For decades, internationalization in higher education was largely synonymous with student mobility: outbound study abroad programs, inbound international student recruitment, and faculty exchange agreements. This model served a narrow slice of students—typically those with financial resources, cultural capital, and institutional support to spend a semester or year in another country. At most institutions, fewer than 10% of students participated in any form of international mobility.
The COVID-19 pandemic did not create the push beyond mobility-based internationalization, but it dramatically accelerated it. When physical travel became impossible, institutions that had invested in virtual international collaboration found themselves with functional alternatives. Those that had not scrambled to develop them. The question now is whether these pandemic-era innovations will persist, mature, and eventually complement or partly substitute for traditional mobility models.
Defining the Landscape
Hackett, Dawson, Janssen, and van Tartwijk (2024) address a fundamental clarity problem in the field: the terms "virtual exchange" and "Collaborative Online International Learning" (COIL) are used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. Their critical review argues that COIL has specific characteristics—a strong focus on collaborative and intercultural learning between partner institutions—that distinguish it from broader virtual exchange initiatives, which may include guest lectures, joint webinars, or asynchronous discussion forums.
This definitional work matters because evaluating the effectiveness of "virtual internationalization" requires knowing what is actually being studied. A COIL partnership where students from two countries work together on a semester-long collaborative project is a fundamentally different pedagogical experience from a one-time virtual guest lecture by an international speaker. Conflating them under a single umbrella term hinders both research and practice.
Post-COVID Trajectories
Weaver, McDonald, Louie, and Woodman (2024) provide a scoping review of international virtual exchange (IVE) in higher education following COVID-19. Their PRISMA-guided analysis finds that the pandemic catalyzed rapid adoption of virtual technologies for international collaboration, with institutions leveraging existing partnerships to create virtual learning experiences. The review identifies significant potential for IVE to be scaled across higher education to develop the knowledge and skills required for global citizenship.
However, the review also reveals persistent challenges: issues of access, equity, and cost remain unresolved. Time zone differences create practical barriers for synchronous collaboration. Language barriers are managed but not eliminated by technology. And the pedagogical frameworks for virtual international collaboration are still developing—many institutions are experimenting without clear learning outcome frameworks or assessment strategies.
<| Claim | Evidence | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 permanently expanded virtual internationalization | Weaver et al. (2024): significant scaling of IVE; sustained post-pandemic | ✅ Supported |
| COIL and virtual exchange are interchangeable terms | Hackett et al. (2024): distinct pedagogies with different characteristics | ❌ Refuted — important distinctions |
| Virtual exchange reaches students who cannot study abroad | Both studies: lower cost and logistical barriers | ✅ Supported in principle |
| Virtual exchanges produce equivalent intercultural learning | Evidence is emerging but limited; depth concerns persist | ⚠️ Insufficient evidence |
The Japanese Case
Radjai and Hammond (2024) offer an instructive case study from Japan, where government funding has supported COIL adoption as part of a national internationalization strategy. Their qualitative investigation of a government-funded COIL project across 13 Japanese universities reveals that COIL can serve as a pathway toward "inclusive, accessible, and pluralistic internationalization"—reaching students who would never participate in traditional study abroad due to financial, linguistic, or personal constraints.
The Japanese context is revealing because Japan has long struggled with low outbound student mobility despite significant investment in internationalization. COIL offers an alternative pathway that aligns with institutional goals while accommodating students' reluctance or inability to travel. The researchers find that COIL is particularly effective for internationalizing the curriculum—embedding international perspectives into regular coursework rather than treating internationalization as an extracurricular add-on.
Global Citizenship and Depth
Weaver (2024) examines student perspectives on global citizenship within virtual exchange programs, finding that virtual exchange can develop global awareness and intercultural empathy. However, the study also raises questions about depth: do students in virtual exchanges develop the same quality of intercultural understanding as those who navigate the daily challenges of living in another culture?
This is not a trivial concern. The literature on study abroad consistently finds that the most transformative learning occurs through immersive experiences—navigating public transportation in a foreign city, ordering food in a second language, managing cultural misunderstandings in real time. Virtual exchange provides intercultural exposure without immersion, which may develop knowledge about other cultures without the embodied competence that comes from living within them.
The counterargument is that virtual exchange serves students who would otherwise have no international experience at all. A comparison between virtual exchange and study abroad may be less relevant than a comparison between virtual exchange and no international experience. For the 90%+ of students who do not study abroad, virtual exchange represents a significant improvement over the status quo.
Institutional Models
Three institutional models for post-mobility internationalization are emerging:
Comprehensive internationalization. Large research universities integrating virtual exchange, COIL, international research collaboration, and selective mobility into a holistic strategy. This model requires significant institutional investment in faculty development, technology infrastructure, and partnership management.
COIL-centered internationalization. Teaching-focused institutions adopting COIL as their primary internationalization strategy, embedding collaborative international projects into regular courses. This model is more accessible and scalable but may lack the depth of comprehensive approaches.
Branch campus and transnational education. Universities establishing physical presences in other countries or delivering degrees through partner institutions. This model provides international access without requiring student mobility but raises questions about quality assurance, cultural sensitivity, and the sustainability of institutional commitments.
Open Questions
The field faces several unresolved tensions. First, the equity argument for virtual internationalization assumes that all students have reliable internet access and appropriate devices—an assumption that breaks down precisely for the populations most excluded from traditional mobility. Second, the quality assurance frameworks for virtual international collaboration are underdeveloped—how do institutions assess intercultural competency development in virtual settings? Third, the sustainability of virtual partnerships depends on ongoing faculty commitment and institutional support, which may wane as pandemic urgency fades. Fourth, the relationship between virtual and physical internationalization needs articulation: are they substitutes, complements, or prerequisites for each other?