstrate the ways in which VEs facilitate the acquisition and application of intercultural skills. Through this lens, it becomes evident that VEs serve not only as tools for linguistic or academic development, but also as transformative spaces for intercultural learning.

In order to create successful citizens in today's increasingly more globally-connected world, intercultural competence is a skill that will enable productive collaboration across cultures. Intercultural competence can be defined as the ability "to see relationships between different cultures - both internal and external to a society - and to mediate, that is interpret each in terms of the other, either for themselves or for other people. It also encompasses the ability to critically or analytically understand that one's 'own and other cultures' perspective is culturally determined rather than natural" (Siergiejczyk, 2020 p.2). Byram's (2017) model defines five dimensions of Intercultural Competence, which are explained with exampes in the following video and outlined below.

To summarize, the five components of Byram's Intercultural Competence model are as follows:

1. Knowledge - Learner possesses the knowledge of social groups and their products and practices in one's culture as well as another's culture.

2. Skills of Interpreting and Relating - learner possesses the ability to interpret a document or event from another culture and explain it or relate it to their own culture.

3. Skills of Discovery and Interaction - learner possesses the ability to acquire new knowledge of culture and can operate their knowledge under the constraints of real-time communication.

4. Attitudes - learner possesses curiosity and openness to suspend disbelief about one's own culture and another's culture.

5. Critical Cultural Awareness - learner possesses the ability to critically evaluate perspectives, practices, and products in one's own and other cultures and countries.

(Wagner et al., 2019).  

The diagram below visually summarizes the five components of Intercultural Competence.

Figure 2 - Academy to Innovate HR. (n.d). HR Glossary. https://www.aihr.com/hr-glossary/intercultural-competence/

Byram further elaborates on his framework for intercultural competence and identifies the concept of ​Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC), which is the focus of language education. The National Council for State Supervisors For Languages (NCSSFL) and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) define Intercultural Communicative Competence as "the ability to interact effectively and appropriately with people from other language and cultural background" (Wagner et al. 2019, p. 26).  ICC develops as a process of intentional goal-setting and self-reflection and involves attitudinal changes.

This video explains the concept of Intercultural Communicative Competence, emphasizing that it involves much more than "simply knowing the literal meanings of words in a target language".

While foreign language educators often incorporate Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) standards into their classrooms, it is important to recognize that communication involves more than just linguistic competence in a second language (L2). It also requires sociolinguistic and discourse competence. Consider the political cartoon below: although Americans and Britons share the same lingua franca, the absence of sociolinguistic awareness is evident in the misunderstanding that arises from differences in how language is used within specific social and cultural contexts.

Figure 3 - Therien, R. (2002, March 6). U.S. Versus United Kingdom Football Match [Cartoon].

While a wide range of pedagogical approaches aim to cultivate intercultural competence, this study examines the outcomes associated with three distinct models of virtual exchange (VE) pedagogy. Given that not all virtual exchange programs incorporate instruction in a second language (L2), it is important to differentiate between those that foster intercultural competence broadly, and those that explicitly contribute to the development of ICC. The extent to which various VE formats achieve either or both outcomes remains an area of ongoing inquiry.

After examining vast research on VE pedagogy, I have identified three distinct types of VE, and will exclude an example of each.

Type 1: This form of virtual exchange is conducted in a lingua franca, a shared language used by participants who have different native languages. In this context, all participants communicate in a common language that is not necessarily their first language. Depending on the number of particpants, some learners may be communicating in their native language.

Type 2: This type of virtual exchange involves two groups of learners from different countries and cultural backgrounds. One group participates using their first language (L1), while the other engages using the same language as their second language (L2).

Type 3: This type of virtual exchange allows the learners to interact with a native speaker of the language they are learning (L2) while also providing an authentic input in their first language (L1). These types of exchanges are often referred to as peer-expert, peer-tutor, or e-tandem exchanges. (Canals, 2020).

The first case study examined here is an autoethnographic study in which my own middle school students participated as the virtual learners. IGLOBAL is a virtual project created at the University of Illinois. The project connects middle schoolers around the world. Each weekly virtual session focused on one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Middle schoolers from around the world then had the opportunity to share ideas, artwork, writing, local and global data, and opinions within their pod, as well as with other chapters of middle schoolers around the world. The video below explains how the IGLOBAL VE experience works.

IGlobal is a Type 1 VE program in which multiple learners from multiple countries collaborate in a lingua franca—in this case, English. As the primary aim of this VE model is not language acquisition, but rather intercultural engagement, this analysis focuses on the development of intercultural competence rather than communicative proficiency in an L2.

This case study is autoethnographic in that the analysis is purely qualitative and based on my observations as a teacher observer. As a participant in the exchange, my aim is to present objective observations only. The conditions for Byram's framework on interculturality are present in the following ways:

1. Knowledge – Learners became familiar with the same curriculum, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and reflected on their own impact of the SDGs in their local and global communities.

2. Skills of Interpreting and Relating – Learners analyzed artifacts from other participants in other countries showcasing unique environmental footprints.

3. Skills of Discovery and Interaction – Students asked questions in synchronous sessions and via discussion board to gain knowledge of another's culture and perspective.

4. Attitudes – Learners volunteered to participate, showing an open-minded attitude.

5. Critical Cultural Awareness – Learners were able to evaluate how their own local environmental footprint makes an impact globally. 

This Type 1 virtual exchange clearly supports the development of intercultural competence. Future research could further substantiate these findings by employing quantitative and mixed-methods tools, such as pre- and post-program surveys, reflective journals, and thematic coding, to systematically assess each dimension of Byram’s model.

This case study examines a Type 2 VE between students in Uzbekistan and the Western United States from August–December 2017. The goal of the study was to connect "students from distinctly different cultural environments, collaborate on implementing new presentation skills from a shared MOOC content, and [for] the students to initiate open dialogue on select cultural practices in the U.S. and Uzbekistan, so as to advance their intercultural competences" (Siergiejczyk 2020, p.5). This virtual exchange was initially designed as a Type 3 (in-tandem) model, intended to be conducted bilingually in both English and Russian, allowing Russian language learners at CU-Boulder the opportunity to practice the target language in an authentic way. However, due to the composition of the participant pool, the exchange was ultimately implemented as a Type 2 model, with communication taking place exclusively in English. In this format, U.S. students participated using their first language (L1), while Uzbek students engaged using English as their second language (L2). The U.S. students were composed of ten freshmen at CU-Boulder studying "Sports and Cold War," while the Uzbek cohort was composed of 23 undergraduate students studying translation (Siergiejczyk, 2020).

In order to measure the level of intercultural competence gained by each group, all participants took a pre-VE survey to gather data on self-identified perceptions about intercultural competency and interest in learning about other cultures. Based on the results of the post-VE reflections (surveys and interviews), U.S. students reported gains in the following: appreciation for different cultures, reported introspection and re-evaluation of one's own culture, a sense of privileged access to education, and an increased compassion for representatives of what could be labeled as other (Siergiejczyk, 2020). Here, there is a direct correlation in the competencies gained by the U.S. students and the components of Byram's framework for intercultural competence.

Interestingly, the Uzbek students reported different gains. The Uzbek students learned about American higher educational institutions as well as earning potential and career opportunities. Further, the Uzbek students, many as future ESL teachers, reported gains in communicative pedagogy and contemporary learning tools. Kramsch refers to this language-learning gain as "language-learning as exchange value." In other words, learning an L2 is now seen as a "source of profit in a globalized economy" (Kramsch, 2016, as cited in Siergiejczyk 2020, p. 3). The Uzbek students gained tangible career skills in this sense. Siergiejczyk explains that "While American participants had no exchange value to request from the Uzbek students, the latter group expressly vocalized their overt interest in obtaining practical information so as to help advance their individual academic and collective professional progress" (2020, p. 8). Thus, the Uzbek students gained communicative competence as well as technological and workplace skills. Arguably, these skills fit into Byram's framework of intercultural competence.

This case highlights a broader implication of Virtual Exchange: its benefits are not always symmetrical across participant groups. While learners from more privileged educational and economic contexts may engage with VE primarily as a means of developing intercultural awareness, students from under-resourced or transitioning educational systems may experience VE as a vital channel for accessing global knowledge economies. In both cases, participants demonstrated meaningful development within the domains of intercultural competence. However, it is important to note that while the Uzbek students appeared to gain concrete career-related and communicative skills, the American participants may have lacked certain gains in intercultural competence. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that the Uzbek students were reported—by the U.S. participants—to already know “a lot” about American culture (Siergiejczyk, 2020), potentially limiting the Americans' exposure to new cultural perspectives or the need to deeply reflect on their own cultural assumptions. This asymmetry suggests that prior knowledge and perceived cultural familiarity can influence the depth and nature of intercultural learning in Virtual Exchange contexts.

This case study represents a Type 3 Virtual Exchange (VE) involving participants from Spain and Canada. The VE was established between two groups of university students enrolled in mandatory language courses: nine Spanish learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and nine Canadian learners of Spanish. The exchange took place from mid-January to April 2018 (Canals, 2020).

Notably, a control group at the Spanish university also participated in the study. These students completed the same tasks as those in the VE but within a traditional foreign language classroom setting, without the collaborative exchange component.

The study was designed to address the following research questions:

• Does participation in the VE have a positive impact on learners' oral skills compared to those in the control group?
• Does the exchange positively influence learners’ motivation and willingness to communicate (WTC) and collaborate in English?
• How do learners evaluate their experience in the exchange? (Canals, 2020).

Data were collected from both VE participants and the control group. All participants completed an pre and post oral-proficiency exam that assessed task completion, fluency, intonation, pronunciation, and the range and accuracy of both grammar and vocabulary. In addition, students completed entry and exit questionnaires designed to capture their expectations and motivations before and after the exchange.

The table below shows the oral proficiency score for participants before and after the VE. Once the data were analyzed it was concluded that the experimental group achieved more oral gains than the control group (Canals, 2020).

Figure 4 - Canals, L. (2020). The effects of virtual exchanges on oral skills and motivation.

When analyzing the exit questionnaires, Canals concluded that the results of this study "indicate that learners express higher motivation to learn and find collaborating as part of the VE much more motivating than collaborating with their classmates" (2020, p. 114). Certainly, communicative competence as well as motivation to collaborate with others prove gains in Byram's intercultural competence model.

Dooly and Vinagre (2022) highlight several limitations in measuring language gains resulting from Virtual Exchange (VE) instruction. First, many VE studies are small-scale and are implemented over relatively short periods, which restricts the ability to observe substantial language development. Second, there is often a misalignment between the linguistic skills being developed and the methods used to assess them. For instance, learners may focus on developing oral communication skills, yet are frequently assessed through written reflections, which do not accurately capture oral proficiency.

Although the case study discussed here incorporated an oral assessment component, it is important to recognize that language proficiency typically develops gradually over extended periods. This presents an inherent challenge when attempting to measure L2 gains as a direct and immediate outcome of VE participation.

Figure 5- generated using ChatGPT with prompt “diagram of equation virtual exchange equals intercultural competence plus intercultural communication”

 The diagram above illustrates the potential gains associated with various forms of Virtual Exchange (VE), highlighting how different VE models contribute to the development of intercultural competence. It is important to acknowledge that Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 VEs each cultivate distinct aspects of intercultural development.

• Type 1 VEs, which are conducted in a lingua franca (typically English), can support the development of all components within Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural competence, including knowledge, skills of interpreting and interacting, attitudes, and critical cultural awareness. However, as language learning is not the primary objective, these exchanges do not facilitate the development of linguistic communicative competence in a second language (L2).
• Type 2 VEs, wherein one group engages in their first language (L1) and the other in their second language (L2), can also foster the full range of competencies outlined in Byram’s framework. While gains in L2 proficiency may be limited, participation can promote positive attitudinal shifts, potentially increasing learners’ motivation to further pursue language study.
• Type 3 VEs, designed as in-tandem language exchanges conducted bilingually, offer the most comprehensive gains. These exchanges can support the development of both intercultural competence and all three aspects of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) in the L2, as learners are actively engaging in both linguistic and cultural negotiation.

It is essential to consider that the degree to which intercultural competence is developed may vary based on learners’ prior knowledge, expectations, and motivations. Some learners may approach VE with an instrumental mindset, seeking what Kramsch refers to as the "exchange value" of language learning, or the tangible economic and career benefits associated with proficiency in a global lingua franca. Others may be more intrinsically motivated, seeking deeper personal insight, cultural empathy, and self-reflection through intercultural engagement.

In alignment with the case studies presented here, most published studies on VE discuss gains in foreign language and intercultural competence.  However, it should be noted that "many of the studies on VE gloss over the difficulties of measuring intercultural learning and too often minimize the challenges and complexity of identifying and verifying gains in intercultural competence" (Dooly and Vinagre 2022, p.399).   Simply put, there exists an oversimplification of what is entailed in the notion of intercultural competence.  Further, many researchers (as seen in the cases presented here) use self-reporting to measure intercultural gains in VE.  Self-reporting about cultural gains can be a way of embellishing to arrive at the "politically correct" response (Dooly and Vinagre, 2022).  Perhaps a more comprehensive "portfolio type" of assessment could resolve this limitation.  Future studies could be more longitudinal and measure whether or not the learner used intercultural competences over time.  

Finally, another limitation to the effective use of Virtual Exchange (VE) is the lack of teacher preparation. As VE gained momentum following the COVID-19 pandemic, it remains a relatively new pedagogical approach. Teachers need to be equipped with the skills to connect theoretical frameworks and empirical research to inform and enhance their practice. Moreover, educators across disciplines, such as language instruction, social studies, and economics, may have differing intercultural learning objectives for their students, which requires tailored approaches to VE implementation.  

Beyond Byram’s framework, problem-based learning (PBL) represents another theoretical component of Virtual Exchange (VE) pedagogy. PBL is a learner-centered instructional approach that empowers students to conduct research, integrate theory with practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop viable solutions to defined problems (Savory, 2006). This approach was implemented in the Type 1 iGlobal case study, wherein middle school students collaboratively brainstormed possibilities for creating a more sustainable future. By engaging in collaborative problem-solving as a global team, this VE pedagogy fostered the development of active global citizens. In this context, learners are equipped to utilize their intercultural competences. Lenkaitis and Loranc (2019) argue that it is “necessary to identify learning environments and teaching methods to advance development of not only key skills for socioeconomic growth of the 21st century, but also more ethical competences for citizenship and global community awareness.” They further contend that equipping learners with critical intercultural competences and supporting their development into “informed and engaged global citizens” is essential (p. 2). Thus, when VE incorporates problem-based learning to address real-world challenges, this pedagogical model supports the formation of interculturally competent individuals prepared to contribute meaningfully in today’s interconnected world. Educators can apply this PBL method to VEs across disciplines, enabling learners to tackle authentic global issues. As the global community becomes increasingly interconnected, VE cultivates the skills essential for future workers and leaders.

Finally, given that VE is conducted on digital platforms, learners have the opportunity to further enrich their intercultural experiences through the integration of emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Virtual Reality (VR). AI could facilitate intercultural understanding by addressing communicative misunderstandings, thereby supporting more effective cross-cultural interactions. VR could enable learners to engage with real-world problems by connecting them to marginalized communities or underrepresented areas, providing immersive experiences that foster empathy and a deeper appreciation of diverse perspectives.

While the benefits of Virtual Exchange (VE) are undeniably valuable in today’s global society, educators must be intentional in designing and integrating effective VE experiences.

Akbari, O., & Razavi, A. (2016). Using authentic materials in the foreign language classrooms: Teachers’ perspectives in EFL classes. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 5(2), 105-116.

Canals, L. (2020). The effects of virtual exchanges on oral skills and motivation. Language Learning & Technology, 24(3), 103–119.

Dooly, M., & Vinagre, M. (2022). Research into practice: Virtual exchange in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 55(3), 392-406.

Education at Illinois. (2024). Join IGlobal! YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZPCl-Wjlx8

Miss English. (2023). Intercultural Competence by Michael Byram. YouTube.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eskXkWnkOfM&t=84s

Nyunt, G., Niehaus, E., Light, A., Boryca, A., & Bryan, A. (2023). Online+ international: Utilizing theory to maximize intercultural learning in virtual exchange courses.

Porto, M. (2019). Does education for intercultural citizenship lead to language learning?. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(1), 16-33.

Rienties, B., Lewis, T., O’Dowd, R., Rets, I., & Rogaten, J. (2022). The impact of virtual exchange on TPACK and foreign language competence: Reviewing a large-scale implementation across 23 virtual exchanges. Computer assisted language learning, 35(3), 577-603.

Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 9(2), 5-15.

Siergiejczyk, G. (2020). Virtual International Exchange as a High-Impact Learning Tool for More Inclusive, Equitable and Diverse Classrooms. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning, 23(1), 1-17.

Wagner, M., Cardetti, F., & Byram, M. (2019). Teaching Intercultural Citizenship across the Curriculum: The Role of Language Education. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.