1

2019 Impact Report

Erasmus + © 2019 European Union and EACEA 2

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (https://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020

PRINT ISBN 978-92-9484-317-3 doi: 10.2797/786285 EC-01-20-239-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-9484-318-0 doi: 10.2797/513584 EC-01-20-239-EN-N

© 2020 European Union and EACEA. All rights reserved.

Produced under a contract with the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency financed by the European Union’s budget. The opinions expressed are those of the contractor only and do not represent the contracting authority’s official position.

CREDITS

Cover photos: © Solis Images, shutterstock.com, © GaudiLab, shutterstock.com Jigsaw icon: © Nano99, shutterstock.com 3

Authors: Francesca Helm and Bart van der Velden

Contributors to the editing, data collection and analysis: Stephanie Siklossy, Aurélie Durand, Giuseppe Acconcia, Katharina Ploss, Robert O’Dowd, Limou Dembele, Carlotta Fassiotti and Marine Jacob.

Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange Impact Report 2019

Brussels, 2020

5

Table of Contents

Figures and Tables 6

Acronyms 7

Executive Summary 8

Synthèse 12

Introduction 16

1 What is Virtual Exchange? 17

1.1 Key characteristics of Virtual Exchange 17

1.2 Why is Virtual Exchange necessary in 21st century education and youth work? 18

2 Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange: origins and structure 22

2.1 Background and rationale 22

2.2 Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange: Four models of Virtual Exchange 22

3 Research aims and methodology 25

3.1 Research objectives 25

3.2 Data gathering and analysis 26

3.3 Limitations of research approach 28

4 Research Findings 30

4.1 Levels and demographics of participation in 2018 and 2019 30

4.2 Overview of 2018 impact report findings 31

4.3 To what extent do the results from 2019 consolidate the findings from 2018? 32

4.4 In what ways do each of the models of Virtual Exchange contribute to meeting the aims of the Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange pilot project? 38

4.5 What are the strengths and challenges that each of the models of Virtual Exchange present? 50

5 Concluding remarks and recommendations 55

5.1 Conclusions 55

5.2 Recommendations for the future 57

5.3 Final comments 59

6 References 60

Annexes

Annex 1: Literature review of learning outcomes of Virtual Exchange 62

Annex 2: Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange Monitoring & Evaluation Tools 2019 66

Annex 3: Analysis of the reach of EVE in relation to GDP data. 70

Annex 4: Results of keyword analysis using TF-IFD 72 6

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Pre- and post-exchange measures 10

Figure 1: Mesures pré- et post-échange 14

Table 1: Differences between Virtual Exchange and other online learning initiatives 18

Figure 2: Priorities of 21st century education and what Virtual Exchange can offer 20

Figure 3: Example of a live VE synchronous dialogue session on the Exchange Portal and the online learning space used for asynchronous exchange, engagement and collaboration between participants 23

Table 2: Pre-exchange respondents by gender 26

Table 3: Post-exchange respondents by gender 26

Table 4: Pre-exchange respondents by age group 26

Table 5: Post-exchange respondents by age group 27

Table 6: Pre-exchange respondents by region 27

Table 7: Post-exchange respondents by region 27

Table 8: Overview of interviews and focus groups 28

Figure 4: Breakdown of participants by gender (aggregated 2018-2019) 30

Figure 5: Breakdown of participants by age (aggregated 2018-2019) 30

Figure 6: Breakdown of participants per country 31

Figure 7: 2018 Post-exchange measures 33

Figure 8: 2019 Post-exchange measures 33

Table 9: Overall satisfaction participating in exchanges 33

Table 10: Increased knowledge of relationships between societies per activity 34

Table 11: Percentage of participants who reported building positive relationships through the virtual exchange per activity 34

Table 12: Confidence in working in culturally diverse settings per activity 35

Table 13: Improved teamwork per activity 35

Table 14: Improved digital competencies per activity 35

Table 15: Pre-and post-exchange measures 36

Table 16: Increase in interpersonal competencies and attitudes per activity 37

Table 17: Increase in warmth towards people with a different ethnic background per activity 38

Figure 9: Word clouds of responses to the question: What is the most important thing you learnt? Activity 1 (top left), Activity 2 (top right), Activity 3 (bottom left), Activity 4 (bottom right) 39

Table 18: Strengths and challenges of the different models of Virtual Exchange 57

Table 19: Breakdown of participating country by GDP per capita, PPP 70 7

Table 20: Participating countries classified as Very Low and Very High 70

Figure 10: Age of participants (aggregated 2018-2019) 71

Figure 11: Participation per person per economic area 71

Chart 1: OFD TF-ID Best things about the exchange 72

Chart 2: OFD TF-IDF Most important things 72

Chart 3: OFD TF-IDF Topics 73

Chart 4: TEP TF-ID Best things about the exchange 73

Chart 5: TEP TF-ID Most important things 74

Chart 6: TEP TF-ID Topics 74

Chart 7: AT TF-IDF Best things about the exchange 75

Chart 8: AT TF-IDF Most important things 75

Chart 9: AT TF-IDF Topics 76

Chart 10: iOOC TF-IDF Best things about the exchange 76

Chart 11: iOOC TF-IDF Most important things 77

Chart 12: iOOC TF-IDF Topics 77 Acronyms

AT Advocacy Training

COIL Collaborative Online International Learning

ECTS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

EVE Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange

GDP Gross Domestic product

IaH Internationalisation at Home

IoC Internationalisation of the Curriculum iOOCs Interactive Open Online Courses

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MOOCs Massive Open Online Courses

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OFD Online Facilitated Dialogue

TEPs Transnational Exchange Projects

TF-IFD Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency

VE Virtual Exchange 8 Executive Summary

Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange (EVE) is a pilot project, launched by the European Commission in 2018, which provides an accessible, ground-breaking way for young people to engage in intercultural learning experiences online. Through a range of activities, EVE aims to expand the scope of the Erasmus+ programme through online collaborative learning activities known as Virtual Exchanges (VE). Virtual Exchange is defined as technology-enabled, people-to-people educational programming, facilitated and sustained over a period of time.1 Working with youth organisations and universities, the project is open to any young person aged 18-30 residing in Europe and the Southern Mediterranean.

Key characteristics and relevance of Virtual Exchange

A combination of common characteristics differentiate VE from other forms of virtual learning and initiatives. The focus in VE is primarily on people-to-people interaction and dialogue in contrast with many online learning programmes where the primary focus is on content. The learning goals of VE include soft skills that are generally not formally recognised in other educational contexts, such as the development of intercultural awareness, empathy and the ability to work collaboratively in groups. VE is primarily learner-centred and follows the principles of experiential learning through dialogue. The role of the educators or trained facilitators in supporting learners to explicitly address intercultural issues and to engage with difference is a key tenet of the pedagogy.

In contrast to informal participation in social networks, VE initiatives are structured and intentionally designed to produce learning outcomes. Ideally, they are integrated in some way into formal and non- formal learning programmes. Young people’s participation in VE and their acquisition of competences can be recognised in the form of badges, and in some Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) also through the awarding of grades and European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits.

Interest in VE within youth and education sectors has grown over the past years, as policymakers look for effective pedagogies to prepare young people for the diverse array of challenges that globalised, digital societies present. These challenges require the development of competence clusters, including the intercultural and foreign language competences necessary to be active citizens in a culturally and linguistically diverse society, the digital competences to work and collaborate successfully in online environments and networks, the critical competences and media literacy to inform oneself and take decisions in a world increasingly characterised by fake news, as well as the soft skills high demand in the modern workplace, including creativity, adaptability, and collaboration. Through its unique design and learning objectives, VE is well placed to respond to these needs in 21st-century education and youth work.

Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange origins and structure

EVE is the largest, most comprehensive initiative in Europe to date to promote and integrate VE as a structured and accredited form of digital international learning for young people. The rationale for pioneering VE in the European context is underpinned by a number of interconnected European Union policies, decisions and priorities, both at the political and educational levels.

1. The Paris Declaration on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education.

2. The youth dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), revised in November 2015, which aims to foster stabilisation, security and prosperity, in line with the Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy.

3. The European Commission Digital Education Action Plan which supports technology-use and digital competence development in education, and the European Parliament Report on Education in the Digital Era.

4. The European Commission Communication on European higher education in the world which calls for “internationalisation-at-home” strategies to ensure that a large majority of learners are able to build the international skills required in a globalised world.

1 See definition by the Virtual Exchange Coalition: http://virtualexchangecoalition.org/ 9

EVE is made up of four different models of VE, which share the common approach of bringing together young people across geographic and cultural divides by having them interact and collaborate through technology, although they differ in design, teaching methodology, integration, duration, number of real-time online sessions and participant numbers. The models are based on established forms of VE which have their roots in different fields.

Research aims and methodology

This impact report provides a comprehensive evaluation of the project activities which ran from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. The report also provides in-depth analysis of the learning outcomes, and the opportunities and challenges of each of the virtual exchange models that are being piloted.

The 2019 research study explored the extent to which the 2019 results consolidated those from the 2018 study, in particular those related to the quality and effectiveness of EVE through participant satisfaction, building meaningful relationships, perceived increase in skills and knowledge, as well as gains in pre- and post-exchange survey items which measured intercultural competence, curiosity, self-esteem and attitudes towards people with different ethnic and religious backgrounds. The 2019 study also analysed the contribution of each model of virtual exchange to meeting the aims of Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange, and identified the strengths and challenges of each model.

A mixed methods approach to the research study was adopted with the gathering of data through pre- and post-exchange surveys, interviews and focus groups. In 2019, 2,130 post-exchange surveys were completed, 38% of those who had completed pre-exchange surveys. Interviews and focus groups were carried out with 89 participants, as well as facilitators and coordinators.

2019 Research findings

8,760 young people took part in Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange activities in 2019 and 1,696 followed the training programmes, a slight increase in figures for 2018. For both years combined, this makes a total of 16,210 youth participants and 2,468 trainees. There was a slight change in the geographic distribution of participants over 2018 and 2019, with a greater proportion of participants from Southern Mediterranean countries in 2019, from 47 to 56 %. While participation across eligible countries varies considerably, analysis of demographics shows that EVE has had strong reach in both areas with a very high and very low Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and thus provides international, intercultural experiences which are accessible to youth in economically vulnerable regions. The gender balance between participants for 2018-2019 is in line with general education and mobility statistics, with a ratio of 60.5% women participants. Regarding age groups, 44.3% of participants are between the ages of 18-21, and the median age is 21.

The main findings of 2019 consolidate the results reported in 2018: 76% of participants • Participant satisfaction with their experience of Virtual Exchange remains high across all EVE reported an increase in activities, with 87% indicated being satisfied or very satisfied for 2018-2019. There was some their teamwork skills variation in the different activities when compared to 2018, which can be attributed to changes in the demographics of respondents. Overall participants from South Mediterranean countries tend to 85% of participants report higher perceived gains than those from Erasmus+ countries. reported an increase in their ability to work in a • Participants perceive an increased knowledge of the relationship between societies, increased culturally diverse setting awareness of stereotypes, and building positive/meaningful relationships with peers from different countries, as was the case in 2018. Many of them report keeping in touch with fellow participants 74% of participants after the end of their exchanges and even planning to meet. reported an increase in their digital competences • The majority of participants felt they built skills and competences directly related to employability, such as confidence in working in culturally diverse settings, teamwork and problem-solving, and also digital competences.

• There was significant overall gain in post-exchange measures of intercultural communicative competence, curiosity and self-esteem, as well as warmth to people with different ethnic and religious backgrounds. 10

Pre and Post-Exchange Measures

2018 Pre 4.37 4.37 2018 Post 4.31 4.3 2019 Pre 4.21 2019 Post 4.07 4.07 4.04

3.85 3.86 3.85 3.76 3.75 3.71

Self-Esteem Curiosity Language Confidence Intercultural Communitive Competence

Figure 1: Pre- and post-exchange measures

All four models of virtual exchange that are being piloted contribute to meeting the aims of Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange, but in slightly different ways:

• All activities involve participants in interactions with people whereby they engage with difference – though this may be framed in terms of cultural and/or national differences, diversity in perspectives, beliefs, behaviours and/or values.

• The main aims of the exchanges, their pedagogic design, the configuration of interactions (in pairs, teams, groups) and the way participants interact (facilitated dialogue, conversation and collaboration, debate) have an influence on the learning outcomes.

• The activities that have a strong facilitated dialogue component, that explicitly address difference across ethnic and religious divides and are sustained over time lead to greater change in the pre- and post- measures of warmth towards people with different ethnic and religious backgrounds.

• A large number of participants report “active listening” as being the most important thing they learnt through activities which featured multiple sessions of facilitated dialogue, as well as engaging with a range of divergent opinions on sensitive issues. This moves them towards not only tolerance but greater understanding, respect and also empathy.

• Transnational virtual exchange projects and debates which are generally organised bilaterally lead to participants acquiring understanding of culture and/or subject specific knowledge.

• Activities which are sustained over multiple weeks allow participants to build strong relationships over time and engage with one another on a deeper and more personal level.

• Activities which involve participants in task or project-based learning lead to the development of online collaborative skills. 11

A number of challenges and corresponding recommendations were identified, which should inform the future of the project:

• The success of all virtual exchange activities depends not on the individual but on the participation of others – it is a relational, collaborative activity through which participants learn about co-dependency. Retaining participants and the quality of the participants’ engagement in activities is key.

• Building strong, sustainable partnerships with virtual exchange coordinators, including through adequate integration and incentivisation mechanisms, is fundamental to ensure the full participation and engagement of participants and guarantee a quality experience for all participants.

• The positive impact of VE depends on the pedagogic design of the learning process, high quality training for facilitators and educators, the quality of dialogue facilitation and the creation of safe online spaces.

• It is key to ensure the quality of the exchanges through high quality training and mentoring for educators and facilitators supporting the exchanges, as well as continuous evaluation and feedback.

• Access to technology and connectivity are crucial factors of the VE success and have a significant impact on participant experiences. They are also a prerequisite for the accessibility and inclusivity of the project.

To address the digital divide in terms of access to suitable technology and infrastructure, resources should be provided to youth organisations and HEIs to support technological infrastructure and connectivity, in particular for those reaching more vulnerable and “hard-to-reach” youth. 12 Synthèse

Lancé en 2018 par la Commission européenne, Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange (EVE) est un projet pilote qui permet aux jeunes d’effectuer un apprentissage interculturel en ligne de façon accessible et innovante. Les différentes activités organisées dans ce cadre ont pour objectif d’élargir la portée du programme Erasmus+ par le biais d’activités d’apprentissage collaboratif en ligne appelées « échanges virtuels ». Les échanges virtuels sont des programmes pédagogiques interpersonnels facilités, portés par la technologie et qui s’inscrivent dans une certaine durée. Mis en œuvre avec des universités et des organisations de jeunesse, le projet est ouvert à tous les jeunes âgés de 18 à 30 ans vivant en Europe et au sud de la Méditerranée.

Caractéristiques principales et pertinence des échanges virtuels

Une série de caractéristiques communes distingue les échanges virtuels d’autres formes de projets et d’apprentissage virtuels. Contrairement à quantité de programmes d’apprentissage en ligne principalement axés sur le contenu, les échanges virtuels se concentrent avant tout sur le dialogue et les interactions interpersonnels. Leurs objectifs d’apprentissage incluent l’acquisition de compétences personnelles qui ne sont d’habitude pas officiellement reconnues dans d’autres contextes éducatifs, comme le développement de la sensibilité culturelle, l’empathie et le travail de groupe collaboratif. Les échanges virtuels sont essentiellement centrés sur l’apprenant et suivent les principes de l’apprentissage par l’expérience à travers le dialogue. Le rôle que jouent les éducateurs et les faciliteurs qualifiés afin d’aider les apprenants à aborder explicitement certaines questions interculturelles et à s’exposer à la différence est un pilier essentiel de cette pédagogie.

À l’opposé des échanges informels qui ont lieu au sein des réseaux sociaux, les projets d’échanges virtuels sont structurés et délibérément conçus afin d’atteindre des objectifs pédagogiques. Idéalement, ils sont intégrés d’une manière ou d’une autre dans des programmes éducatifs formels et informels. La participation des jeunes aux échanges virtuels et l’acquisition des compétences peuvent être certifiées à l’aide de badges et grâce à l’attribution de notes et de crédits ECTS dans certains établissements de l’enseignement supérieur.

Ces dernières années, les secteurs de la jeunesse et de l’éducation ont fait preuve d’un intérêt croissant envers les échanges virtuels à l’heure où les décideurs politiques cherchent des pédagogies efficaces afin de préparer les jeunes à la diversité des enjeux que présentent nos sociétés numériques et mondialisées. Pour les relever, ces derniers doivent développer certains domaines de compétence. On citera tout d’abord la sensibilité interculturelle et la maîtrise des langues étrangères, deux outils nécessaires pour être des citoyens actifs dans une société multilingue et multiculturelle. Viennent ensuite les compétences numériques requises pour travailler et collaborer efficacement en réseau et dans des environnements en ligne. À cela s’ajoutent aussi l’esprit critique et l’éducation aux médias, qui leur permettront de s’informer et de prendre des décisions dans un monde où les fausses informations ne cessent de se multiplier. Enfin, il leur faudra développer des compétences personnelles hautement recherchées sur le marché du travail actuel, comme la créativité, l’adaptabilité et la capacité à collaborer. Forts de leur conception et de leurs objectifs d’apprentissage uniques, les échanges virtuels sont donc bien placés pour répondre aux besoins que rencontre le secteur de l’éducation et de la jeunesse du 21e siècle.

Origines et structure du projet Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange

À ce jour, Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange est le projet européen le plus vaste et le plus complet jamais lancé afin de promouvoir les échanges virtuels et de les intégrer en tant que forme d’apprentissage numérique international structurée et accréditée pour les jeunes. La logique du lancement de l’initiative Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange dans le contexte de l’UE s’appuie sur différentes politiques, décisions et priorités européennes, tant au niveau politique que sur le plan éducatif.

1. La Déclaration de Paris sur la promotion de l’éducation à la citoyenneté et aux valeurs communes de liberté, de tolérance et de non-discrimination.

2. Le volet jeunesse de la Politique européenne de voisinage (PEV), modifiée en novembre 2015, qui vise à renforcer la stabilité, la sécurité et la prospérité, dans le cadre de la Stratégie globale pour la politique étrangère et de sécurité de l’Union européenne. 13

3. Le Plan d’action en matière d’éducation numérique de la Commission européenne, qui encourage l’usage de la technologie et des compétences numériques dans l’éducation, et le rapport du Parlement européen sur l’éducation à l’ère numérique.

4. La communication de la Commission européenne sur l’enseignement supérieur européen dans le monde, qui plaide en faveur de stratégies d’internationalisation « chez soi » afin de s’assurer qu’une grande majorité des apprenants puisse acquérir les compétences internationales nécessaires dans un monde globalisé.

Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange se compose de quatre modèles d’échanges virtuels, qui visent tous à réunir des jeunes issus de régions et cultures différentes en leur permettant d’interagir et de collaborer par le biais de la technologie. Cela étant, ils se distinguent les uns des autres en termes de conception, de méthode d’enseignement, d’intégration, de durée, de nombre de séances en ligne en temps réel et de nombre de participants. Ces modèles reposent sur des formes reconnues d’échanges virtuels qui trouvent leurs racines dans différents domaines.

Objectifs et méthode de l’étude

Le rapport d’impact présente une évaluation exhaustive des activités du projet qui se sont déroulées du 1er janvier 2019 au 31 décembre 2019. Il fournit également une analyse approfondie de l’impact d’apprentissage et des opportunités et défis rencontrés par chaque modèle d’échanges virtuels testé.

L’édition 2019 de l’étude a examiné dans quelle mesure les résultats de 2019 confirmaient ceux de 2018, en particulier ceux liés à la qualité et l’efficacité du projet Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange. Cet examen repose sur la satisfaction des participants, le développement de relations authentiques, l’impression d’avoir amélioré ses compétences et connaissances, ainsi que sur les progrès au niveau de points évalués à l’aide d’enquêtes ayant précédé et suivi les échanges et mesurant les capacités interculturelles, la curiosité, l’estime de soi et les comportements envers des individus ayant des origines ethniques et des convictions religieuses différentes. L’étude de 2019 a également analysé la contribution de chaque modèle d’échanges virtuels à la réalisation des objectifs du projet Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange, et a identifié les forces et les faiblesses de chacun d’eux.

L’étude repose sur une approche combinant diverses méthodes et sur des données récoltées via des enquêtes menées avant et après les échanges, des entretiens et des groupes de discussion. En 2019, 2.130 enquêtes ont été remplies après les échanges, ce qui représente un taux de réponse de 38 % parmi les personnes qui avaient complété l’enquête avant les échanges. Les entretiens et les groupes de discussion ont permis d’interroger 89 participants, ainsi que des facilitateurs et des coordinateurs.

Conclusions de l’étude 2019

En 2019, 8 760 jeunes ont pris part aux activités Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange et 1 696 ont suivi les programmes de formation, ce qui représente une légère augmentation par rapport aux chiffres enregistrés en 2018. Si l’on additionne les chiffres des deux années, cela revient à un total de 16 210 jeunes participants et de 2 468 personnes formées. À cet égard, il convient de noter un léger changement de la répartition géographique des répondants sur la période 2018-2019 : le pourcentage de participants originaires de pays du sud de la Méditerranée est passé de 47 % à 56 % en 2019. Si la participation varie considérablement parmi les pays éligibles, les analyses démographiques montrent que le projet Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange a une portée notable aussi bien dans la région ayant un PIB très faible que dans celle ayant un PIB très élevé et qu’il offre donc aux jeunes vivant dans des régions économiquement vulnérables un accès à des expériences internationales et interculturelles. La répartition hommes-femmes pour 2018-2019 correspond quant à elle aux statistiques générales en matière d’éducation et de mobilité, les femmes représentant 60,5 % des participants. S’agissant des groupes d’âge, 44,3 % des participants ont de 18 à 21 ans, l’âge médian étant de 21 ans.

Les principales conclusions confirment les résultats de 2018 :

• Le niveau de satisfaction à l’égard des échanges virtuels reste élevé, quelle que soit l’activité : 87 % des participants se disent satisfaits, voire très satisfaits pour 2018-2019. Une certaine variation a été observée au niveau des différentes activités par rapport à 2018, laquelle peut être attribuée 14

aux changements dans la démographie des participants. De manière générale, les participants des pays du sud de la Méditerranée ont davantage tendance à trouver qu’ils ont réalisé des progrès que 76% des participants ont ceux originaires des pays du programme Erasmus+. rapporté une amélioration de leur capacité à • Les participants ont estimé qu’ils avaient approfondi leur connaissance des relations entre les travailler en équipe sociétés, qu’ils étaient davantage sensibilisés aux stéréotypes et qu’ils avaient tissé avec leurs pairs de différents pays des relations positives et authentiques, comme c’était déjà le cas en 2018. 85% des participants Bon nombre d’entre eux ont déclaré qu’ils étaient restés en contact avec d’autres participants au ont rapporté une terme de leurs échanges et qu’ils prévoyaient même de se rencontrer. amélioration de leur capacité à travailler • La majorité des participants ont eu l’impression d’avoir développé des capacités et des aptitudes dans un environnement directement liées à leur employabilité, telles que la confiance requise pour travailler dans des multiculturel environnements caractérisés par une diversité culturelle, le travail d’équipe et la résolution des problèmes, ainsi que les compétences numériques. 74% des participants ont rapporté une amélioration • Les mesures effectuées après les échanges ont révélé des progrès considérables à différents niveaux de leurs compétences : compétences en matière de communication interculturelle, curiosité, estime de soi et ouverture à numériques l’égard d’individus ayant des origines ethniques et des convictions religieuses différentes.

Mesures pré- et post-échange

2018 pré- 4.37 4.37 2018 post- 4.31 4.3 2019 pré- 4.21 2019 post- 4.07 4.07 4.04

3.85 3.86 3.85 3.76 3.75 3.71

Estime de soi Curiosité Confiance en ses Compétence de capacités linguistiques communication interculturelle

Figure 1: Mesures pré- et post-échange

Les quatre modèles d’échanges virtuels testés contribuent tous à la réalisation des objectifs du projet Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange, mais chacun d’une manière légèrement différente :

• Toutes les activités permettent aux participants d’interagir avec leurs pairs et de s’exposer à la différence – laquelle peut prendre la forme de différences culturelles ou nationales, de points de vue, de convictions, de comportements et/ou de valeurs.

• Les principaux objectifs des échanges, leur conception pédagogique, la structure des interactions (par deux, en équipe, en groupe) et la manière dont les participants interagissent (dialogue facilité, conversation et collaboration, débat) ont une incidence sur les résultats d’apprentissage. 15

• Les activités où le dialogue facilité occupe une place importante, qui abordent explicitement la question des différences ethniques et religieuses et qui s’inscrivent dans une certaine durée génèrent des différences plus importantes entre les mesures effectuées avant et après les échanges afin d’évaluer à quel point les participants font preuve d’ouverture à l’égard d’individus ayant des origines ethniques et des convictions religieuses différentes.

• De nombreux participants considèrent l’écoute active comme la compétence la plus importante qu’ils aient acquise lors d’activités constituées de plusieurs séances ou d’un dialogue facilité et lors des échanges leur ayant permis d’aborder des questions délicates avec des pairs aux opinions divergentes. Ils ont ainsi appris à faire preuve non seulement de tolérance, mais aussi de plus de compréhension, de respect et d’empathie.

• Les projets et débats transnationaux liés aux échanges virtuels qui sont généralement organisés de manière bilatérale permettent aux participants de comprendre les autres cultures et/ou d’acquérir des connaissances sur un certain sujet.

• Les activités qui s’étendent sur plusieurs semaines offrent aux participants la chance de nouer des relations étroites au fil du temps et d’apprendre à se connaître de manière plus approfondie et personnelle.

• Les activités qui proposent aux participants un apprentissage basé sur une tâche ou un projet stimulent le développement de compétences en matière de collaboration en ligne.

Divers défis ont été identifiés, et des recommandations correspondantes formulées, lesquelles devraient déterminer l’avenir du projet :

• La réussite des activités d’échanges virtuels ne dépend pas de l’individu, mais de la participation des autres – il s’agit d’une activité axée sur le relationnel et la collaboration à travers laquelle les participants découvrent le principe de l’interdépendance. Il est essentiel d’inciter les participants à ne pas décrocher et à s’impliquer au maximum dans les activités.

• Il est impératif de nouer des partenariats solides et durables avec les coordinateurs des échanges virtuels, notamment via un processus d’intégration adapté et des mécanismes d’incitation afin de s’assurer de la participation et l’implication totales de toutes les personnes inscrites et d’offrir à tous les participants une expérience de qualité.

• L’impact positif des échanges virtuels dépend de la conception pédagogique du processus d’apprentissage, du niveau de qualité de la formation des facilitateurs et des éducateurs, de la qualité de la facilitation du dialogue et de la création d’espaces en ligne respectueux de chacun.

• Il est essentiel de garantir la qualité des échanges grâce à des programmes de formation et de mentorat de grande qualité pour les éducateurs et les facilitateurs qui encadrent les échanges, mais aussi de procéder à une évaluation continue et d’obtenir des retours constants.

• L’accès à la technologie et la connectivité sont des facteurs cruciaux dont dépend la réussite des échanges virtuels et qui ont une incidence significative sur les expériences des participants. Ce sont également des conditions préalables à respecter afin de garantir l’accessibilité et le caractère inclusif du projet.

• Pour combler le fossé numérique et garantir la connectivité ainsi que l’accès à des technologies et infrastructures adaptées, des ressources devraient être allouées aux organisations de jeunesse et aux établissements d’enseignement supérieur, en particulier ceux qui visent les jeunes plus vulnérables et difficiles à toucher. 16 Introduction

Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange (EVE) is a pilot project, part of the Erasmus+ programme, which provides an accessible, ground-breaking way for young people to engage in intercultural learning experiences online. Through a range of activities, EVE aims to expand the scope of the Erasmus+ programme through online collaborative learning activities known as virtual exchanges.

The specific objectives of EVE include:

• Encouraging intercultural dialogue through online people-to-people interactions.

• Promoting various types of Virtual Exchange (VE) as a complement to Erasmus+ physical mobility, allowing more young people to benefit from intercultural and international experience.

• Enhancing critical thinking and media literacy, and the use of Internet and social media.

• Fostering the development of soft skills in participants, including the practice of foreign languages and teamwork, notably to enhance employability.

• Supporting the objectives of the 2015 “Paris Declaration” to promote citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education.

• Strengthening the youth dimension of the EU neighbouring policy with Southern Mediterranean countries.

VE is defined as technology-enabled people-to-people educational programming, facilitated and sustained over a period of time2. Working with youth organisations and universities, the project is open to any young person aged 18-30 residing in Europe and the Southern Mediterranean. While VE has been employed in university education for over 20 years (Cummins & Sayers, 1995; Warschauer, 1996), EVE is the largest, most comprehensive initiative in Europe to date to promote and integrate the activity as a structured and accredited form of digital international learning for young people.

This report begins by defining the characteristics of VE and what distinguishes it from other forms of online learning. This is followed by an outline of the reasons why VE is both relevant and beneficial in the current European context. The report then presents the policy context for launching EVE and an overview of the different models of VE which have been brought together under the project, before assessing the impact of EVE activities run from January until December 2019, comparing the results for 2019 with 2018. The report examines in depth the impact of the different VE models on participants using previously established pre- and post-surveys that measure the growth in transversal skills and cross-cultural competences. It also explores the learning outcomes, success factors and critical issues of each model separately, to bring out their comparative strengths and challenges.

2 See definition by the Virtual Exchange Coalition: http://virtualexchangecoalition.org/ 17 1 What is Virtual Exchange? 1.1 Key characteristics of Virtual Exchange

Virtual Exchange3 involves engaging learners in sustained online intercultural collaboration and communication with online peers under the guidance of trained facilitators or educators. VE is based on learner-centred, international and collaborative approaches to learning where knowledge and understanding are constructed through interaction and negotiation with peers from other cultures. It has been used in university education over the past two decades in subject areas such as foreign language education, Business Studies and Initial Teacher Education (Helm, 2018; O’Dowd, 2018).

This technology-enabled collaborative approach to intercultural education has had several monikers over its (relatively) short history, each with its own particular connotations. However, the term Virtual Exchange has particularly gained momentum in more recent years and was the term chosen by the European Commission for this pilot project.

As will become clear when the four models of EVE are presented, there are many differing approaches to VE and how it should be structured and implemented in formal and non-formal learning contexts. While there is no one definitive model which has to be followed, a combination of common characteristics enables to differentiate VE from other forms of virtual learning and initiatives such as virtual mobility, MOOCs and online education courses in general.

In Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange, the following are considered key features of VE:

• The focus in VE is primarily on people-to-people interaction and dialogue. In contrast, the primary focus in many online learning programmes and courses is on content.

• The learning goals of VE include soft skills that are generally not formally recognised in other educational contexts, such as the development of intercultural awareness, empathy and the ability to work collaboratively in groups.

• VE is primarily learner-centred and follows the principles of learning through dialogue. This means that participants seek to establish mutual understanding with their peers and to co-create knowledge based on their own experiences.

• A key tenet of VE is that intercultural understanding and awareness are not considered automatic outcomes of contact between different cultural groups. With this in mind, VE programmes emphasise the role of the educators or trained facilitators in helping learners/or young people to explicitly address intercultural issues and to engage with difference.

• In contrast to more social online activity such as participation in social networks, VE initiatives are structured and intentionally designed to produce learning outcomes. Ideally, they are integrated in some way into formal and non-formal learning programmes. Young people’s participation in VE and their acquisition of competences can be recognised in the form of badges, and in some HEIs also through the awarding of grades and ECTS credits.

When one takes all these key characteristics into account, the differences with other online educational initiatives become more evident. Virtual mobility, for example, involves students using online tools and platforms to follow courses at another institution without physically leaving their homes. Consequently, while VE is based on learners engaging in structured online intercultural dialogue, virtual mobility may simply involve students using the internet to follow lectures and accessing course materials at a university in another geographical location.

Similarly, while MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) can be defined as freely accessible online courses and lectures which are delivered to large cohorts of learners, VE is centred on interaction and collaboration rather than access to video lectures. Of course, it is possible that some kind of online collaboration or interaction is integrated into certain virtual mobility or MOOC initiatives. cMOOCs, for example, an approach to MOOC implementation which is based on principles of connectivist pedagogy,

3 Also referred to as Telecollaboration or Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL). 18

have put a great deal of emphasis on student participation and collaboration, but these courses still differ distinctly from the models of VE presented here. The table below highlights the main differences between VE and other forms of online learning such as MOOCs4.

Virtual Exchange MOOCs and online courses

Emphasis on people to people intercultural dialogue Emphasis on online access to university course content, video lectures, and other course materials

Intercultural learning and active global citizenship are key Mastery of course content is considered main educational aim and outcome - but can also address specific themes outcome – may also include intercultural learning and content

Usually includes real-time synchronous video interaction Communication is predominantly asynchronous with peers in small groups, combined with asynchronous activities and assignments

Building meaningful relationships is considered a key Content acquisition is prioritised over relationship building tenet

Table 1:Differences between Virtual Exchange and other online learning initiatives

1.2 Why is Virtual Exchange necessary in 21st century education and youth work? European educational institutions have demonstrated a renewed interest in the social dimension of European society. In the area of education, this has led to importance being attributed to what are often called transversal competencies or “soft skills”, including intercultural competence, foreign language and communication skills, group work and problem solving (Diamond, Walkley, Forbes, Hughes & Sheen, 2011). Not only have these competencies been shown to be of great relevance for the 21st century job market, but also they are deemed vital in the wake of growing polarisation and the emergence of radical and extremist narratives across Europe over the past decade, as they can foster the attitudes and values associated with social cohesion and democratic citizenship.

Against this background, there has been a growing interest in VE within youth and education sectors, as policymakers look for effective pedagogies to prepare young people for the diverse array of challenges that globalised, digital societies present. These challenges require the development of a complex set of competence clusters which include the following:

• The intercultural and foreign language competences necessary to be active citizens in a culturally and linguistically diverse, globalised society (Council of Europe, 2016) and the opportunities to develop these competences in environmentally sustainable ways.

• The digital competences to work and collaborate successfully in online environments and networks.

• The critical competences and media literacy to inform oneself and take decisions in a world increasingly characterised by fake news, populist politics and the manipulation of information networks.

• The soft skills which are in high demand in the modern workplace, including creativity, adaptability, collaboration and time management (LinkedIn, 2019).

The following section looks briefly at these different challenges and their related competence clusters and how Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange addresses these.

4 See for example https://www.mooc.org/, https://www.classcentral.com/help/moocs 19

1.2.1 Developing the skills and attitudes of active global citizenship

Following the terrorist attacks across Europe in 2014, Education Ministers and the European Commission adopted the “Declaration on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education” on 17 March 2015. Better known as the “Paris Declaration”, this document called on European countries to promote active citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education. Among various concrete objectives, the declaration called for European educational policy to support the development of civic and intercultural competences, critical thinking and media literacy and also to promote the principles of democratic values, fundamental rights and social inclusion. It also called for the promotion of intercultural dialogue through all forms of learning, including by using the Erasmus+ programme.

Beyond Europe, the term “global competence” is widely used to refer to models of intercultural citizenship. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines global competence as “the capacity to examine local, global and intercultural issues, to understand and appreciate the perspectives and worldviews of others, to engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions with people from different cultures, and to act for collective well-being and sustainable development” (OECD, 2018, p.7).

In the field of higher education, global competence has traditionally been addressed through student mobility. In recent years, alternative and complementary ways to develop young people’s intercultural competence and expose them to international learning experiences have been sought through Internationalisation at Home (IaH) and the related concept of Internationalisation of the Curriculum (IoC). In the youth sector, it is through international exchanges and volunteering that these competences are largely addressed. Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange is designed to complement and enhance these activities by offering young people opportunities to engage online with their peers in structured dialogue or debate about global issues. The relational dimension of VE, the diversity of perspectives and experiences participants engage with, and the mutual learning and activation that emerge can support the development of active global citizenship.

1.2.2 From digital natives to effective online communicators and collaborators

For many years there has been a widely held assumption that teenagers and young adults who have grown up in a highly digitalised society were somehow endowed with sophisticated technical and digital skills which made them adept at using online technologies and applications for learning and communicating. However, this theory of “digital natives” (Prensky, 2006) has been widely questioned of late. Research into the learning habits of young people by Kirschner & De Bruyckere (2017) and Margaryan, Littlejohn & Vojt (2011) among others has questioned the belief that they are somehow intuitively capable of using digital technologies in collaborative ways. The fact that young people are texting, sharing photos and participating in online social networks does not imply that they can use online technologies to create content and collaborate in more formal virtual contexts or that they are aware of how to use technologies for public engagement and active global citizenship.

Many models of digital competence have emerged, one of the most comprehensive and relevant of these being the Digital Competence Framework for Citizens which was published in 2013 by the European Commission. This is described as a tool to improve citizens’ digital competence and also to help policymakers formulate policies that support digital competence building. The most recent version of the model, DigComp 2.05, organises the key components of digital competence into five areas which are information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety and problem solving. To develop the communicative aspects of digital competence, explicit training and experiences in educational contexts are necessary. Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange provides different activities which engage youth in online intercultural interaction and collaboration on international projects, engagement in facilitated dialogue sessions and participation in transnational debates which are ideally suited for this, each offering different modes of online communication and collaboration.

5 See https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcomp/digital-competence-framework 20

1.2.3 Towards a critical consumption of news and media

Following recent developments in European society and elsewhere which involved the manipulation of information networks and the use of fake news in political campaigns and elections, there is an urgency for youth to be trained to be more critical in their consumption and analysis of information received online. Young people need a high level of “digital maturity” (European Commission/EACEA/ Eurydice, 2019) in order to assess the origins and veracity of information that spreads online. In the communication from the European Commission entitled Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture (2017), the Commission warns that one of the key challenges facing European society is new patterns in communication, social media, the phenomenon of “fake” news and the need to promote media literacy among all citizens.

By providing various learning scenarios which explicitly focus on developing critical thinking and media literacy, Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange can help prepare students to critically analyse the veracity and origins of the information which they are exposed to online and in the traditional media. Through the opportunities offered for contact and exchange with youth from a range of backgrounds in Europe and South Mediterranean countries, young people can access a wider range of perspectives and lived experiences of issues such as migration and regional conflicts than the news and media offer, thus developing counter narratives and a more critical and nuanced understanding of the issues, and a curiosity and desire to learn more.

1.2.4 Developing the skills of the modern workplace

As young people are being prepared to become not only active global citizens but also effective members of the global workplace, increasing emphasis is being placed on the importance of soft skills in enabling them to operate effectively in work contexts that are both highly globalised and digitalised. The OECD (2018) suggests that “Educating for global competence can boost employability. Effective communication and appropriate behaviour within diverse teams are keys to success in many jobs and will remain so as technology continues to make it easier for people to connect across the globe” (p.5). In a similar vein, the Erasmus mobility impact report (European Commission, 2019) quotes European Commissioner Tibor Navracsics: “Skills such as flexibility, creativity, problem-solving, communication

Priorities for 21st Century Education

Environmentally Intercultural and and economically Digital Critical So skills, foreign language sustainable competences, competences, creativity, competences approaches to collaboration, and media adaptability, internaltionalisation creation literacy collaboration

What does Virtual Exchange Offer?

Interactive and Engaging with Collaborative Plurilingual Eco-friendly and practical use of current issues learning interaction with cost effective online tools to from different environment to members of complement to communication cultural foster so skills other cultures physical mobility and collaborate perspectives development

Figure 2: Priorities of 21st century education and what Virtual Exchange can offer 21

and critical thinking are all part of the blend of competences employers look for – and that enable people to stand on their own feet and take control of their lives” (p.15).

Various studies have looked in detail at what 21st century skills actually involve. For example, in their study on Global Graduates, Diamond, Walkley, Forbes, Hughes & Sheen (2011) found that global employability skills which take into account an international dimension were increasingly in demand by employers. When they consulted with employers about what they considered to be the most important global competencies for graduates to have, they found that the four most mentioned competencies were the ability to work collaboratively, communication skills (both speaking and listening), drive and resilience, and embracing multiple perspectives. Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange supports the development of these competencies through experiential learning as participants acquire these through active participation and engagement in online activities in transnational groups which require communication (usually in a foreign language), collaboration and adaptability. 22 2 Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange: origins and structure 2.1 Background and rationale

The rationale for pioneering VE in the European context is underpinned by a number of interconnected European Union policies, decisions and priorities, both at the political and educational levels. These included the following:

• The “Paris Declaration” on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education. This declaration marked a recognition of the challenge in safeguarding pluralistic societies and calls for education systems and policies to promote greater social inclusion and intercultural dialogue, including through the support of Erasmus+.

• The ENP, revised in November 2015, which aims to foster stabilisation, security and prosperity, in line with the Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. The ENP has an important youth dimension, including youth exchanges between the EU and partner countries, the training of young people and youth workers, and partnerships and networks of youth organisations which foster inclusion, non-formal learning, and mutual understanding.

• The European Commission “Digital Education Action Plan” which supports technology-use and digital competence development in education, and the European Parliament Report on Education in the Digital Era.

• The European Commission Communication on “European higher education in the world”, which calls for “internationalisation-at-home” strategies – the integration of a global dimension in the design and content of all curricula and teaching/learning processes – to ensure that a large majority of learners are able to build the international skills required in a globalised world; the recommendations made by the European Parliament on the use of VE in the internationalisation of higher education; and the renewed EU agenda for higher education with its focus on building inclusive and connected higher education systems. 2.2 Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange: Four models of Virtual Exchange EVE is made up of four different models of VE – which are called “Activities” in the context of EVE. All four models share the common approach of bringing together young people across geographic and cultural divides by having them interact and collaborate through technology, although they differ in design, teaching methodology, integration, duration, number of real-time online sessions and participant numbers. The models are based on established forms of VE which have their roots in different fields. For example, the facilitated dialogue programmes (OFD – Activity 1) and thematic interactive open online courses (iOOCs - Activity 4) are based on facilitator-led models of VE pioneered by Soliya and Sharing Perspectives Foundation; the Transnational Exchange Projects (TEPs – Activity 2) stem from the “class to class” model which has been in use in foreign language education and other subject areas for over 20 years (see Annex 1 for a review of the literature on learning outcomes from these models). Advocacy Training (AT – Activity 3), which has its roots in parliamentary-style debating practice, is new to the field of VE, therefore literature about its learning outcomes is not yet available.

2.2.1 Online Facilitated Dialogue (Activity 1)

This model is grounded in intergroup theory and conflict resolution. Online Facilitated Dialogues connect young people from various countries in non-formal dialogue sessions in order to expose them to diverse cultural perspectives and develop their language competence and employability skills. These online dialogues, held in small groups of eight to 12 people from diverse geographic and cultural backgrounds, are guided and moderated by trained intercultural facilitators. The two-hour dialogue sessions are run over several weeks (four or eight weeks), thus allowing group members to build relationships of trust and facilitators to create a safe space to explore perspectives on timely and potentially divisive topics, such as social media, identity, islamophobia, politics, women’s rights, and religion. 23

Figure 3: Example of a live VE synchronous dialogue session on the Exchange Portal and the online learning space used for asynchronous exchange, engagement and collaboration between participants

2.2.2 Transnational EVE Projects (Activity 2)

This model has its roots in foreign language education and networked or connected classrooms in what has been known as telecollaboration (Guth and Helm, 2010; O’Dowd and Lewis, 2016). TEP exchanges bring together two or more groups of young people – whether through university classes or youth organisations – to interact and collaborate on VE projects that are developed and implemented by university educators or youth workers. The aim of these exchanges is to allow youth participants to come into contact with different perspectives on specific issues in their courses or activities and to develop soft skills.

Educators and youth workers follow a training course which offers a “learning by doing” approach, as they themselves engage in a VE experience in order to learn about it. They subsequently develop an exchange that meets the specific needs of their own contexts, which, in the case of educators, could be university courses on any topic from health care to political science, engineering to foreign languages. In the case of youth organisations, the exchanges can be designed around specific issues being addressed by the organisations, such as the environment, cyberbullying, volunteering.

Exchanges can be monolingual, bilingual or multilingual and can last from three weeks to several months. Participants engage in both asynchronous communication (through forums, social media, virtual learning environments) and synchronous (through text or video chat). They may be organised in small groups or pairs for their interaction and collaboration. These exchanges are also integrated, where possible, with facilitated dialogue sessions led by EVE facilitators.

2.2.3 Advocacy Training (Activity 3)

This model is based on the practice of debating, which brings young people from different backgrounds together to develop parliamentary debating skills with the support of a network of trained debate team leaders. Face to face debates are a consolidated practice in certain European educational contexts and in many Southern Mediterranean countries where they have been promoted through the Young Mediterranean Voices programme. Online debates were first experimented in online contexts in 2018 with the EVE project (which added a transnational dimension to the debates).

Debate leaders are trained in an intensive six-hour online session during which they learn how to deliver local debate training for the teams in their communities, before leading them in an Intercultural Online Debate. The debates themselves bring together two local teams that have been re-organised into transnational teams to discuss two different motions. The sessions, which follow the rules of parliamentary debate, are three hours long and moderated by two team leaders. The first 30 minutes are reserved for teams to prepare and coordinate, and following the debate is a short debriefing session. In 2019, follow-up dialogue sessions have been introduced to enhance this model of VE. During the two-hour debrief session, participants reflect together, with the support of a dialogue facilitator, on the motions they debated in the previous week. 24

2.2.4 Interactive Open Online Courses (Activity 4)

These are open online courses which offer young people bite-sized video lectures combined with skill building activities and facilitated intercultural discussions. This model combines online facilitated dialogue (as described above in Activity 1) with content on specific themes, assignments and reflective journals. Most of the content is in the form of short videos, either produced and curated specifically for the programme or developed by other organisations. The content supports the exchange of ideas amongst participants in the form of sustained dialogue sessions with the support of EVE trained facilitators, which increases the intercultural learning components of these courses. For these sessions, participants are organised into groups of ten to 12 regionally and culturally diverse participants. A programme consists of between five and ten two-hour sessions. Participants are able to enrol individually or come to EVE as part of a group from universities or youth organisations 25 3 Research aims and methodology 3.1 Research objectives

The second year of EVE saw a total of 8,760 youth participants take part in four different models of VE, bringing the total number of youth participants to 16,210 since its launch. The different activities shared a common approach of bringing young people together across geographic and cultural divides through interactions that were supported by trained facilitators, educators and/or youth workers. At the same time, the activities varied in terms of pedagogic approach, the types of interactions (dialogue, debate, discussions), duration, topics addressed and number of facilitated synchronous sessions.

The aim of this research study was to evaluate the impact of the different models promoted through EVE on participants and the effectiveness of the different models of VE in meeting the objectives set by the European Commission.

The main research questions addressed in this report are:

• To what extent do the results from 2019 consolidate the findings from 2018?

• In what ways do each of the models of VE exchange contribute to meeting the specific objectives of the EVE pilot project? That is:

• Does the model of VE encourage intercultural dialogue? • Does it foster the development of participants’ soft skills? • Does it promote citizenship and the common values of tolerance and non-discrimination? • Does it enhance critical thinking and media literacy? • Does it have an impact on participants’ perceived effectiveness in: intercultural communication, self-esteem and curiosity, affect towards other groups?

• What are the strengths and challenges that each of the models of VE presents?

A mixed methods approach to the study was adopted, with pre- and post-exchange surveys administered to all registered participants on a voluntary basis, followed by focus groups and interviews with selected participants, facilitators and coordinators. The advantage of a mixed methods approach is that it allows for the triangulation of the data, which adds to the explanatory power of the research and can increase the usefulness and validity of the findings6. The research study followed an explanatory sequential design, using the interviews and focus groups to support the interpretation of the quantitative data.

The pre- and post-exchange surveys were developed in 2018 to measure the impact of EVE on participants, with additional post-exchange questions for participants’ satisfaction with the exchange and self-assessment of knowledge, skills and attitude development. The same tool was used in 2019 in order to allow for aggregation of data over the two years, though some minor adjustments were made. Two items were added to the pre-exchange survey looking at participants’ confidence in communicating in the language of the exchange, and also whether they had spent an extended period of time abroad. Some of the post-exchange items were adjusted because it was felt that some of the responses to the 2018 items reflected a social desirability bias. The re-wording sought to reduce this bias. Furthermore, four open questions were added to provide qualitative data from a wide range of respondents (see Annex 2 for 2019 pre- and post-exchange surveys).

Interviews and focus groups were carried out to reveal aspects which were not captured in the surveys and to support interpretation of quantitative data. The data from these interviews and focus groups allowed evaluators to better understand how participants experienced the VE, to find evidence of critical thinking and to acquire a more nuanced understanding of the exchange models, including their strengths and limitations.

In presenting the results, an overview of findings across all activities in 2019 will be provided

6 Mixed methods approaches are recommended for the study of VE and have been used to evaluate other large scale VE initiatives (Stevens Initiative, 2019; The EVALUATE Group, 2019). 26

regarding the perceptions of learning and the impact on participants’ soft skills and attitudes. The analysis of the qualitative data will then be utilised to highlight the specificities of the model in terms of perceived learning outcomes and their weaknesses and strengths for different contexts. 3.2 Data gathering and analysis

Pre-exchange surveys were administered when participants registered for activities, generally a few weeks before the exchanges actually started. A total of 5,659 pre-exchange surveys were filled out in 2019 . Post-exchange surveys were administered as soon as the exchange ended, and a total of 2,130 post-exchange surveys were filled out in 2019, representing 38% of those who had filled out the pre-survey. In order to ensure comparability of the data gathered in 2019 and 2018 the respondent/sample population was analysed.

For both gender and age groups the samples appeared comparable across 2018 and 2019, showing roughly equal percentages of respondents and roughly equal bias in the post-exchange survey. In 2019, 62.88% of respondents to the pre-exchange survey were female, which is not significantly different from 2018 (61.83%).

There was no significant difference in the gender division of pre-exchange survey respondents.

Year Female Male Other Prefer not to say Grand total

2018 61.83% 37.67% 0.22% 0.27% 100.00%

2019 62.88% 36.55% 0.02% 0.54% 100.00%

Grand total 62.43% 37.04% 0.11% 0.43% 100.00%

Table 2: Pre-exchange respondents by gender

However, there was a slight bias towards female respondents in post-survey respondents as opposed to pre-survey respondents in both years.

Year Female Male Other Prefer not to say Grand total

2018 65.80% 33.76% 0.18% 0.27% 100.00%

2019 67.42% 32.15% - 0.43% 100.00%

Grand total 66.57% 32.99% 0.09% 0.34% 100.00%

Table 3: Post-exchange respondents by gender

The response per year was also equally divided by age group of the respondents on the pre-exchange survey, as can be seen in table 4 below.

Year 18-20 21-25 26-30 30+ Grand total

2018 23.54% 53.30% 15.42% 7.74% 100.00%

2019 26.29% 52.33% 14.06% 7.32% 100.00%

Grand total 23.34% 52.66% 14.53% 7.47% 100.00%

Table 4: Pre-exchange respondents by age group 27

The sample for the post-exchange survey showed some bias towards the younger age groups.

Year 18-20 21-25 26-30 30+ Grand total

2018 22.04% 59.37% 12.82% 5.77% 100.00%

2019 28.81% 59.46% 9.09% 2.64% 100.00%

Grand total 26.10% 59.42% 10.58% 3.89% 100.00%

Table 5: Post-exchange respondents by age group

In terms of region, there was a reasonable symmetry in the pre-exchange respondents per year. However, in the post-exchange respondent population a response bias was observed towards respondents from the Erasmus+ region in 2019, with 57.98% as opposed to 43.88% in 2018. This response bias could be a contributing factor to the differences observed between the 2018 and 2019 results.

Year Missing E+ Other South Med Grand total

2018 3.20% 41.14% 7.42% 48.24% 100.00%

2019 0.07% 42.27% 7.47% 50.19% 100.00%

Grand total 1.39% 41.79% 7.45% 49.37% 100.00%

Table 6: Pre-exchange respondents by region

Year Missing E+ Other 30+ Grand total

2018 0.09% 43.88% 7.64% 48.39% 100.00%

2019 0.05% 57.98% 1.03% 40.94% 100.00%

Grand total 0.07% 50.72% 4.44% 44.78% 100.00%

Table 7: Post-exchange respondents by region

The responses to the open questions provided a considerable amount of qualitative data for 2019. This data was analysed using statistical tools to identify “keyness” in the responses for the different activities7: it teased out the words that are important in open questions in one model yet not important overall. This allowed evaluators to characterise each of the VE models and provide insight into the key differences between them. This step was supported by a thematic analysis.

Focus groups and interviews with participants were carried out face-to-face in Tunisia and Italy. These two countries were selected because they had the highest numbers of participants in 2018. Institutions where more than one model of the EVE activities was being implemented were identified to carry out focus groups and interviews with implementers. Convenience sampling was used to identify participants for the focus groups, and institutional partners identified and recruited candidates

7 TF-IDF, that is term frequency–inverse document frequency, is a numerical statistic that is intended to reflect how important a word is to a document (in this case a set of responses for a specific model) in a collection (the full set of responses). TheTF-IDF value increases proportionally to the number of times a word appears in the document and is offset by the number of documents in the corpus that contain the word, which helps to adjust for the fact that some words appear more frequently in general. 28

to participate in the focus group. Each focus group involved participants from just one EVE activity, in one specific context. Participation was voluntary.

The protocol for focus groups and interviews included questions aimed at eliciting what participants found to be particularly significant or “eye-opening” moments in their exchanges. The researchers also sought to explore whether and how perceptions between youth in different countries or regions had changed through the exchanges. Site visits and meetings with coordinators working in partner institutions – that is professors or youth workers who coordinated their students’ or members’ participation in an exchange activity or designed their own exchange – also provided insights on how the virtual exchanges are integrated in these contexts. Individual and group Interviews were also carried out online with participants and stakeholders from a wider range of participating countries (see Annex 2 for interview guide).

Activity Number of interviewees/focus group participants Countries

Activity 1 (OFD) 1 focus group in Tunisia with 7 participants; 16 Italy, Tunisia participants in group interviews (15 female, 8 male)

Activity 2 (TEPs) 1 focus group in Italy with 6 participants, 1 focus group France, Italy, Tunisia and Turkey in Tunisia with 19 participants, 4 interviewees, (24 female, 5 male)

Activity 3 (AT/ 16 interviewees Algeria, Germany, Greece, Jordan, Debate) Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia

Activity 4 (iOOC) 1 focus group in Italy with 7 participants; 14 Algeria, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, interviewees Syria (16 female, 5 male)

Facilitators 1 online focus group (with 5 facilitators) and 5 Netherlands, Tunisia, Germany, Spain, interviews Italy, Bulgaria, UK, Turkey

Coordinators Meetings (online and onsite) with 10 HEI coordinators Algeria, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, and 5 youth workers Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lebanon, Spain, Tunisia

Table 8: Overview of interviews and focus groups

The Monitoring and Evaluation team interviewed a total of 89 participants from all project activities, ten facilitators and ten coordinators. The data gathered from the focus groups and interviews were analysed thematically. 3.3 Limitations of research approach

The mixed methods research approach has provided different types of data, allowing the research team to evaluate a variety of aspects of the programme. Nevertheless, there are a number of limitations worth highlighting.

The post-exchange survey tool has proved valuable in assessing perceived improvement in linguistic, intercultural and digital competences across all the activities, though perceived improvement is not a direct measure of competence. The problems with self-assessment are that respondents may not share the same understanding of the questions asked, and there may be a response bias and different interpretations of the scales used for the assessment. Comparing 2018 and 2019 data based on different post-exchange survey response rates also posed a challenge, specifically looking at the region of the respondents. Due to time constraints, proper sampling to address this bias proved impossible.

The lack of control groups is another limitation of the research design, but the complexity of the EVE initiative with the four different models would make such an endeavour highly challenging 29

and resource-intensive. A further limitation of the quantitative tool used is its limited usefulness in highlighting distinctions between the models adopted. This issue has also been identified in other large scale VE evaluations (Stevens Initiative 2019). For this purpose, the qualitative data has proved to be of greater value.

The addition of open questions to the post-exchange survey provided a broad overview of participant feedback on each activity. There was a higher completion rate of the open questions than expected, though the responses tended to be brief. The interviews and focus groups provided richer and more nuanced feedback on the impact of the projects on participants.

It continues to be challenging to organise focus groups with participants. On-site visits in Tunisia and Italy allowed evaluators to engage with multiple stakeholders and acquire a more nuanced understanding of some of the different contexts of implementation. However, there were some issues with the number of participants in the focus groups (at times too many or too few). When the number of participants was low, they did not constitute focus groups, but rather group interviews. Attempts at organising focus groups in other countries failed due to insufficient participants available to participate in the focus groups on the planned dates for the site visits.

Finally, the use of volunteer participants for focus groups inevitably leads to a bias in the data since it is those who completed activities and were generally satisfied that participate. Interviews with coordinators sought to address the gap and provide some information regarding the attrition of participants and challenges faced. 30 4 Research Findings

4.1 Levels and demographics of participation in 2018 and 2019 From 2018 through to the end of 2019, EVE has reached 16,210 participants in the different VE models. As can be seen in figure 1, 60.5% of those participants are female. This is in line with global trends regarding education, and also Erasmus mobility trends, where 67% of participants are female (European Commission, 2014) . According to the latest UNESCO statistics8 for 2018, worldwide gross enrolment for women in tertiary education is 40.6%, while for men it is 35.6%. This difference is mostly driven by high- and middle-income countries; in low income countries enrolment by women is still lagging behind men.

Gender (Exchange Participants - Aggregated 2018-2019)

Prefer not to say 0.7%

Female 60.5% Male 38.7%

Figure 4: Breakdown of participants by gender (aggregated 2018-2019)

The breakdown of the participants between the ages of 18 and 30 is shown in figure 2, below. 44.3% of EVE participants are between the ages of 18-21, and that the median age is 21.

Age of Participants (Aggregated 2018-2019)

2500

2000

1500

1000 Participants 500

0 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Age Figure 5: Breakdown of participants by age (aggregated 2018-2019)

8 As available through the World Bank: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR.MA 31

The breakdown of participants per country of residency in the 44 eligible countries is detailed in the chart below. Participants Per Country (Aggregated 2018-2019) Tunisia 208 Italy 122 Morocco 1180 Egypt 112 Turkey 980 Jordan 9 Palestine 92 France 908 United Kingdom 881 Germany Syria 20 Algeria 18 Libya 92 Ireland Spain 9 Finland 1 Netherlands 2 Lebanon 28 Hungary 18 Austria 18 Sweden 119 Greece 11 Poland 112 Belgium 112 Portugal 91 Other 90 Romania 8 Croatia Slovakia 2 Israel 29 Czech Republic 29 Bulgaria 2 Norway 18 Denmark 1 Republic of North Macedonia 1 Estonia 1 Cyprus 1 Lithuania 1 Latvia 11 Malta 8 Slovenia Serbia Luxembourg 2 Liechenstein 1 Iceland 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Figure 6: Breakdown of participants per country

As can be seen in the chart, participation across countries is not equal. However, equal participation is neither expected nor necessarily desirable. Analysis of participant data on the basis of countries’ incomes (see Annex 3) has found that EVE has had a strong reach in both areas with a very high and a very low GDP. The high reach in economically disadvantaged areas, which in this project are all in the Southern Mediterranean, is positive and shows that one of the advantages of VEs is that they can potentially be delivered at relatively low cost in economically vulnerable regions.

In 2019, a question was added to the pre-exchange questionnaire to determine which participants had spent prior time abroad. The question that was added was: “Have you spent an extended period of time (3+ months) abroad, or participated in a physical exchange programme?” . In total gathered 3,716 responses to this question were gathered. 73% of respondents indicated that they did not spend an extended period of time abroad. 969 respondents provide a short description of their time abroad, of those 20% mention Erasmus. 4.2 Overview of 2018 impact report findings

The 2018 impact report (Helm and Van der Velden, European Commission, 2019) provided a comprehensive evaluation of the project activities in the first year of the pilot, during which 8,222 participants were engaged, including 7,450 young people who took part in VE activities and 772 educators and youth workers who received training to design, implement or facilitate VEs.

The impact report on that year’s activities studied the development of participants’ soft skills and attitudes and also examined the quality and effectiveness of the programme by looking at participants’ satisfaction with their VE experience and their self-reported perceptions of change in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes towards cultural others. This was complemented by an 32

analysis of the challenges, strengths and weaknesses, which was carried out in order to support and improve future implementation. A mixed methods approach to the study was adopted, including a pre and post-exchange survey and qualitative data collection through interviews and focus groups (Helm and Van der Velden, 2019).

The 2018 impact report identified the following main findings:

• Positive results were achieved in three of four markers set out in the research aims as regards to changes in the perceived effectiveness in intercultural communication, impact on self-esteem and curiosity, and the belief in strong relations between European and Southern Mediterranean countries.

• Participant evaluations were extremely positive overall and demonstrated that EVE offers a stimulating and enjoyable learning experience for many young people and university students.

• VE was found to be a novel experience for participants, in terms of types of interactions, ways of using technology, topics and type of interlocutors.

• Many participants reported building positive and meaningful relationships with their peers, with some remaining in contact beyond the exchange itself. The majority told other people within their communities about their experience and said they would be interested in engaging in other virtual exchanges in the future.

• Participants perceived that VE had improved their digital competences, in particular as regards online communication, an important component in the European Commission’s framework of Digital Competences.

• Most participants also reported that their experience in VE had improved other soft skills such as foreign language (predominantly English), teamwork and collaborative problem-solving. Evidence of critical thinking and media literacy was found in some of the participants’ reflections: participants showed insight into their learning process and related it to the model of exchange they were participating in. Participants also showed understanding of intercultural issues, addressing the difficulties that arose in working across cultures, and some reported challenging media misrepresentation, another indicator of increased media literacy and critical thinking.

• Evidence of increased tolerance was identified regularly in participants’ feedback. It was observed that participants were positively affected by their exposure to people from different cultures and responded well to the mechanisms of VE, especially active listening.

• Strong evidence of intercultural sensitivity was found in some of the participants’ reflections. Their experience had led them to question some of their assumptions, reflect on their own beliefs and behaviours and see the complexity of intercultural relations rather than minimising difference or seeing a binary relationship of “us” and “them”.

• The research also showed that building a meaningful relationship takes sustained interaction, and the role of facilitators is key in the process. 4.3 To what extent do the results from 2019 consolidate the findings from 2018? Replicating a study and achieving the same or similar results as the original study gives greater validity to the findings and strengthens the evidence base for VE. This section of the report looks at the extent to which the results of the participants’ evaluation of their participation in EVE activities replicate the findings from 2018.

A positive, international and intercultural experience

Overall, in 2019, as in 2018, respondents evaluated their EVE experience highly. The phrasing of the 33

question regarding participant satisfaction differed in 20199 compared to the previous year, which may have contributed to different responses from the participants.

2018 Post-Exchange Measures

Confidence in working in Strongly culturally diverse settings 1%1%7% 49% 42% Disagree Increased knowledge of relationships between societies 2%4% 14% 52% 29% Disagree Improved digital competencies 2%4% 15% 50% 28% Neither Agree nor Disagree Improved team-work 2%5% 17% 46% 31% Agree Built positive relationships Strongly Agree through the Virtual Exchange 2%7% 20% 44% 27%

Figure 7: 2018 Post-exchange measures

2019 Post-Exchange Measures

Confidence in working in Strongly culturally diverse settings 1%2% 13% 50% 35% Disagree Improved team-work 1%5% 18% 45% 31% Disagree

Increased knowledge of 1%5% 18% 47% 29% Neither Agree relationships between societies nor Disagree Improved digital competencies 2%5% 20% 48% 26% Agree Built positive relationships Strongly Agree through the Virtual Exchange 2%7% 20% 45% 26%

Figure 8: 2019 Post-exchange measures

The EVE wide results for 2018 and 2019 are presented in the figures above. The main differences in the evaluations are the considerable drop in the satisfaction rate for Activity 1 (OFD) and the increase for Activity 2 (TEPs). In the former, there were some technical issues during the autumn 2019 which may have had a negative impact on student satisfaction. This issue may also have influenced participant responses to the other post-exchange questions, as they are lower scores in comparison to 2018 for Activity 1 across almost all of the items. Another possible explanation is the increase in the number of respondents from Erasmus+ countries in Activity 1 compared to 2018. The perceived gains for respondents from some of these groups were considerably lower than those from other countries. This also reflects the trends identified in the Erasmus+ 2019 Impact Report whereby respondents from countries with a higher GDP tend to report low gain, and those from countries with a lower GDP report high gain.

Activity 2018 2019

EVE 87% 80%

Activity 1 89% 76% Overall satisfaction Activity 2 72% 80% participating in exchanges Activity 3 92% 88%

Activity 4 86% 92%

Table 9: Overall satisfaction participating in exchanges

9 In 2018, the question was framed as: “I am glad that I chose to participate in [EVE activity]” (From strongly agree to strongly disagree on a five-point scale) and in 2019, the question was reframed as: “How would you rate your satisfaction with the [EVE activity]?” (From very high to very low on a five-point scale). 34

Increased knowledge of the relationship between societies

In 2019, as in 2018, the majority of respondents indicated that they had developed greater understanding of the relationships between societies, although a slight drop was observed overall compared to 2018. For activity 1 (OFD), the lower score is likely to reflect the change in demographics of the participants, as the programmes implemented had not been modified in any significant ways. In the case of Activity 2 (TEPs), the higher score could be explained by the implementation of new exchanges in 2019 which focused more explicitly on knowledge about the cultures and societies of the participating classes.

Activity 2018 2019

EVE 81% 76%

Activity 1 79% 68% Increased knowledge of Activity 2 74% 85% relationships between societies Activity 3 94% 92%

Activity 4 89% 96%

Table 10: Increased knowledge of relationships between societies per activity

Building positive relationships

Participants reported having built meaningful relationships with their global peers in both years, which reinforces the finding that VE is successful in building bridges and networks across EVE countries. The overall score is the same as 2018, but there is a change in scores between activities. The drop in Activity 1 could be, as suggested above, the change in demographics. The considerable increase for Activity 4 could be explained by the reviewing and fine-tuning of some of the exchanges implemented in 2018 and repeated in 2019; for example, the addition of facilitated dialogue sessions for the Gender & Media iOOC. Furthermore, there was a change in demographics, with a higher number of participants from South Mediterranean countries. In the case of Activity 2, the increase is more likely due to the new exchanges implemented in 2019, many of which involved different partnerships. Furthermore, the training for TEP implementers highlighted the importance of building relationships in exchanges.

Activity 2018 2019

EVE 71% 71%

Activity 1 71% 64% Built positive relationships Activity 2 49% 64% through the virtual exchange Activity 3 91% 82%

Activity 4 74% 91%

Table 11: Percentage of participants who reported building positive relationships through the virtual exchange per activity

Employability and skill-building

There are several measures which focus on the development of skills directly related to employability, which comprise transversal competences – such as the ability to work in a diverse workplace, language and communication skills, digital competences, teamwork and problem solving, as well as specific 35

competences and knowledge that are relevant for different fields. The scores across the activities have remained extremely positive.

Having the confidence to work in culturally diverse settings is regarded as an important attribute of employability, and this metric obtained very positive results across all activities both in 2018 and 2019. This is perhaps the competence that was most tangibly addressed for the participants through all the activities, whilst the other skills were not so directly addressed.

Activity 2018 2019

EVE 91% 85%

Activity 1 90% 80% Confidence in working in Activity 2 93% 85% culturally diverse settings Activity 3 90% 97%

Activity 4 92% 96%

Table 12: Confidence in working in culturally diverse settings per activity

Activity 2018 2019

EVE 67% 76%

Activity 1 62% 73% Improved Activity 2 71% 74% teamwork Activity 3 89% 86%

Activity 4 71% 83%

Table 13: Improved teamwork per activity

The perceived gain in terms of teamwork and problem skills improved across all activities, with the exception of Activity 3. As regards digital competences, the perceived gain was slightly lower across all activities, but still remained high.

Activity 2018 2019

EVE 78% 74%

Activity 1 77% 74% Improved digital Activity 2 75% 66% competencies Activity 3 88% 81%

Activity 4 79% 73%

Table 14: Improved digital competencies per activity 36

4.3.1 Pre- and post-exchange measures

In this section, the impact of EVE in terms of change between pre-exchange and post-exchange scores is compared on items in 2018 and 2019. The pre- and post- measures developed in 2018 looked at intercultural communicative competence, curiosity and self-esteem. In 2019, an additional measure was introduced to analyse change in confidence to communicate in a foreign language. Inter-group affect was also analysed, using a tool known as the “feeling thermometer”, to examine changes in attitudes towards people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds (see Helm and van der Velden 2019 for further explanation of the tools). These results are presented in the figure and two tables below. The figure shows the EVE wide results for the pre- and post-exchange measures for 2018 and 2019. The first table shows the results for intercultural communicative competence, language confidence, curiosity, and self-esteem for 2018 and 2019. The second table presents the results of the “feeling thermometer”. The mean scores are given EVE wide, and per activity.

Pre and Post-Exchange Measures

2018 Pre 4.37 4.37 2018 Post 4.31 4.3 2019 Pre 4.21 2019 Post 4.07 4.07 4.04

3.85 3.86 3.85 3.76 3.75 3.71

Self-Esteem Curiosity Language Confidence Intercultural Communitive Competence Table 15: Pre-and post-exchange measures

The highest gain was in intercultural communicative competence, both in 2018 and 2019. The higher growth for Activities 1 and 4 is likely due to the fact that these exchanges are generally sustained over multiple weeks (from four to ten weeks long) with two hours of engagement in dialogue sessions every week. This, together with the pedagogic design of the exchanges, centred on engaging with difference, are without doubt important factors which contribute to the development of intercultural competence. The greater diversity of participants in the multilateral groups, and the cultural distance between some of the group members may also be contributing factors.

In 2019, confidence in language was also measured with a pre- and post-exchange question (“I feel confident communicating in …”) that was adapted to fit the exchange language. Unfortunately, for Activity 3 (AT) this measure was only implemented later on rather than throughout the entire evaluation, resulting in a sample too small to be included in this study. A significant increase was observed overall (Z=-5.749, p=0.000), with significant growth for activity 1 (OFD), and Activity 4 (IOOC). Activity 2 showed a slight, insignificant decrease.

The difference between pre- and post-measures for curiosity are overall quite similar to those obtained in 2018, though slightly greater for Activity 4, and slightly less for all the others. In 2019 curiosity showed an overall significant growth from 4.3 to 4.37 (Z=-5.876, p=0.000). Growth was achieved for all activities, and was significant for all activities except Activity 2 (TEP). 37

Activity 2018 Pre 2018 Post 2019 Pre 2019 Post

Activity 1 3.76 4.02 3.75 3.95*

Intercultural Activity 2 3.83 3.98 3.84 3.98* communicative competence Activity 3 4.14 4.38 4.26 4.29

Activity 4 4.10 4.22 4.01 4.23*

Activity 1 N/A N/A 3.89 4.04*

Activity 2 N/A N/A 4.04 4.01 Language Confidence Activity 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Activity 4 N/A N/A 4.36 4.46*

Activity 1 4.20 4.31 4.22 4.28*

Activity 2 4.14 4.22 4.20 4.24 Curiosity Activity 3 4.47 4.64 4.58 4.68*

Activity 4 4.53 4.59 4.50 4.60*

Activity 1 3.70 3.76 3.69 3.77*

Activity 2 3.42 3.37 3.55 3.61 Self-Esteem Activity 3 4.06 4.35 4.10 4.22*

Activity 4 3.56 3.63 3.88 4.04*

Table 16: Increase in interpersonal competencies and attitudes per activity

*indicates statistically significant

Self-esteem also showed significant growth overall (Z=-5.503, p=0.000), with a slight increase in the case of Activity 2 (TEPs), whereas in 2018 there was a decrease. The gain for Activity 4 (iOOCs) was somewhat greater than in 2018, whilst for Activity 3 (AT) it was smaller. The growth was significant for all models except Activity 2 (TEP).

Warmth toward people with a different ethnic or religious background

In order to measure the impact of the EVE models on relationships across cultural and ethnic boundaries a feeling thermometer measure was used. This consists of an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (Very Cold/Unfavourable) to 10 (Very Warm/Favourable), measuring participants’ feelings of warmth towards “people with a different ethnic background” and “people with a different religious background”.

A significant increase in feelings of warmth across EVE was observed (z=-8.830, p=0.000). Significant growth was achieved in both Activity 1 (OFD), and Activity 4 (IOOC). The low gain for Activity 2 (TEP) could be due to high warmth measured pre-exchange or to the fact that the majority of exchanges were intra-European and few of the exchanges explicitly addressed topics related to intergroup relations, discrimination or intolerance.

Similarly, significant growth was noted across EVE for the measure related to religious background (Z=-10.034, p=0.000). This gain was higher for both Activity 1 (OFD) and Activity 4 (IOOC). Activity 3 (AT) did show growth, but was not significant, while Activity 2 (TEP) showed a decrease. This decrease 38

should not be seen as a troubling sign, as the decrease is not statistically significant and likely due to the relative high score measure pre-exchange. It can also be interpreted as a sign that respondents see any score above 8 as roughly equal (i.e Very warm), so that when a starting point is above 8, fluctuations are to be expected10. Overall, positive change was seen at the lower levels which is encouraging, but further investigation into the accuracy of the instrument needs be conducted.

Activity 2019 Pre 2019 Post

EVE 7.76 8.15

Activity 1 7.62 8.01 Warmth towards people with a Activity 2 8.82 8.86 different ethnic background Activity 3 8.08 8.33

Activity 4 7.87 8.41

EVE 7.52 7.97

Activity 1 7.31 7.83 Warmth towards people with a Activity 2 8.74 8.47 different religious background Activity 3 8.12 8.46

Activity 4 7.74 8.16

Table 17: Increase in warmth towards people with a different ethnic background per activity

4.4 In what ways do each of the models of Virtual Exchange contribute to meeting the aims of the Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange pilot project? As outlined above, all of the activities contribute to the aims of the EVE initiative as there is an overall significant change in survey respondents’ perceived effectiveness in intercultural communication, self-esteem and curiosity. Respondents consistently reported gains in knowledge of the relationship between societies and in self-perception of stereotypes. They built meaningful relationships with peers from different countries and shared information about what they learned with others11 – the latter could potentially lead to a ripple effect and have an impact on these external participants, but seeking evidence for this was beyond the aim of this study. There was also a perceived gain in employability skills such as digital competences, English/foreign

10 In order to check this, growth rates across levels on these questions were examined. If participants see the scores of 8 or higher as roughly equal, it would not be expected to see growth for participants who responded with a score above 8 in the pre-programme survey, while it would be expected to see growth for those who responded with a lower score. The pre-exchange questions were re-coded with the scores 8, 9, and 10 re-coded to 1, and all other values to 0, in order to verify growth levels. For the respondents who had answered the pre-exchange question below an 8, a significant increase was observed, while for those who had answered with an 8 or above, a significant decrease was noted. This indicates a limitation in the instrument for measuring accurate change above these values. This does not necessarily invalidate the instrument as a whole but does warrant against blind acceptance of its results.

11 86% of participants Agree or Strongly Agree with the statement “I shared information about what I was learning with my friends and/or other people in my community about my experience in this Virtual Exchange.” 39

language skills, teamwork and confidence to work in culturally diverse settings. There were slight variations in the results between the activities, and also between 2018 and 2019, but all the activities nonetheless reached positive results.

In this section the specificities of each of the models are explored, that is, how each model contributes to meeting these aims, what distinguishes each of the models from the others in terms of participants’ perceived learning and what characteristics of the model designs contribute to this learning. This information was drawn from thematic analysis of the qualitative data obtained from the responses to open questions and from the focus groups and interviews with participants.

The word clouds below include the most frequent words in the responses to the question: What is the most important thing you learnt? As can be seen, there are certain words which appear across all the models, the most frequent being “different”, “people” and “cultures”. Many of the words in the clouds are related to ideas, perspectives, opinions and also the range of topics addressed. This similarity in the clouds highlights the essence of what VE is, engaging with “difference” through interactions with “people” and “cultures” about a range of issues.

Figure 9: Word clouds of responses to the question: What is the most important thing you learnt? Activity 1 (top left), Activity 2 (top right), Activity 3 (bottom left), Activity 4 (bottom right)

A keyword analysis of the answers to the open questions for each of the models was also performed, using the Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IFD) method. This statistical approach allows for the identification of words and themes which distinguish one model from the others. The results of this analysis can be found in Annex 4. Each of the following sections which describe the 4 models includes a table with the main findings in terms of learning outcomes and keywords, a thematic analysis of the qualitative data, with a focus on themes which distinguish each model from the others. 40

4.4.1 How does the Online Facilitated Dialogue model (Activity 1) contribute to meeting the aims of EVE? Main learning outcomes

This activity involves the highest number of participants of all EVE activities, with 4,870 registered • Active listening participants. The majority of participants join through higher education institutions, and there is • Engaging with divergent a good balance between regions with 48% of participants from Europe and 52% from Southern opinions Mediterranean countries. • Building relationships with their groups Participant learning • Shifting attitudes

Analysis of the data revealed that many participants felt they learnt to listen actively and engage with a diversity of opinions on a range of global issues. In addition to finding points of common ground, they Keywords reported learning to feel comfortable with and accept and/or respect divergent views. These are the very foundations of intercultural dialogue and lead to learning that can go beyond tolerance of difference. connect, world, group, religions, talk, engage, Active Listening listening, respect, ideas, dialogue, climate, Listening is often conceived in instrumental or utilitarian terms, as a skill to master. It is understood discrimination, stereotypes, in transactional (message-oriented, exchanging of information) or interactional (person-oriented) immigration, rights terms. However, listening is also key to relationality, to learning from and with others, and building strong relationships. This kind of active listening bridges gaps between people and requires patience, attentiveness and responsiveness: “listening [is] an active, relational, and interpretive process that is focused on making meaning . . . Listening is fundamentally about being in relationship to another and through this relationship supporting change or transformation” (Schultz, 2003, pp. 8–9). Many of the participants mentioned active listening as the most important thing they learnt from their participation in the exchange. Listening to others’ opinions was more important than communicating their own. They mentioned becoming more patient as others spoke, being less focused on their “inner voice” and increased awareness of how they react to what people say. An important part of being an active listener and building relationships is “asking good questions”, as it demonstrates engagement and interest, and is valuable in taking the conversation and learning further. All of these aspects of listening lie at the basis of intercultural understanding and also conflict resolution.

“ Patience and understanding (together with respect); I think having people speak one by one made me aware of the importance of active listening, patience, how difficult it can be to put thoughts into words and treating people respectfully at all times. (Female, 19, Netherlands)

“ The way that different people respond to some situations based on their previous experiences or it’s the way they live. How to be a good listener and connect the whole talk so it give you the power to ask questions based on previous sessions. (Male, 21, Palestine)

Engaging with divergent opinions

The other theme which emerged most frequently in the analysis of responses to the open questions about learning was “engaging with different opinions”. This was generally framed in terms of hearing, respecting and/or accepting different opinions on a wide range of topics. The diversity of perspectives and opinions was highly appreciated and reported as contributing to participants’ personal enrichment and learning. As mentioned in the literature review, communicating about both commonalities and differences and learning to appreciate difference are key to facilitating intergroup understanding, as well as key aims of EVE to which the OFD clearly contributed based on the responses of the participants.

“ The most important thing I learned was accepting does not mean agreeing. Respect is of much relevance.(Male, 23, Morocco/Nigerian)

“ I enjoyed discussing feminism with my group because it was the topic where the opinions were the most diverse. I enjoyed learning new things and opinions about this topic. In general debating when everybody agrees is quite boring and I found that on the matter of equality and feminism almost everybody added a new different view on the question, which was enriching and entertaining. (Male, 22, France) 41

Active listening and engaging with a diversity of opinions and perspectives, particularly on sensitive issues which lead to polarisation in public online spaces, are the key tenets of intercultural dialogue. Based on the analysis of participants’ responses, those skills have allowed them to go beyond tolerance and towards greater understanding, respect and empathy, all of which are crucial to the promotion of non-discrimination and more cohesive societies.

Building relationships with their groups

An important factor which affected participants’ experience was building relationships with their group, which contributed to the participants’ enjoyment and learning. Being a member of the group became part of a new shared identity participants acquired through the exchange, leading to group cohesion. The experiences and perspectives they disclosed to one another through the group dialogue process became a part of their common ground, and provided the conditions for successful intergroup contact and building strong relationships. From the interviews, it appeared that those who had participated in the longer programme (eight weeks as opposed to four) built stronger bonds with their group than those who had taken part in the four-week programme.

“ The best thing was the love and the warmth shared with the different group members. I felt like I’m around my family. (Female, 20, Tunisia)

“ The people in the group I am part of have open minds and accepting personalities, and I could speak with them freely, even more freely than I do with my peers in my community. (Male, 24, Egypt)

Changing attitudes

Some of the responses showed evidence of introspection and critical self-reflection. Participants noted how they previously saw the world and how they became more aware of their own situatedness and of the ways in which their background and experience influence their world view. Several reported a shift in their own perspectives after acquiring knowledge and hearing other participants’ experiences or opinions on issues and the motivations behind these. In several cases, respondents also experienced “activation” and the desire to bring about change. Being more aware and having greater knowledge or understanding of global issues is an important first step towards active and global citizenship. Recognising one’s complicity in the current state of affairs, seeing the need for change and taking action (with others) to address some of the global challenges are the next.

“ Hearing some realistic sharing feels like I have already been with these people in those situations. Thanks to the group’s stories, I can see the world from a deeper perspective out of the box I live in. I felt involved in world issues and responsible to be part of the change. It’s precious! (Female, 22, Tunisia)

Facilitators commented on the tangibility of shifts in attitude. They could identify “aha moments” or “earth-shattering moments when you see the penny drop”, for example when new information and/ or perspectives of an issue that participants knew nothing or little about emerged in the dialogue session. But they also reported observing the cumulative effect of the dialogue on participants, “slow burners” which are more difficult to capture but can be seen as “seeds that are being sown”.

Focus: Challenging perceptions of European and Southern Mediterranean countries

A recurring theme in the interviews and focus groups – both in Tunisia and Italy – was the Southern Mediterranean students’ metaperceptions (that is, how a person views other people’s perception of them), which were characterised by the belief that Europeans viewed Muslims in a negative light. In the focus group in Sfax there were several references to Islamophobia as a topic that was discussed in their different groups, and how they felt the need or duty to challenge the misconceptions that Europeans had of their culture and/or religion. Some reported surprise that their European peers were open to engaging with them and developed positive attitudes towards them.

“ I am braver in the virtual world, than in the actual world, we discussed a lot of important topics, such as Islamophobia, the reaction from the other participants was great, they supported all Muslims. (Female, Tunisia, 24) 42

“ We pointed out some subjects, such as religion of course and they were open minded and it is ok, what is wrong with different religions. They were so warm people, and I liked that, it made me more open to them, and feel I know them for a long time. (Female, Tunisia, 21)

The Southern Mediterranean students’ need to challenge perceived misperceptions of themselves and/or their religion was also mentioned in the group interviews with students in Italy.

“ We started the group, divided among East and West, they were taking a defensive position, everyone would judge them as terrorists, but nobody had these stereotypes. This was more in their mind, we were an open group, very happy to discuss, we could feel in the way we were positioning in the dialogue. The main thing that we realized about them, and they realized about Europe, that we are very close, and much more similar, we want the same things in life. (Male, 28, Italy/Brazil)

Several European students reported that their perspectives changed – they acquired a more nuanced view of the diversity of perspectives and the challenges that youth face across Southern Mediterranean countries, which contrasts with the very limited understanding that one can gain from the media. The exchange also supported reflections on their own societies.

“ I agree, I had the stereotype that women’s rights are not respected in the MENA region, but things are improving, many of these women were lawyers. This changed my view, but there are other steps to do, the majority had the right to travel abroad, but in rural areas there are problems of education and travel. In Western countries the main problem is violence against women, gap in wages, abortion stigma. They say that in the West we achieved more rights, and we overcame all problems, but we mentioned that there are still problems. They were surprised that there are still problems regarding women. (Female, 22, Italy)

4.4.2 How does the Transnational EVE Projects model (Activity 2) contribute to meeting the aims of EVE? Main learning outcomes

Profile of participants • Increased confidence in language and The total number of participants in 2019 was 656. What stands out in terms of their profile is the communication skills predominance of participants from European countries, as well as the prevalence of participants from • Increased knowledge of HEIs. This is most probably due to the greater familiarity with this model of exchange in European HEI other cultures contexts, and the higher participation and completion of European educators in the training programmes. • Building relationships • Learning to collaborate Participant learning online

Increased confidence in language and communication skills Keywords What emerged from analysis of the qualitative data in terms of the most important learning outcomes for the respondents were an increased confidence in communicating in a foreign language connect, world, group, and with people from different cultures. The majority of the exchanges were in English – a foreign religions, talk, engage, language for most participants – although Spanish, French and Italian were used in some of the listening, respect, ideas, exchanges. While a number of exchanges were designed for foreign language classes, respondents dialogue, climate, from exchanges with other main learning objectives also reported improved confidence and discrimination, stereotypes, language competence. Some participants mentioned specific language skills such as learning new immigration, rights vocabulary and phrases.

“ I can communicate with people from different cultures better than I originally thought. (Female, 20, United Kingdom)

“ Ability to understand and interact with people from diverse cultural and ethnic background. (Female, 22, Algeria) 43

Increased knowledge of other cultures

Several participants reported gains in knowledge of other cultures and increased openness to cultural difference, which was generally equated with national differences. Respondents and interviewees reported acquiring knowledge about different aspects of culture, understanding and interpretations of cultural and historic events, traditions and pastimes, how the job market works in different countries, public health systems, tourist attractions, and young people’s attitudes towards certain issues as well as their hobbies and free time. Several respondents highlighted dismantling stereotypes that they had about others.

“ It’s a very constructive experience that allowed me to develop my observation and understanding of the similarities and differences among different cultures, as it developed my sense of appreciation for cultural differences and increased my awareness of the impact that these differences can have on interpersonal work relations as well as intercultural relations at the organisational level. (Female, 22, Algeria)

“ The subject chosen for this project allowed me, as a Romanian history student, to see another side of the discourse regarding these events and made me realize that such controversial events can’t be analyzed just from one perspective. (Female, 21, Romania)

Partly because these exchanges tend to be bi- or tri-lateral – that is involving groups from two or three countries –, there was a tendency towards a comparative approach, comparing attitudes to issues or beliefs in one another’s countries and exploring the relationship between them. Indeed the responses to the post-exchange survey questions in both 2018 and 2019 highlight that one of the strengths of this model of VE is in developing a greater understanding of the relationship between societies (73% in 2018 and 86% in 2019), more so than improving knowledge of global events (67% in 2018 and 77% in 2019). The difference between this and the other models is more marked on this particular aspect. Bi- or tri-lateral exchanges provide an opportunity for participants to focus on the relationship between specific contexts, exploring historic, intellectual, political and/or sociocultural dimensions. At the same time, there is a potential risk of simplifying and essentialising cultures with a focus on national identities.

Building relationships with individuals

For many of the participants, building friendships and relationships with their peers was a strong motivating factor for their participation in the exchange – which in some cases was satisfied, but not always. They did this mainly through interactions in dyads or small groups.

Disclosure seemed to support relationship building, – sharing more personal and intimate thoughts and moments with their peers was both a result of and further consolidated the construction of strong relationships. The live video communication tended to support this type of personal relationship. Students reported on particularly memorable or eye-opening moments with their peers during the focus groups.

“ I had a special moment with my Turkish peer, her mum entered and hugged her coming back home after six months, we talked about very special and familiar things (Female, Tunisia, focus group)

“ A special moment I wanted to share, my cousin passed away, two of them sent their condolences, and one talked by camera, I thought I will not cry but at the first moment I cried, it was a special moment. (Female, Tunisia, focus group)

When positive relationships were built, participants were inclined to interact more and beyond the specific activities they were assigned. However, a perceived lack of reciprocity in the exchange and interactions led to frustration and negative evaluations of the exchanges. This may be exacerbated in this model of VE, particularly when participants collaborate and interact mainly in dyads, as the success of the exchange will depend on the relationship built with one individual. This emerged strongly in the focus group in Tunisia where many of the participants made reference to the negative experiences they had had in a previous exchange with a group of students in France who they felt were not interested in interacting with them and lacked interest or motivation for taking part in the exchange. This made the collaboration with them challenging. In 2019 the percentage of students 44

who reported building positive relationships through their exchange was considerably higher than in 2018. This may, in part, be due to the further recommendations made in the training for educators/ youth workers to design activities and allow time for participants to build relationships

Learning to collaborate online

In the project-based exchanges that required teamwork, many of the participants reported that they learnt how to collaborate with others or work in a team despite their geographic distance. Even in cases where this proved challenging, it provided a learning opportunity for the participants. Online international collaboration has been identified by many as a key employability skill, as working in international, interdisciplinary teams is becoming more commonplace (Diamond, Walkley, Forbes, Hughes & Sheen, 2011). Yet young people’s social media activity does not generally entail collaboration for the completion of tasks or projects, nor does higher education tend to address this competence. For many of the TEP participants, the experience was enriching, and at the same time it highlighted that this form of collaboration is not as straightforward as they may have expected.

“ I’ve learnt how to cooperate with others in online meetings. (Male, 21, Hungary)

“ I learned that people will not always meet your expectations so you have to be ready for that. (Female, 19, Spain/Portugal)

Focus: Blended exchanges – supporting mobility through Virtual Exchange

The TEP model is flexible in that exchanges can be designed for specific groups of participants on the basis of their interests and needs. Several of the TEPs were designed to support physical mobility exchanges.

One exchange was designed to prepare groups of students from six different countries who would be meeting for a short-term mobility programme, and for debriefing after the mobility. This exchange enabled participants to build a relationship prior to meeting in person, thereby enriching their mobility experience.

Another exchange was designed for students going on five or nine-month Erasmus mobility. For these students it provided an opportunity to share their concerns and fears about their upcoming mobility, but also to acquire confidence in communicating in an international context.

“ […] Personally, I think that one of the most helpful things to do is to make friends or at least to get in touch with other people in the same situation, this might be useful in order to “explore” together new culture and habits and maybe to feel less alone or disoriented... So, at this point I realized how “lucky” we are since we have almost one year to prepare ourselves (not only physically but also psychologically) to the Erasmus experience. (Male, 25, Italy)

In this blended exchange, students from the “host” institution were partnered with incoming students. The VE was seen as a valuable opportunity to have an international experience without going abroad. For some, it served as preparation for an outgoing mobility to their partner’s country, for others it was a way to develop their language and intercultural skills. It also allowed international students to make meaningful and useful contacts with local students, to help them better integrate in their host university upon arrival. This meets the objective of enhancing the quality of Erasmus mobility and integrating Erasmus students with the host university students, in addition to bringing the benefits of internationalisation to non-mobile students.

“ Since I was young I have always dreamed to go abroad, see the world and meet foreign cultures. I could never afford or participate in Erasmus mobility, but thanks to this I succeeded in getting in touch with people around the world who I shared my ideas and my thoughts with. This has been my first experience of this kind and I really enjoyed myself. I am looking for a day where I can fly to another country and actually interact with foreign languages. I think this is what would fill my life the most. (Male, 22, Italy)

45

4.4.3 How does the Advocacy Training (Activity 3) model contribute to meeting the aims of EVE? Main learning outcomes The total number of participants for this activity in 2019 was 608. The majority of participants in this model are located in Southern Mediterranean countries and do not come to the activity through • Increased confidence formal educational programmes. in language, communication and Participant learning debating skills • Leadership and Increased confidence, communication, language and leadership skills organisational skills for debate leaders The skills highlighted by interviewees included increased confidence and communication skills, • Acquisition of particularly specific skills required for debate: better construction of arguments and counter- knowledge on specific arguments, working under time pressure, defending other opinions, teamwork and public speaking, issues learning how to think with a different perspective and getting a broader perspective on how to present • Increased awareness topics. The debate leaders also reported organisational and leadership skills. of different perspectives and “ I found that debate skills helped me a lot, I am now student representative of the University perspective change council, I attend meetings with the teachers, debate skills helped me to talk well in front of people and express my thoughts in a good way. I am using my debate experience to train people in high schools and debate clubs in my University to get more experience in debating to find new Keywords opportunities in the future. (Male, 24, Morocco) debate, distance, criticise, “ In my team I was the team leader, I got to practice my leadership skills, prepare the team for Mediterranean, motion, the competition, I learned a lot as a team leader. (Female, 24, Tunisia) debating, listening, contact, discuss, ideas, For many interviewees the debates are an opportunity to practice and improve their English language climate, change, decision, skills, in an authentic international context as English was in many cases the only language they political shared with members of their online debate teams.

Several of the interviewed participants had participated in debates in Arabic and French. Several interviewees agreed that it would be beneficial to have debates in Modern Standard Arabic in order to better support the participation of Europeans who are learning Arabic and to make the activity more accessible to Southern Mediterranean participants who are not comfortable speaking English or do not have the competence required.

“ When I published about my coming experience, they said that they would prefer to do it in Arabic, some didn’t have experience with intercultural dialogue, some prefer to do it in Arabic, it would be so great, it would open many closed gates, to break many stereotypes. (Female, 33, Jordan)

Acquisition of knowledge on the topics debated

Debaters and debate team leaders reported a wide range of topics that were tackled. Several interviewees and survey respondents reported learning more about the topics they were debating while preparing for the debates. This involved choosing motions, learning how to research and think critically about current and global issues, considering multiple angles on the issues and developing a coherent argument.

“ The topics I debated about were really challenging since I knew little about them, so I spent hours searching, but it was really interesting. It has improved my debating skills, and gave me enough courage to say what’s on my mind, and I would definitely love to join again if I have the chance. (Female, 19, Egypt)

Some participants reported changing their perspectives as they researched or listened to arguments on topics that were against their own views.

“ One example that I have always mentioned we were talking about nationalism in sense of protection local culture and be globalist, and in term of identity, against the emotions that we should protect our culture and preserve our borders. When other groups were presenting their 46

arguments, I had never looked for them, those arguments are valid, they have correctness in them, I should totally be open to it. (Male, 28, Germany)

“ I’ve learnt a lot from this debate experience and it was really enriching despite the fact that I’ve been debating for a while now (in real life). I think one of the most important things about debating is how you sometimes find yourself defending a position that you’re not convinced with. This is at the same time challenging and healthy because it leads to thorough research. When you find yourself compelled to defend that position, your scope of knowledge becomes broader. You’re actually no longer a blind believer in a particular opinion, but rather a free thinker who’s willing to learn from others and be convinced with new ideas (in case they are convincing of course). (Female, 22, Tunisia)

Perspective change on specific issue

Virtual debates added the international and intercultural components that were missing from the face to face debates, and some interviewees reported that this introduced them to different perspectives on issues that they would not have been exposed to if the debates had remained local or national. One’s knowledge and understanding of issues are strongly influenced by one’s social and cultural contexts and the media one is exposed to. Carrying out research on the issues allowed debaters to explore the issue more widely, but the perspectives and experiences that youth from different social and cultural contexts brought to the debate also struck a chord with many of the interviewees and allowed them to gain insights into the impact of global issues on different local communities. Whilst the information may be available in online resources, hearing it from peers makes it more immediate and real.

“ On social media in Germany and stuff people are posting a lot of stuff in their profiles – people in North Africa would probably find it a bit weird why people are so concerned about privacy and just to hear and know about that it is really interesting (Male, 24, Morocco)

“ It was a pleasure for me to have the chance and debate with people from different countries and cultures and debate on things that are really affecting my own community, it gave me a huge experience about these issues and I hope to have the chance to share in Erasmus and debates more and more. (Female, 22, Egypt)

Access and digital competences

Further perceived advantages of the virtual debates were participation in international online competitions and providing a safer space for women and LGBTQ community members. Debating online was thus seen as resolving some challenges related to mobility within the region, and also the more limited opportunities for mobility to Europe that many youths in the Southern Mediterranean face. Online debate resolves logistic issues also within countries where internal travel is challenging.

“ A lot of people can’t go to Europe, so it is a solution for a mobility problem for many, I have been doing these meetings three times in six months, we facilitate debates, we have mixed teams from North and South of the Mediterranean. There are no winners or losers, we all work together, with different people, with different backgrounds. (Female, 43,Tunisia)

Debating in the online space also allowed them to develop their digital competences as they had to master the communication tools used to collaborate in preparing for and participating in the debates. As several pointed out, this was different from face to face debates where body language, gesture and eye contact are more salient. However, some respondents also reported challenges related to their technology and connectivity.

“ On a personal level, It was crucial to confront my anxiety of talking through online platforms. At first, I was intimidated by the thought that debating online via virtual space is not my thing, however, it turned out to be one of the most beneficial experiences in terms of social and intellectual skills. Some technical issues though happen to be an obstacle across one or two debates. (Female, 28, Egypt) 47

Focus: enhancing debate with a post-debate facilitated dialogue session

Debates are a valued competence-building activity as they allow participants to develop knowledge of the themes debated, enhance their communication and argumentation skills and become aware of different perspectives on an issue. However, during debates personal views are not expressed, it is winning the debate with argumentation skills that counts. Many participants reported that while they enjoyed the debate activity, they would have liked to engage more with their fellow participants on a personal level outside the debate activity.

“ Yes, something I would change, you can get more of a personal experience if the way of the debate wouldn’t be so strictly organized, more of a free dialogue, you would get more on the culture of the others, or a second part where you can talk about yourself. That would be nice to get to know people a little better. (Male, 23, Germany)

In 2019 post-debate facilitated dialogue sessions were introduced as an opportunity for the participants to engage with one another and the issues debated on a more personal level. With the support of trained EVE facilitators some of the debaters had the possibility of meeting one week after their debates to reflect on the previous week’s debate, how they really felt about the issues that were debated. In this non-competitive context of dialogue, they were free to ask one another questions to deepen their understanding of the others’ perspectives and find out more about how their international peers experienced the issue.

Those who participated in the debrief sessions found that these were valuable in creating more personal connections with their team members.

“ I loved the post-debate session, it extended the scope of getting to know other teams in a less rigid context, and to discuss other aspects such as backstage preparation, personal thoughts of the motions, and what personally we believed of. (Female, 28, Egypt)

4.4.4 How does the Interactive Open Online Courses (Activity 4) model contribute to meeting the aims of EVE? Main learning outcomes The total number of participants in 2019 in this activity was 2,634. There was a regional imbalance, with 69% of participants from Southern Mediterranean countries. • Building knowledge and understanding of Analysis of the data revealed that there were many themes in common with Online Facilitated global issues Dialogue, which is inevitable given that the key component of both models is the sustained online • Learning from a wide facilitated dialogue, with 2-hour sessions spread over five to ten weeks, depending on the specific diversity of people and programme. Both models have participants develop active listening skills and engage with a diversity perspectives of opinions on a range of global issues. In the analysis below, more emphasis is placed on the themes • Developing critical that distinguished the iOOC responses. thinking and media literacy Building knowledge and understanding of global issues • Building strong relationships over time Several of the interviewees and focus group participants reported on the knowledge they had acquired through the programme on the specific topics they dealt with – populism, nationalism, migration, gender and media. This model of VE, which includes short video lectures, seemed to equip participants Keywords with the terminology associated with the concepts they were addressing, in turn creating greater understanding of those concepts – they were able to talk about identity, difference and “othering”, lectures, facilitators, gender and media in a more complex and nuanced way. group, world, talk, perspectives, discussion, In their evaluations, participants made reference to the video resources (including short lectures) nationalism, populism, which provided them with some context for their sessions and a shared knowledge-base which could equality, immigration, serve as a starting point for their discussions. media, ideas, listening, diversity, populism, “ Videos are a point to start thinking. Then you deeply and share your opinion about a specific belonging, borders, issue, they are something to start from, the real part of the program that it is enriching is the nationalism, citizenship discussion” (Male, 23, Italy) 48

“ I was very glad to learn better words and ways to describe certain issues, to learn frameworks that organize sparse perceptions that I had from my work and life experience. For example, to describe how we are more than our biological sex or other identities, but they still both define us and are elements by which we are defined by others, informing who we are and how we are framed/perceived. (Female, 29, Portugal)

A number of interviewees valued the videologue project – an assignment which required participants to record and share with their group short video interviews with their community or family members. This provided them with the opportunity to develop digital literacies and hone their interviewing technique. It was also seen as a chance for the participants to talk about and share the knowledge and perspectives they acquired through their VE with others in their community and open up local spaces for dialogue. This was an intentional aim of this activity, and whilst some interviewees reported that they found it challenging, many fully grasped its intentionality. The value of the videologue in bringing different perspectives into the conversation was highlighted. Whilst the majority of participants in the dialogue group were university students, thus in some ways shared a common identity and also generation, through the videologue a wider range of voices could be brought into the conversation – with family members, older people, less-educated people.

“ I liked the idea of video log, ask question, you play a role of a journalist, you receive the answer, you make a reaction to video. (Male, 22, Algeria)

Learning from a wide diversity of people and perspectives

One of the themes that emerged in most of the interviewees and focus groups, as well as the responses to the open questions, was the diversity amongst the people in the groups, not only in terms of geographic origin, but in terms of perspectives on issues, life experiences, values and beliefs. This was not only the main contribution to participants’ learning but also what they enjoyed most about their exchange.

For students in Europe, even those who had studied abroad, the diversity of the participants’ backgrounds was recognised as an important factor of their learning as some of their group members came from countries they had never visited and some were from conflict zones, bringing to the table voices that are often marginalised, silenced or demonised in public discourse and the media. Although in European cities there are asylum seekers and refugees, few of the interviewees had interacted with them or been engaged with local organisations working with these groups, thus this online exchange was their first contact. Of particular impact on the European participants in the focus group discussions were their interactions with students from Syria and Palestine. These interactions were also mentioned by some of the facilitators as particularly impactful and were cited as moments where the change in participants was tangible.

“ I chose it not thinking so much, I had no particular expectations. Listening to people talking about political situations, how they live and so it was quite shocking for some aspects, for example the girl from Gaza – it was shocking hearing about her experience she talked about bombs striking. There were five minutes of silence and no-one knew what to say because we were all very sad and then everyone shows everyone shows their empathy with her. (Female, Italy, 20)

The interviewees in Southern Mediterranean countries on the other hand mentioned that they have fewer opportunities than European students to engage with the outside, their societies seen as more homogeneous. They enjoyed the opportunity to engage with young people in Europe but also felt the need to challenge the view they felt Europeans had of them, to feel listened to and able to offer alternative perspectives than those they felt European youth acquired through the media.

“ My family didn’t let me go out of the country, so I tried to find anything online. It was my window for the world, I dream to travel, I worked to find an internship but I don’t know if my family will allow me to go. (Female, Syria, 28)

The interactions and resources also brought into play multiple aspects of their own and others’ identities. This allowed them to see themselves and others beyond national identities and as multifaceted individuals, with a range of experiences, living in complex and changing societies. Several reflected that they had not previously reflected on their identities. 49

“ I have never had someone asking who are you, this was a very touching moment, first day, ask yourself who are you, what makes you, I had to run through a while, what makes me the actual me. I had to doubt a lot of things from my side, let me think about other things, why I associate this about my identity, it is like having asked questions from professors. (Male, 22, Algeria)

Developing critical thinking and media literacy

Navigating difference is an important part of developing critical thinking, talking and listening to people who have different points of view, understanding the situatedness of one’s own perspectives and acquiring new knowledge through experience and interactions with others. Developing critical thinking is also about seeing complexity and recognising that there is no single right or wrong way of seeing. It is a key component of intercultural competence and also media literacy as it enables people to recognise bias and challenge media representations with counter narratives and alternative perspectives to the ‘single stories’ that they are often exposed to. This is one of the key aims of the EVE initiative.

“ I learnt how to enroll positive dialogue, that nothing is a uniface, we can see things from other sides, and that differences are an opportunity (Female, 31, Algeria)

“ There is no single truth or right. We should consider people in their own context. (Female 26, Turkey)

Deeper engagement and friendship develop over time

The fact that the exchange was sustained over time allowed many of the participants to build relationships and engage on a deeper level. This is partly because it allowed them to build confidence in the online space, become more comfortable with the medium itself, communicating through English. Participants were interacting with peers who they initially did not know, but with the support of facilitators and semi-structured dialogue they became familiar enough with each other to be able to disagree, share jokes with and develop a strong affinity through their shared experience in the group.

“ At the beginning some people and I were really shy, not so extrovert – I was kind of scared it was a new experience, I never tried something like that, it wasn’t easy to open up and talk about everything like that. From the second or third session I got comfortable, I didn’t think I was going to like it – wanted to try but then I realised it was a great experience and I’m really happy I tried it – the thing I liked the most about the group is how close we are getting, how comfortable we are – we laugh, joke if someone doesn’t understand they explain we explain each other – every time he asks us how the video lecture was – I always say interesting and [the facilitator] said I wasn’t allowed to say always “interesting”, use another word. (Female, Italy, 20)

Focus: Ambassador programme

In 2019 the “Ambassador” programme was introduced, whereby alumni of the Newcomers and Nationalism programme were invited to “support and expand the next generation of participants,” that is generate interest and enrolment in the project amongst peers in their contexts by organising information events, and also support the new participants through their experience in the programme. Motivations for joining the programme were varied, from continuing to engage with a programme they found extremely stimulating; wanting more young people in their communities to share a similar experience, particularly those in contexts where opportunities were limited; wanting to improve their own skill set by acquiring leadership and organisational skills; and wanting to access new opportunities.

“ First, I know for sure that a large proportion of Syrian students would be enthusiastic about getting involved in any multi-cultural activity that aims at improving their personal skills of communication and their educational capacities. As a result of the current crisis and its correspondent world sanctions on Syria, any further pursuit of educational, cross-cultural or personal development has become much more difficult for students. 50

For Karim and Amine who were based in Algeria the VE was quite different from other educational experiences they had, where they generally focus on learning content, and are rarely asked for their opinions and perspectives. Amine had gone on to follow facilitator training and take part in other VE programmes. He wants to become a teacher and sees the skills he is acquiring through the various programmes as being applicable to his future role as a teacher. The recognition of these activities with online badges was also important for them.

Sara connected for the interview from her university in Syria. Despite the challenges with connectivity, there are a lot of online opportunities offered to young people in Syria, but she wanted to highlight the value of EVE in comparison to other opportunities available such as free MOOCs. This was above all was the focus on social, cultural and political issues and the interactions with her group. EVE offered her the opportunity to give her perspective and feel heard, as well as for her view about others to be changed as the quote below illustrates.

“ I think for some people who live in say exclusive environments, they never heard about Syria and other places so it was a great chance to tell our story on the other hand they had the chance to show us how we also had some stereotypes about European people, one of my friends I was really surprised because she worked with immigrants - I always thought about English they don’t care about other people and are nationalistic but she changed my mind about it - she broke my stereotype

The ambassador role was seen as empowering, enabling them to bring change in their communities by promoting the opportunity of an international dialogue programme to more young people in their contexts and bring about change.

“ The most important thing I learnt from the experience that I am able to change and make an impact. I also learned that education reaches people more than anything. I also learned that interest is a key that opens multiple paths.

4.5 What are the strengths and challenges that each of the models of Virtual Exchange present? Each of the models has its own strengths and poses challenges, some of which are shared across models. In this section these shared strengths and challenges are presented, drawing on the data from participants, facilitators and coordinators in HEI and youth partner institutions.

4.5.1 Strengths

As described in the previous section there is considerable overlap between the OFD and the iOOC models in terms of meeting the aims of the EVE project. They both provide opportunities for meaningful intercultural dialogue between young people in European and Southern Mediterranean countries. They enhance participants’ critical thinking and promote tolerance, non-discrimination and deep engagement with and acceptance of difference. Both models explicitly address intergroup relations, such as that between Westerners/Europeans and predominantly Arab/Muslim societies, or newly arrived immigrants or refugees and host communities. They thus contribute strongly to meeting the objectives of the 2015 “Paris Declaration” and the EU neighbouring policy with the Southern Mediterranean.

The programmes have been specifically designed to foster active listening skills, to build meaningful relationships between diverse identity groups, and to support participants in welcoming conflict and understanding the difference between the display of emotions, which are always legitimate, and the expression of verbal violence, which clashes with the dialogue. The following aspects, all of which emerged as relevant to the respondents, are strengths in the design of the programmes:

• The wide range of topics, above all the potentially divisive ones, that can be addressed in the dialogue groups. This is because the participants are in a safe space which is supported by facilitators who are trained to address conflict dynamics as a normal part of any dialogue between different identity groups. 51

• The facilitators who lead the sessions have been trained to enable the development of active listening. They have followed an intensive training course and practicum prior to being able to facilitate. They are supported by a rich curriculum which includes activities to help develop active listening and allow participants to build meaningful relationships with one another, such as the activities of sharing life stories, role reversing and doing feedback rounds. Facilitators are also supported by coaches who observe sessions and provide them with feedback.

• The organisation of participants in small groups (eight to 12 people) which include participants from a wide range of backgrounds, thus bringing a variety of experiences and perspectives on issues to the group. Group size allows for everyone to speak up and be heard, while the occasional use of “breakout rooms” allows participants to interact in even smaller groups (dyads or triads).

• The semi-structured nature of the dialogue which includes activities such as those mentioned above as well as topic-specific discussion questions, and also allows significant time for free- flowing conversations among participants. This allows for scalability, ensuring a similar experience across multiple groups but also adaptability to the needs and interests of each group.

• The fact that dialogues are sustained over multiple weeks, so as they come back each week participants gradually feel more and more comfortable in the online space, slowly building relationships with their group members. Between sessions they have time to reflect and talk about their experience and the perspectives they encounter to members of their communities, thus potentially expanding the benefits of the activity to the wider community.

• The design of the platform, which serves as a simulation for the “talking stick” methodology.

• The scalability of the model and the possibility to offer quality intercultural dialogue to large numbers of participants from multiple geographic and cultural backgrounds.

• The modest effort required on the part of coordinators who integrate this experience into activities at their higher education institutions or youth organisations.

The TEP model of VE contributes above all to the fostering of soft skills of participants, notably communication, foreign language skills, intercultural competence and openness to difference and the ability to collaborate online on specific activities and projects. It also contributes to increasing the knowledge of the relationship between cultures. What distinguishes this model from the others is that educators and youth workers design and implement the VE with the support of trainers and mentors. The strengths of this model include:

• The flexibility of the model in terms of:

• the specific learning aims a VE can be designed to meet; • the language(s) used for the exchange; • the openness in terms of themes that can be addressed and activities designed; • the duration of the exchange, the tools used, and the number and types of partnerships established; • the design of the exchange and activities; • the number of facilitated dialogue sessions included in exchanges.

• Building the capacity of HEI educators and youth workers through the training programmes and the experience of collaborating with partners in the design and implementation of an exchange. They have reported acquiring intercultural communicative competence, digital and collaborative competences and above all the motivation and enthusiasm required to design and implement the exchanges. This model thus contributes to meeting the Erasmus agenda of innovating higher education and youth work, through pedagogically sound, inclusive and people-centred approaches to digitalisation and the modernisation of higher education and youth work.

• Strengthening and consolidating partnerships through collaboration. The bi or multilateral partnerships required to design an exchange allow the collaborating educators/youth workers to build strong relationships, which some have reported led them to the development of other collaborations such as mobility or research projects. 52

• As educators and youth workers are key multipliers, this model is scalable and can lead to the development of innovative exchanges.

The debate model also contributes to the aim of developing the transversal competences of youth to increase their employability. The specific skills participants develop are communicative skills, in particular those related to debate, such as public speaking, building an argument, countering an argument and careful listening. The strengths of this model lie in:

• The clear structure of the debates which have an established format that can be easily replicated, and is clear to all participants.

• The flexibility in terms of:

• the topics to be debated • the language used for the debate (English, French or Arabic) • the timing of the debate

• The integration of debate with a post-debate facilitated dialogue session with the support of EVE facilitators contributes to meeting participants’ desire to engage with one another on a more personal level, and reflect on the learning outcomes of the debate experience.

• The scalability of the programme through the online training of debate team leaders who are key multipliers. Though the majority of debates have taken place in non-HEI contexts, the model can also be applied to HEI institutions.

The potential in strengthening and consolidating partnerships between youth organisations in different areas of single countries as well as across countries. The bilateral partnerships required to implement an online debate allow the team leaders to build collaborative relationships.

Educating for and through interdependence and relationality

Building relationships and learning from others is the main strength of all the models and what distinguishes VE from many online pedagogies where the focus is on the content and on self-paced and individualised learning pathways. Participants develop relations with their facilitators and team leaders, who are more experienced and model behaviour for participants, also potentially inspiring them to engage further in EVE. Participants also build relationships with their peers whose investment and engagement in the exchange is key to the success of the activity. The types of bonds developed in the activities can vary according to the ways in which the exchanges and interactions are designed and implemented. In the OFD and iOOC activities participants are placed in groups of eight to 12 participants and thus evolve as a group, though they may also develop relations with individual members. The group provides a shared identity, something all members have in common, and becomes stronger over time. Debate participants build relationships with their local teams, but also the intercultural “team” with whom they debate. TEP participants are members of a class, in a specific context, and in most of the exchanges interact with individual partners or small groups with whom they develop strong bonds.

The success and impact of each of the exchange activities thus depends not only on the individual but on relationality, that is the relations developed with their peers - whether a single partner, their debate team, or their dialogue group. The experience of all individuals, and their engagement with VE, is influenced by the commitment of their peers, the extent to which they feel there was mutual interest, respect and reciprocity in their exchanges.

4.5.2 Challenges

Each of the models present common challenges, and some model-specific issues.

Attrition and lack of engagement

Regarding the OFD and iOOC models, a number of challenges were highlighted by facilitators and participants in relation to the dialogue sessions. 53

• Attrition, that is participants dropping out of the groups thus significantly altering the composition of the group.

• Participants’ different levels of engagement in the dialogue sessions. Several issues were mentioned in relation to this, including participants being present but not engaging in dialogue sessions, arriving late and/or leaving early, or participants missing multiple sessions - all of which had a strong impact on group dynamics.

• Participants’ lack of understanding of the aims of the dialogue sessions and how the VE was integrated in their courses. Facilitators felt they were spending time explaining the basics of VE, and being asked questions about local integration of the programme which they were not able to answer. This was viewed as taking precious time away from achieving the learning goals.

Attrition was also an issue for the debates and had a negative impact on the teams, as certain numbers are required for a debate to be carried out. In the case of TEPs, attrition was not an issue in the majority of exchanges in HEIs as they were fully integrated into courses, so participants were under the direct supervision of the educators. However, significant attrition was observed in two of the blended exchanges where participation was not integrated into a credit-bearing course, as well as in youth exchanges. Nonetheless, differences in participants’ levels of engagement with their partners were noted in TEPs, which led to dissatisfaction for some participants.

Facilitators reported that there tended to be more issues of attendance and/or poor engagement with participants from new partnerships, as some of the participants had not understood the sustained commitment required from them or the type of activity they would be engaged in. Some activity coordinators who were interviewed also mentioned that it could be difficult for them to describe an activity to students without a full understanding or direct experience. In the case of the TEP model, the engagement of participants from HEI backgrounds was partly affected by how the activity was integrated into their courses - for instance whether it was a part of the students’ course work or final evaluations and how much class time was dedicated to it. These factors, which emerged in the interviews with the coordinators as well as students, have been well documented in literature, most recently including the large-scale EC policy experimentation, EVALUATE (The EVALUATE Group, 2019) and the Stevens Initiative study (2019).

Integrating facilitated dialogue across models

Facilitated online dialogue is one of the defining features of EVE. It is the core component of OFD and iOOCs, and has been integrated into both the TEP and Debate models. In the case of TEPs, not all educators see the relevance or added value of facilitated dialogue sessions for their students. Some of those interviewed mentioned that they could not dedicate more of their students’ time to this activity, given the many other asynchronous and synchronous activities, in addition to the course content. Furthermore, finding one or two time slots which would suit all participating groups proved too challenging. For Debate participants, ensuring attendance to post-debate dialogue sessions at times proved challenging. In both of these activities, dialogue sessions were evaluated positively by the participants when they were successfully integrated in activities and attended by the participants. However, it should be stressed that a single dialogue session does not have the same depth of impact as multiple sessions sustained over time.

Technology and Connectivity

It cannot be assumed that all registered participants have easy and regular access to reliable technology and Internet connections. One of the issues mentioned most frequently by participants in the OFD was related to technology, specifically the problems that some participants had with the platform and the poor Internet connections. Increased government restrictions on some partner countries make participation particularly difficult in some contexts, with participants occasionally having to use filters in order to gain access - with the consequence of lower quality connections. According to a Freedom House (2019) report, the situation is particularly challenging in Egypt, Syria and Turkey. In some of the participants’ contexts, in particular in Syria, Libya and Palestine, connectivity challenges caused by electricity cuts were also reported. 54

Finding a place to connect from

Another issue across all exchange models is the difficulty in finding suitable places to connect from. This challenge was reported by participants, facilitators and exchange coordinators. Participants need to be in a quiet place (not a noisy café, university canteen or youth club, for example), but at the same time a location where they can speak, hence libraries are not generally suitable. Computer laboratories can be problematic because generally a whole lab cannot be booked just for one or two people. One iOOC coordinator at a university in France reported that her university had created what they called a “fishbowl”, a small room with just one computer for participants to connect from. A youth organisation in Tunisia showed evaluators a similar solution, one small room equipped with a computer where participants could connect from.

Time investment for educators and youth workers and variability in outcomes

The TEP model of VE presents some specific challenges. This model requires aheavy time investment for the implementing educators/youth workers at the partner institutions. They follow the training programme, design the exchange, negotiate and communicate with their partner(s), and implement the exchange. This is one of the factors that led to a lower than expected rate of implemented TEPs. Other factors, such as changing circumstances at work or partners having to drop out of projects, mean that planned TEPs may be postponed or cancelled.

The flexibility of the TEP model, the sometimes-limited experience of the educators/youth workers in VE, and lack of support at organisational/institutional level can lead to variability in terms of quality, learning outcomes and student satisfaction amongst the different TEPs. The working partnership between the coordinators is also a determining factor for the success of the exchange.

Bilateral exchanges between groups in two countries (as in the case of TEPs and Debates) allows participants to get to know specific socio-cultural contexts in greater depth and acquire understanding of how a specific subject or issue might be perceived and experienced by individuals in this setting. However, there is a risk of equating culture only with national cultures, that is falling into the trap of essentialising and reducing cultures to monolithic entities rather than exploring the changing, fluid nature of cultures and the multiplicity of individual identities. 55 5 Concluding remarks and recommendations 5.1 Conclusions

The research report sought to answer the following questions in order to evaluate the impact, quality and effectiveness of the project:

• To what extent do the results from 2019 consolidate the findings from 2018?

• In what ways do each of the models of VE contribute to meeting the aims of the EVE pilot project?

• What are the strengths and challenges that each of the models of VE present?

To what extent do the results from 2019 consolidate the findings from 2018?

Participant evaluations in the 2018 study were extremely positive overall and EVE was found to be a stimulating and enjoyable learning experience for the majority of participants. 2019 participants showed a comparable level of satisfaction, building meaningful relationships with their peers and feeling that they were improving their communication and foreign language skills, teamwork and digital literacies. In the pre- and post-exchange surveys, a significant increase was observed in the measures of intercultural effectiveness, curiosity and self-esteem. Significant change was also measured in attitudes towards people from different ethnic or religious groups. The findings from 2018 have thus been strongly consolidated and the aggregated data provides a strong evidence base for the value of VE.

All of the models contribute to meeting the aims of the European Commission for EVE, as the overall results show. What the models share is the focus on people-to-people interaction and engagement with difference. Through participation in EVE, participants are exposed to and learn to accept and/or respect divergent perspectives on global issues, a considerably wider range of viewpoints and experiences than they are exposed to through traditional media channels, social media and their educational contexts. It can also be concluded that EVE promotes citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through the building of positive relations and enhancing intercultural understanding. Participants build self-awareness, acquiring greater understanding of how their own backgrounds, sociocultural context and individual experiences can influence their perspectives.

In what ways do each of the models of VE contribute to meeting the aims of the Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange pilot project?

Although all models share core characteristics, such as the focus on interaction among youth and engaging with diverse perspectives, they differ in terms of pedagogic design, learning aims, duration of exchange, the types of interaction and collaboration that participants engage in, and the partnerships established. The qualitative study served to distinguish how each of the models contributes to the EVE objectives.

TEPs and Debates (Activities 2 and 3) foster, in particular, young people’s confidence in communicating in an international, cross-cultural context using digital tools to do so. The specific communication skills acquired depend on the way interactions are conceptualised and designed. Debate fosters confidence in public speaking, making a case, and listening to and rebutting arguments. Participants learn to collaborate in local and international teams.

TEPs (Activity 2) focus more on conversational skills, allowing youth to build working relationships so that they can exchange and collaboratively build knowledge about one another’s cultures, as well as work together on a project related to their youth organisation’s interests or their university courses.

OFD and iOOCs (Activities 1 and 4), meanwhile, focus more on dialogic forms of interaction in larger groups where active listening plays a key role and allows for the development of meaningful relationships, engaging with a range of perspectives and learning to accept and feel comfortable with divergent opinions and conflict. 56

What are the strengths and challenges that each of the models of VE present?

The table below summarises the survey respondents’ favourite topics addressed and the specific learning outcomes, strengths and challenges of each of the models.

OFD Model (Activity 1) TEP Model (Activity 2) Debate Model (Activity 3) iOOC Model (Activity 4)

Favourite topics discussed

religion, cultures, culture, countries, music, Climate change, equality, identity, populism, stereotypes, social media, differences, food, cinema, education, religion, migration and related gender, discrimination, hobbies, experiences, migrations, nuclear energy, issues, women, media, inequality, immigration, stereotypes and prejudice, belonging. the environment and travelling, employment. climate, identity and equality.

Main learning outcomes

Active listening Increased confidence Increased confidence in Building knowledge and in language and language, communication understanding of global Engaging with divergent communication skills and debating skills issues opinions Increased knowledge of Leadership and Learning from a wide Building meaningful other cultures organisational skills for diversity of people and relationships with groups debate leaders perspectives Building relationships Shifting attitudes Learning to collaborate Acquisition of knowledge Developing critical thinking online and perspectives on and media literacy Increased warmth to specific issues debated people of different ethnic Building meaningful and religious backgrounds relationships

Increased warmth to people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds

Strengths in the design of the model

Facilitated dialogue Flexibility of the model Structure of debates Facilitated dialogue sessions sustained over sessions sustained over multiple weeks Building the capacity Flexibility in terms of multiple weeks of educators and youth organisation Semi-structured nature of workers as well as Semi-structured nature of the dialogue participants Building the capacity of the dialogue debate team leaders Organisation in small Strengthening and Organisation in small groups consolidating existing groups partnerships Platform design Platform design

Modest effort required Modest effort required from partner institution from partner institution 57

OFD Model (Activity 1) TEP Model (Activity 2) Debate Model (Activity 3) iOOC Model (Activity 4)

Main Challenges

Attrition Variability in terms of Attrition Attrition quality of exchange, Different levels of learning outcomes and Time required of team Different levels of engagement participant satisfaction leaders engagement

Partner institutions’ limited Different levels of Technology and Partner institutions’ limited understanding of virtual participant engagement connectivity issues for understanding of virtual exchange some participants exchange Time investment and Technology and resources required of Technology and connectivity issues for partner institutions connectivity issues for some participants some participants Difficulty finding or sustaining partnership

Table 18: Strengths and challenges of the different models of Virtual Exchange 5.2 Recommendations for the future

The four models of VE present important opportunities for the development of VE as a field. The variability between the models and the strengths of each approach allow for its application in a wide range of contexts. As all the models are scalable, the experience of VE can become more widely accessible, thus further building the skills of young people, and building a generation of curious adults who are more open to dialogue and feel comfortable with difference.

Challenge: Attrition of participants and/or level of engagement

Recommendation: Enhancing the quality of partnerships to support retention and engagement

The quality of the partnerships for EVE is key to addressing the issues of attrition and strengthening the reciprocity in exchanges. It is important for all activities, but affects them in different ways. For iOOCs and OFD, coordinators need to have a good understanding of VE, the type of commitment needed by students and the institutional support required in terms of spaces, technical support if necessary, pedagogic support, and recognition.

In the case of TEPs important factors that can contribute to their success include the personal commitment and investment of the educators as well as that of their students. This is partly affected by how the activity is integrated into their courses – for instance whether it is a part of the students’ course work or final evaluations and how much class time is dedicated to it.

Several steps are being taken to improve the quality and sustainability of partnerships:

• The creation of a coordinator badge as a form of recognition of quality partners and which explains the criteria required for successful coordination.

• The development of a coordinator community to share experiences and challenges.

• A series of case studies is being gathered in the form of an open source publication which will provide examples that illustrate how the exchanges are implemented and coordinated in some institutions.

• Supporting TEP implementers in finding and sustaining partners and mentoring through the implementation of the exchange.

Further incentives, as well as a higher degree of institutional support and recognition for the initiative, are key. Possible incentives for participation and building quality partnerships could be: 58

• funding mechanism for institutions and youth organisations to cover the main costs and possible infrastructure needs, in the form of mini grants.

• member(s) of staff with hours specifically dedicated to virtual exchange coordination at any institution

Challenge: Variability in student experiences and evaluations of exchanges

Recommendation: Assuring the quality of exchanges through training, mentoring, evaluation, and feedback.

The positive impact of VE depends on the pedagogic design of the learning process, high quality training for facilitators and educators, the quality of dialogue facilitation and the creation of safe online spaces.

OFD and iOOCs (Activities 1 and 4) are “large scale” exchange models which have been tried, tested and validated over several years. They are organised centrally and supported by organisations that should carry out their own monitoring and evaluation to ensure the quality of the exchanges and ensure similar results across large numbers of participants. The debates (Activity 3) also follow a clearly structured model which is replicated with each iteration of debates. The TEP model (Activity 2) is the most flexible, which is a strength but can also lead to variability and unpredictability of the results. The training of educators/youth workers designing and implementing these exchanges is thus of great importance. Support and mentoring should also be provided during the implementation of exchanges.

Both internal and external monitoring and evaluation of all activities is key, as well as maintaining a virtuous feedback loop so activities can be improved. This is particularly important with the development of new exchange programmes.

Challenge: Time investment of educators/youth workers to develop TEPs

Recommendation: Resources could be provided to save educators/youth workers time when designing and implementing exchanges.

Sample exchange projects for specific needs – for example pre-mobility exchanges, preparing young people for the workplace, or preparing youth for Solidarity Corps – could be developed and shared with educators and youth workers as a framework for their exchange, open to adaptation to specific needs and contexts. These could include suggested activities and resources for participants to engage with. This would save time as they would not have to design their exchange from scratch, and the use of tried and tested activities and frameworks would ensure greater quality.

Challenge: Maintaining relationships and youth engagement

Recommendation: Provide opportunities for continued engagement

Amongst the opportunities that EVE presents are the opportunities to further engage with VE, and several participants proceed from one activity to another, or follow up participation in an activity with training to become a facilitator, debate leader, or to develop a VE. These opportunities provide an important channel for those young people who become “activated” through VE and want to further develop their skills and share their experiences with others. The development of the “ambassadors” in the iOOC activity was a welcome development and could be replicated across other activities. The facilitator training is also an important activity to further engage participants and trainees from other activities. For facilitators themselves, more professional development offered through the facilitator community and the opportunities to facilitate across activities are welcomed. The facilitator community could be more involved in developing new exchanges in collaboration with youth organisations.

Challenge: Access to technology and connectivity

Recommendation: Resources could be provided to youth organisations and HEIs in some areas for technological infrastructure and connectivity. 59

While VE is more accessible to more young people across E+ and south Mediterranean countries than physical mobility, there remains a digital divide in terms of access to suitable technology and infrastructure. Providing access to funding for youth organisations or HEIs to create spaces and infrastructure to provide youth with the possibility to engage in VE would allow for the participation of more youth from “harder to reach” backgrounds. 5.3 Final comments

Overall the results of the research study for Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange have proven the power of VE to provide young people with experiences that are both meaningful and equip them with the transversal competences that are perceived as necessary to improve their employability. By offering different models of exchange, a wide range of needs can be met in a variety of contexts. Through this pilot project, important lessons are being learnt in terms of the learning outcomes of virtual exchange, and how consolidated models of virtual exchange can produce consistent results over multiple iterations – as the 2019 results have confirmed many of the findings from the 2018 impact report. At the same time, the pilot project is providing a valuable opportunity to enhance the quality of the exchanges implemented through a better understanding of how the intentional design features of the different models affect the learning outcomes. As the results have shown, Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange is proving that it can successfully meet the specific objectives that the European Commission has established for the project by promoting intercultural dialogue amongst young people, developing their transversal competences and thus strengthening their employability, as well as promoting citizenship, tolerance and non-discrimination. 60 6 References

Council of Europe. Competences for democratic culture – Living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2016.

Cummins, J., & Sayers, D., Brave new schools. Challenging cultural literacy through global learning networks, St. Martin’s Press, NY, 1995.

Diamond, A., Walkley, L., Forbes, P., Hughes, T., & Sheen, J., Global graduates into global leaders [Report]. The Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR), the Council for Industry and Higher Education (now NCUB) and CFE Research and Consulting, 2011. http://www.ncub.co.uk/reports/globalgraduates- into-global-leaders.html

European Commission. The Erasmus Impact Study: Effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students and the internationalisation of higher education institutions. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2014

European Commission. Erasmus+ Higher Education Impact Study: Final Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019.

The EVALUATE Group. Evaluating the impact of virtual exchange on initial teacher education: a European policy experiment, Research-publishing.net, 2019. https://doi.org/10.14705/ rpnet.2019.29.9782490057337

Freedom House. Freedom on the Net 2019. https://www.freedomonthenet.org/sites/default/ files/2019-11/11042019_Report_FH_FOTN_2019_final_Public_Download.pdf

Guth, S., & Helm, F. (Eds.) Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st Century, Peter Lang, Bern, 2010.

Helm, F., Emerging identities in Virtual Exchange, Research-publishing.net, Dublin, 2018. https://doi. org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.25.9782490057191

Helm, F. & Van der Velden, B., Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange Impact Report 2018, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ a6996e63-a9d2-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF

LinkedIn. The Skills Companies Need the Most in 2019 - and how to learn them. https://learning. linkedin.com/blog/top-skills/the-skills-companies-need-most-in-2019--and-how-to-learn-them

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G., “Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies”, Computers & Education, Vol 56, No 2, 2011, pp. 429-440. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004

OECD. Preparing our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World: The OECD PISA global competence framework, OECD Publishing, 2018. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/Handbook-PISA-2018-Global- Competence.pdf

O’Dowd, R., “From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: state-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward”, Journal of Virtual Exchange, Vol 1, No 1, 2018, pp. 1-23. https:// doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.jve.1

O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T., Online intercultural exchange: policy, pedagogy, practice, Routledge, London, 2016.

O’Dowd, R., Sauro, S. & Spector-Cohen, E., “The Role of Pedagogical Mentoring in Virtual Exchange”, TESOL Journal, Vol 54, No 1, March 2020, pp. 146-172. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ full/10.1002/tesq.543 61

Prensky, M., Don’t bother me, mom, I’m learning! how computer and video games are preparing your kids for 21st century success and how you can help!, Paragon House, St. Paul, 2006.

Schultz, K., Listening: A framework for teaching across differences, Teachers College Press, NY, 2003.

Stevens Initiative. Evaluating Virtual Exchange: A toolkit for practitioners. The Aspen Institute, Washington, 2019. https://www.stevensinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Evaluation- Toolkit-Final.pdf

Warschauer, M. (Ed.) Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 1996. 62

Annex 1: Literature review of learning outcomes of Virtual Exchange Author: Robert O’Dowd

An important number of research studies have shown in recent years that Virtual Exchange (VE) has great potential for developing the skills and attitudes which were outlined in the previous section. Reports have also demonstrated how VE can be applied effectively across a range of contexts and subject areas including foreign language education (Guth and Helm, 2010; O’Dowd and Lewis, 2016), business studies (Lindner, 2016; Taras et al., 2013), engineering (Fernández- Raga, Villard, Palencia, Castañón, Viejo & Gómez Fernández, 2019) and the humanities, which includes subject areas as diverse as feminism, the diaspora, gender roles, and human rights (Schultheis Moore & Simon, 2015).

In this section, evaluators report on some of the most significant studies published to date and review the learning outcomes that they have demonstrated. It is difficult to compare results across studies due to important differences in educational contexts, VE structure and research methodologies, but recurring tendencies as to the key determining factors in achieving successful outcomes can be identified. In other words, the goal is to identify what is being learned in VE initiatives and how this is being achieved. Findings are presented in two sections, differentiating between the learning outcomes of “class to class” VE and models which involve facilitator-led interaction.

What do people learn from the telecollaborative model of Virtual Exchange?

As regards developing aspects of intercultural competence and intercultural awareness, studies have provided ample evidence that class-to-class models of VE can be very effective. For example, Taras et al. (2013) evaluated the effectiveness of global virtual student collaboration projects in international management education. In a large-scale research study, the authors looked at the learning outcomes of 6,000 students from 43 countries who took part in the X-Culture VE projects as part of their international management courses. Among other factors, the authors looked at the development of students’ cultural intelligence during their exchanges. Students were asked, for example, to what extent they enjoyed interacting with people from different countries, if they were confident that they can socialise with members of an unfamiliar culture and to what extent they felt they could deal with the stress of working with people from other cultures. Analysing the results of the pre-post-test, the authors found that the rise in students’ cultural intelligence was statistically significant.

Walther, Hoter, Ganayem and Shonfeld (2014) reported on a VE in the Israeli-Palestinian context. This study involved students from the three major Israeli education sectors—religious Jews, secular Jews, and Muslims. The students communicated during a year-long online course focusing on educational technology and completed a pre- and post-test related to prejudice. Members of the virtual groups in this study exchanged messages over an entire academic year and the authors concluded that the keys to reducing prejudice in VE had depended on having sufficient time for developing personal relationships to gradually improve relational communication.

Guth & Helm (2017) report on a study of the impact on 112 students of participation in eight virtual exchanges between the United States and the Middle East and North Africa region. The authors found positive impact in terms of students’ expanding their knowledge and understanding of their subject content, and more generally, knowledge about another culture. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority reported acquiring soft skills which included the ability to communicate and collaborate with people from different cultural contexts through online technologies. The authors found that the students’ need to overcome issues of communication and collaboration in working towards a common objective were key to their learning.

Similar findings were found in the EVALUATE study (EVALUATE group, 2019). Evaluating and Upscaling Telecollaborative Teacher Education was a European policy experiment project funded by Erasmus+ Key Action 3 which examined the impact of VE on students and teachers of initial teacher education. Between 2017-18, the project consortium worked with teacher trainers from 34 institutions of initial teacher education and organised 25 class to class virtual exchanges which involved over 1000 student teachers. The study presented large-scale evidence that class to class VE can develop students’ intercultural, digital-pedagogical, and linguistic competences. The study also reported that, for many students who come from homogenous backgrounds, VE was often students’ first serious 63

engagement with members of other cultures. Following their experiences of VE, students reported increased confidence in working in international and intercultural contexts and, similarly to the Guth & Helm study mentioned earlier (2017), in facing and overcoming challenges, students reported having developed teamwork and problem-solving skills.

There is also a large body of research stemming from over 20 years of practice of e-tandem and telecollaborative models of VE (O’Dowd & Lewis, 2016) which provides ample evidence for VE’s potential for foreign language learning and intercultural competence development. Numerous small-scale studies have demonstrated that VE, when well executed, can give language learners the opportunity to engage in negotiation of meaning (Blake & Zyzik, 2003) and to receive corrective feedback from their peers (Diez-Bedmar & Pérez-Paredes, 2012). Foreign language-based approached to VE have also been found to be particularly beneficial in developing students’ pragmatic competence in the foreign language (Belz and Kinginger 2002, 2003; Belz and Vyatkina 2008; Vyatkina and Belz 2006; Cunningham and Vyatkina 2012) and that peer feedback can also have a strong impact on students’ vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation development (Bueno-Alastuey, 2013). Many reports highlight the importance of the pedagogical mentoring and support provided by educators in class to class exchanges in order to help their students to reflect and learn from their online interactions. This can be achieved by providing students with examples or models of effective or appropriate online interaction strategies before they engage in online interaction with their partners (O’Dowd, Sauro & Spector-Cohen, 2019; Ware, 2013) or by integrating extracts and recordings of students’ own online interactions into class interaction as learning “rich points” emerge (Cunningham, 2016).

However, research on class to class foreign language VE has also highlighted the challenges and drawbacks of online intercultural exchange and various studies have identified the reinforcement of cultural stereotypes through VE (Itakura, 2004; O’Dowd, 2003), the clash of differing discourse styles (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Ware & Kramsch, 2005), and the challenges emerging from differing socio- institutional contexts (Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; O’Dowd, 2005).

What do people learn from the dialogue model of Virtual Exchange?

In the context of facilitator-led VE, there is considerably less research available on the learning outcomes of this model. However, the studies that do exist clearly demonstrate its efficiency.

For example, Van der Heijden & Ploss (2014) report on the impact of the Sharing Perspectives Foundation VE program “Perspectives on the Euro(pean) Crisis”. The study used various pre- and post- exchange quantitative and qualitative instruments to assess the learning of skills gained through participation in the exchange and also to establish whether the program has initiated attitude changes among the participants towards other Europeans. Students reported that participation in the VE had enhanced their understanding of the economic, political and social aspects of the European crisis, while their ability to understand the thinking of other young Europeans has also been enhanced. A large majority of participants also reported that the exchange had improved their work environment skill set. As regards intercultural attitudes, the authors found that the perceived relationship between the participants and other European nationals has become closer. Using research instruments developed by Soliya and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), they also identified a significant increase in self-other overlap between the identity groups of the participants and other European nationals. The results also demonstrated that following participation in the VE there had been an increase of understanding for different viewpoints and that the participants of the exchange increasingly valued European solidarity and cooperation. Lastly, the nations from which youth did participate in the VE were ascribed more positive characteristics by participants than nations that had not participated in the project.

Bruneau, Saxe and Tropp (2014) report on a research study which evaluated the effect of the Soliya facilitated VE programme over a three-year period on participants from western countries and Majority Arab/Muslim countries relative to a control group. The first part of the study found that following their participation in the VE exchanges, both Americans and Arabs/Muslims displayed significant and consistent positive change in intergroup affect, self-outgroup overlap and meta-perceptions. The second part of the study looked at an exchange which took place at the time the Boston marathon bombings occurred, which were committed by two Muslim brothers. This event allowed for investigation of the effect of a VE in the context of an act of violence that could be construed as 64

‘intergroup’. The authors found that for nearly all measures, American Soliya participants experienced increased positivity towards Muslims and Islam, or were insulated from increased negativity exhibited by the control group, despite the bombings by two Muslim individuals.

In their study, the authors underline that simply bringing students together in intercultural contact is insufficient to reduce prejudice and improve intergroup understanding. Instead, they highlight the importance of communicating about both commonalities and differences between groups in contact situations, as well as the benefits of self-disclosure to facilitate deeper connections and eventual attitude change. They also refer to research by Nagda (2006) which identified communication processes such as appreciating difference, engaging self (active involvement rather than passive viewing) and critical self-reflection as being key to facilitating intergroup attitude change.

Belz, J. A., & Mueller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German- American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71–89.

Belz, J.A. and Kinginger, C. (2002) “The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies”, Canadian Modern Language Review-revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 59(2): 189-214.

Belz, J.A. and Kinginger, C. (2003) “Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms”. Language Learning, 53(4): 591-647.

Belz, J.A. and Vyatkina, N. (2008) “The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction”. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 33-52.

Blake, R., and Zyzik, E. (2003). “Who’s helping whom? Learner/ heritage-speakers’ networked discussion in Spanish”. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 519–544.

Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. T., Tropp, L.R. (2014). Building virtual bridges: Online computer mediated contact improves intergroup attitudes in Americans and Muslims.

Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2013). “Interactional feedback in synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication: Effect of dyad”. System, 41(3), 543–559.

Cunningham, J., (2016). “Request Modification in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Focused Instruction”. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (2), 484-507. DOI: 10.1111/ modl.12332

Cunningham, D. J., & Vyatkina, N. (2012). “Telecollaboration for professional purposes: Towards developing a formal register in the foreign language classroom”. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 68, 422-450. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1279

Diamond, A., Walkley, L., Forbes, P., Hughes, T., & Sheen, J. (2011). Global graduates into global leaders [Report]. The Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR), the Council for Industry and Higher Education (now NCUB) and CFE Research and Consulting. Available at http://www.ncub.co.uk/reports/ globalgraduates-into-global-leaders.html

Díez-Bedmar, M., & Pérez-Paredes, P. (2012). “The types and effects of peer native speakers’ feedback on CMC”. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 62–90.

The EVALUATE Group (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

Fernández- Raga, M., Villard, T., Palencia, C., Castañón, A., Viejo, J. & Gómez Fernández, F. ( 2019). “Virtual Exchange in Engineering to realize a learning experience based on projects using ICTs”. TEEM’19 Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, 689-695. DOI: 10.1145/3362789.3362790 65

Guth, S., & Helm, F. (Eds.) (2010). “Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st Century”. Bern: Peter Lang.

Itakura, H. (2004). “Changing cultural stereotypes through e-mail assisted foreign language learning”. System, 32, 37–51. Kabata & Edasawa, 2011

Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. (2002). “Foreign language learning as global communicative practice”. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp.83-100). London: Routledge.

Lindner, R. (2016). “Developing communicative competence in global virtual teams: a multiliteracies approach to telecollaboration for students of business and economics”. CASALC Review, 1, 144-156.

Nagda, B. R. A. (2006). “Breaking barriers, crossing borders, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues”. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 553-576.

O’Dowd, R. (2003). “Understanding ‘the other side’: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English email exchange”. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 118-144. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol7num2/odowd/default.html

O’Dowd, R. (2005). “Combining networked communication tools for students’ ethnographic research”. In J. Belz, & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Computer-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 86- 120). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (Eds) (2016). “Online intercultural exchange: policy, pedagogy, practice”. London:Routledge.

O’Dowd, R., Sauro, S. & Spector-Cohen, E. (2019). “The Role of Pedagogical Mentoring in Virtual Exchange”, Tesol Quarterly, 54(1), 146-172, Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ full/10.1002/tesq.543.

Schultheis Moore, A., & Simon, S. (2015). Globally networked teaching in the humanities. Routledge.

Taras, V., Caprar, D. V., Rottig, D., Sarala, R. M., Zakaria, N., Zhao, F., Jiménez, A., Wankel, C., Weng, S. L., Minor, M., Bryła, P., Ordeñana, X., Bode, A., Schuster, A. M., Vaiginiene, E., Froese, F. B., Bathula, H., Yajnik, N., Baldegger, R., & Huang, V. Z. Y. (2013). A global classroom evaluating the effectiveness of global virtual collaboration as a teaching tool in management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(3), 414-435.

Van der Heijden, C & Ploss, K. (2014) Perspectives on the Euro(pean) crisis: An evaluation of the impact of virtual exchange. Unpublished report.

Vyatkina, N., & Belz, J.A. (2006). A learner corpus-driven intervention for the development of L2 pragmatic competence. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J.C. Fe´lix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp. 315–357). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i.

Walther, W., Hoter, E., Ganayem, A. and ShonfeldWare, M. (2015). Computer-mediated communication and the reduction of prejudice: A controlled longitudinal field experiment among Jews and Arabs in Israel. Computers in Human Behavior 52, 550–558

Ware, P. & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89, 190-205. 66

Annex 2: Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange Monitoring & Evaluation Tools 2019

BIO DATA GATHERED FROM ALL PROJECT PROMOTERS FROM INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS

BIODATA

Gender: Male / Female / Prefer not to answer

Age

What country are you participating from?

What is your nationality?

ERASMUS+ VIRTUAL EXCHANGE MONITORING & EVALUATION

IMPACT, PRE & POST TEST

Note to respondent (which activity promoters may vary)

During the next few weeks you are going to take part in an Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange project. As this is part of a European pilot project we will ask you to complete a short survey now and at the end of the exchange. We are asking you to do this so that we can learn more about your experience of virtual exchange, the impact it has on you and also how we can improve the virtual exchanges we offer. There are no correct answers, we simply ask you to answer the questions honestly.

Your confidentiality will be protected at all times. The data will be anonymised prior to statistical analysis and reports/publication writing. Taking part in this research is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time.

If you have any questions regarding your participation in this project or any queries about the study do not hesitate to contact .... (each project promoter provides a contact address)

The survey should take you no more than 5 minutes.

ERASMUS+ VIRTUAL EXCHANGE MONITORING & EVALUATION

PRE-POST

Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

The questions below should all be on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree

1. I have high self esteem

2. I frequently find myself looking for new opportunities to grow as a person (e.g., information, people, resources).

3. Everywhere I go, I am out looking for new things or experiences.

4. I find it is easy to talk with people from different cultures.

5. I am able to express my ideas clearly when interacting with people from different cultures.

6. I believe that strong relationships between youth in Europe and Southern Mediterranean countries are possible.

7. Indicate how “Cold” or “Warm” you feel towards people with a different ethnic background from your own (from 0-10) 67

Very Cold/ Very Warm/ Unfavorable Favorable

8. Indicate how “Cold” or “Warm” you feel towards people with a different religious background from your own (from 0 to 10)

9. I feel confident communicating in English/French/Arabic (language of exchange)

PRE ONLY

10. Have you spent an extended period of time (3+ months) abroad, or participated in a physical exchange programme?

YES/NO (If yes, please describe briefly)

POST-EXCHANGE ONLY

11. How would you describe what you have learnt about people from other cultures in this virtual exchange?

a. 1 = very negative 2.= negative 3. = Neither negative nor positive 4. = positive 5. = very positive b. 1 = very similar to my previously held beliefs 2= similar to my previously held beliefs 3= somewhat similar to my previously held beliefs 4=different to my previously held beliefs 5 = very different to my previously held beliefs.

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. (five-point Likert scale, Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree)

12. I built positive/meaningful relationships by participating in this virtual exchange.

13. I have challenged media misrepresentation of other groups since participating in this virtual exchange.

14. I shared information about what I was learning with my friends and/or other people in my community about my experience in this virtual exchange.

15. I am interested in having further opportunities to engage in virtual exchange.

16. Participating in this virtual exchange increased my interest in taking part in an educational programme abroad.

17. Participating in this virtual exchange improved:

a. skills to communicate or work in a culturally diverse setting b. ability to listen actively c. critical thinking skills d. digital competences e. teamwork and collaborative problem-solving skills f. English and/or foreign language skills. g. Other...

18. Participating in this virtual exchange improved:

a. my knowledge and/or interest in global events b. my knowledge about the relationship between and across different societies.

The questions above (12-18) should all be on a 5 point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree 68

19. How would you rate your satisfaction with this virtual exchange.

Very low 2. Low 3. Neither High nor Low 4. High 5. Very High

20. How likely is it that you would recommend this virtual exchange to a friend or colleague?

Not at all likely ….. 10. Very Likely

Open questions:

21. What was the best thing about this Virtual Exchange?

22. How could this Virtual Exchange be improved?

23. What is the most important thing(s) that you learned through your participation in this Virtual Exchange?

24. Please list the topics that you enjoyed discussing with your group the most. Please explain.

Focus group questions

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to take part. The purpose of the interview/focus group is to obtain feedback on the Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange programme to report to the European Commission and to improve this programme for future participants. Please complete the consent form - if you agree to take part in this focus group. Your participation is completely voluntary, and the data we collect from you will be anonymised. We would like to record this meeting, for the purpose of transcribing, then the recording will be deleted. Do you give consent?

There are no right or wrong answers to the questions we ask, we would like you to be honest and share your thoughts and reflections with us.

Introductions

Why did you take part in virtual exchange?

How would you evaluate your experience?

What did you talk about in your exchange?

What did you know about European/S.Mediterranean countries (for OFD and iOOC) OR partner country (for TEPs and debates) before taking part in this exchange? Do you have many friends from that region?

Before starting this project - how did you see the relationship between young people in Europe and Southern Mediterranean countries

Where did you get this view from/Why do you think you saw it like this?

How has that view changed (if at all)?

What do you better understand about the S.Mediterranean region/Europe through participation in the project?

How do you think others saw you/your region/country? Why? Do you think that has that changed? Why?

During the discussions, how were your perspectives or stereotypes challenged? (try to get specific examples)

Can you share an eye-opening moment? Or, do you have a favorite memory from the Virtual Exchange? 69

Can you share a difficult moment or a moment of tension or embarrassment in your exchange?

How is this different from other university experiences or conversations you have with your friends and family?

Would you like to travel, work or spend time in the countries you had an exchange with? How would you feel about having an international career?

How do you feel your participation in Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange impacted you? Did you learn any new skill that you are using in your everyday life?

How would you define the role of the facilitators? How important do you see their role in this program?

What would you change about the project?

Would you recommend others to take part in Virtual Exchange? Why?

Would you consider taking part in another VE or training to become a facilitator? 70

Annex 3: Analysis of the reach of EVE in relation to GDP data.

Gross domestic product (GDP) measurements from the World Bank were used in order to explore the reach and impact of EVE in low income countries.

World Bank data on GDP per capita PPP for 2017, the year for which most data is available, were used for this purpose. The countries participating in EVE were placed into four categories from Very Low to Very High GDP based on the standard deviation of the GDP measure (two countries, Syria and Lichtenstein, are missing, and will thus not be considered).

GDP per Capita, PPP 2017 Number of Countries

Very Low 6

Low 16

High 16

Very High 4

Total 42

Table 19: Breakdown of participating country by GDP per capita, PPP

The countries classified as Very Low and Very High are presented in the table below:

Country Classification

Palestine 5,117 Very Low

Morocco 8,261 Very Low

Jordan 9,129 Very Low

Egypt 11,742 Very Low

Tunisia 12,047 Very Low

Lebanon 12,813 Very Low

Iceland 55,322 Very High

Norway 62,182 Very High

Ireland 77,596 Very High

Luxembourg 107,640 Very High

Table 20: Participating countries classified as Very Low and Very High 71

As can be seen in the chart below, in absolute numbers the reach of the activities in economically vulnerable regions is high.

Participants per GDP per Capita PPP

8000

6000

4000 Participants

2000

0 Very Low Low High Very High GDP

Figure 10: Age of participants (aggregated 2018-2019)

Looking at the participant per population data allows evaluators to see if this effect holds true when accounting for population size. In order to measure the reach controlled for population size, the sum of participants in each classification was divided by the sum of the populations12 of countries in that classification. This provides an overview of total participation per person per economic area.

Percentile of Population

0.00005

0.00004

0.00003

0.00002

Percentile of Population 0.00001

0 Very Low Low High Very High GDP per Capita PPP

Figure 11: Participation per person per economic area

EVE has had a strong reach in both areas with a very high and a very low GDP. The high reach in economic disadvantaged areas can be seen as very positive. All countries in the category are in the Southern Mediterranean, and the high reach in the area can likely be explained by strong institutional ties of EVE partners within the area, and subsequent network effects. Taking into account the earlier discussion of women and participation in tertiary education in low income countries, this perhaps deserves a closer look in future research.

12 For population size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_ population 72

Annex 4: Results of keyword analysis using TF-IFD The Online Facilitated Dialogue (OFD) model (Activity 1) Best things

The keywords in response to the open question “What was the best thing about this Virtual Exchange?” feature the word “connect” scores, partly because it is linked to “program” as one of the main programmes of the OFD model is called “the Connect Programme”. The word was not removed as some participants use the word in different contexts and “connecting to peers around” the “world” (world also scores high, and peers). The “group” also appears to be a factor on which the OFD model distinguishes itself strongly from the other models. (see Annex 4 chart 1)

OFD TF-ID Best Things About The Exchange

connect world program group religions talk engage media peers around

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 TF-IDF Chart 1: OFD TF-ID Best things about the exchange

Most Important Things Learnt

As in the prior question, the words “connect” and “program” once again score highly. “Listening” and “respect” are also very high scoring words. The OFD model thus seems to be valued for its development of active listening skills among participants (see chart 2).

OFD TF-IDF Most Important Things

program listening respect connect good listener ideas same dialogue judge

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 TF-IDF Chart 2: OFD TF-IDF Most important things 73

Favourite Topics

The topics on which the OFD model distinguishes itself from other EVE models are “climate”, ”discrimination”, “stereotypes”, “immigration”, “rights”, “marriage” -, topics that are quite political in nature. Other frequently mentioned topics were: religion, cultures, social media, gender, identity and equality (see chart 3).

OFD TF-IDF Topics

climate online discrimination stereotypes immigration rights marriage change mental love

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 TF-IDF Chart 3: OFD TF-IDF Topics

The Transnational EVE Projects (TEP) model (Activity 2) Best Things

“English” was the main key word in responses to the open question asking participants what the best thing about this Virtual Exchange was (chart 4). This is probably linked to the fact that many of the exchanges were established within the context of English language classes. “Collaborative” is also a keyword, both here and in response to the most important things learnt. This model in fact is based on participants collaborating on tasks or projects.

TEP TF-IDF Best Things About The Exchange

english someone alike almost appreciation collaborative consider coordinators facebook grow

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 TF-IDF Chart 4: TEP TF-ID Best things about the exchange 74

Most Important Things

Regarding the open question “What is the most important thing(s) that you learned through your participation in this Virtual Exchange?” (Annex 4 chart 5), it can once again be observed that language acquisition is appreciated, as the word “vocabulary” scores highly. Of note are the high scores for the words “opportunities” and “partner.” A preliminary analysis of the open question suggests that “opportunities” stems from the participants’ perception of the exchange as a valuable opportunity, as well as their openness to new opportunities following the programme. The word “partner” is specific to the TEP model, as many TEPs organise participants into pairs for their collaboration.

TEP TF-IDF Most Important Things

opportunities partner vocabulary students behaviours boundaries bullying cherishing collaboratively collaborative

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 TF-IDF Chart 5: TEP TF-ID Most important things

Favourite topics

What distinguishes the TEP model from the other EVE models is that the topics discussed appear to be related to cultural topics, with the words “Interview”, “cinema”, “trip”, “festival” and “music” amongst the top words. These are topics which are more commonly addressed in foreign language courses and intercultural communication where “safe” topics tend to be addressed (see Annex 4 chart 6).

TEP TF-IDF Topics

interview cinema trip music festival past hobbies movies films market

0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 TF-IDF

Chart 6: TEP TF-ID Topics 75

The Advocacy Training model (Activity 3) Best Things

As the AT model is a model focused around debate, it is unsurprising that this word distinguishes it from the other EVE models. When looking at the individual responses it becomes clear that “distance” is high because participants appreciate the opportunity virtual exchange offers to have debates with distant peers (as opposed to the local face to debates many were used to). “Criticise” is high, as participants appreciated having a space for constructive criticism ( chart 7).

AT TF-IDF Best Things About The Exchange

debate distance criticize mediterranean morocco position timing truly world comfort

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 TF-IDF Chart 7: AT TF-IDF Best things about the exchange

Most Important Things

The word “motion” is related to debate (i.e. “to table a motion”), and its high position here is thus expected, as is the case for debating. The high score for “listening” suggests that the acquisition of listening skills is appreciated by AT participants, as these are important to be able to construct arguments and rebuttals (chart 8).

AT TF-IDF Most Important Things

motion debating listening contact here debate discuss ideas carefully virtual

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 TF-IDF

Chart 8: AT TF-IDF Most important things 76

Favourite topics discussed

“climate” and “change” were key terms in the analysis of key words. Equality, education, religion, migrations, nuclear energy, were amongst the most frequently reported favourite topics, though they were not keywords (see Annex 4 chart 9).

AT TF-IDF Topics

climate change decision political debating youth aleca banning debates developing

0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125 TF-IDF

Chart 9: AT TF-IDF Topics

The iOOC Model (Activity 4) Best Things

Among the most distinguishing elements of the IOOC model are the words “lectures”, “facilitators” and “group”, suggesting that these components play an important role in participant appreciation of the model (chart 10).

IOOC TF-IDF Best Things About The Exchange

lectures facilitators world talk perspectives group discussion subjects such video

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 TF-IDF

Chart 10: iOOC TF-IDF Best things about the exchange 77

Most Important Things

The most important learning took place around political topics such as “nationalism”, “populism”, “‘immigration” and “equality” which are topics specifically addressed in the exchange. This appears to be in line with appreciation of the lectures by IOOC participants, suggesting that the participants have been exposed to new ideas through the lectures and discussions, as well as learning from “listening” (Annex 4, chart 11).

IOOC TF-IDF Most Important Things

nationalism populism equality immigration media ideas listening were diversity social

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 TF-IDF

Chart 11: iOOC TF-IDF Most important things

Favourite topics discussed

The keywords for favourite topics are also In line with the results for the most important things learnt, that is political topics which were the themes of the exchange programmes, as mentioned above (Annex 4, chart 12.

IOOC TF-IDF Topics

populism belonging borders nationalism diversity subject citizenship currency populist integration

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 TF-IDF

Chart 12: iOOC TF-IDF Topics

EC-01-20-239-EN-N

GET INVOLVED For more information, please consult: www.europa.eu/youth/erasmusvirtual

Funded by the Erasmus+ Programme

Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange Consortium:

ISBN 978-92-9484-318-0