Introduction
The International Business Cultures COIL course enabled students to examine business practices across African, American, and Asian contexts. It centred on intercultural experience, communication, and the use of English as a lingua franca, supporting students as they navigated complex global business environments.
Through topics such as negotiation, business etiquette, and sustainability, students explored how cultural dimensions shape business strategies and everyday operations. This article considers how they experienced intercultural collaboration in practice and what they identified as the most meaningful learning outcomes.
This initiative brought together students and educators from Takoradi Technical University (Ghana), Munich University of Applied Sciences (Germany), Tampere University of Applied Sciences (Finland), and Universidad EAN (Colombia). The analysis draws on post-course survey data to explore how COIL influenced students’ communication practices, cultural awareness, leadership experiences, and engagement with digital technologies.
COIL and Intercultural Communication
Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) has emerged as a practical model for internationalisation at home. Rubin (2017) defines COIL as a framework connecting students and educators across borders through structured online collaboration. O’Dowd (2018) emphasises its role in widening access to international experiences without physical mobility.
Research indicates that COIL can strengthen intercultural competence through authentic, task-based collaboration (De Wit & Hunter, 2015; Helm, 2015). These outcomes align with Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural communicative competence, which highlights curiosity, critical cultural awareness, and effective intercultural interaction.
Intercultural communication theories further illuminate team dynamics. Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions, Hall’s (1976) high- and low-context theory, and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s (1998) framework help explain variations in hierarchy, communication styles, and time orientation. Gudykunst (2003) and Spencer-Oatey (2012) emphasise the importance of empathy and relational awareness. Helm and Van der Velden (2019) argue that effective COIL depends on pedagogical structure combined with authentic dialogue.
Course Design and Implementation
The course lasted for six weeks and was co-taught by lecturers from the four participating institutions. In total, approximately 72 students participated in the course, with the majority coming from Takoradi Technical University (Ghana). Students were organised into multi-national and multicultural teams of four to six members to ensure cross-institutional collaboration and intercultural exchange. Care was taken to distribute students from the different partner institutions across teams so that each group included members from at least two, and in most cases three or four, national contexts.
The course began with ice-breaking activities, including online introductions and cultural exchange tasks, designed to build trust and support. Team-building activities such as role-play, intercultural quizzes, and informal online meetings further strengthened collaboration across time zones.
The learning process unfolded in three stages: orientation and cultural exchange; collaborative project work on themes such as negotiation and sustainability; and final presentations with peer feedback. Assessment combined group projects, peer evaluation, and individual reflection, linking teamwork with personal learning.
Student Experience and Learning Outcomes
Post-course surveys (n = 17), completed voluntarily at the end of the course, formed the primary data for this analysis. The survey consisted of open-ended questions focusing on collaboration, communication, leadership, and digital tools. Responses were analysed using a thematic approach, identifying recurring patterns and grouping them into five central themes: language and communication, cultural diversity, leadership, technology, and key learning outcomes.
Students described English as a shared working language that both enabled and challenged collaboration. Many relied on digital tools to clarify meaning and reported greater confidence in professional communication. As one student noted, working across cultures required “more patience than expected, but also more learning.” Others highlighted differences in directness and politeness, the influence of accent, and the need to adjust communication style. Time-zone coordination and varying levels of formality sometimes made interaction more demanding. Yet these challenges were frequently described as part of the learning process rather than as obstacles to collaboration.
Cultural diversity was widely perceived as enriching. Participants spoke of increased awareness of different communication styles and greater openness to alternative perspectives. One respondent observed that exchanging ideas with peers from other cultures “changes the way you think a little.” Another reflected that expressions and structures in English vary across contexts and can initially complicate understanding before deepening intercultural insight. Together, these reflections suggest that intercultural difference was experienced not as friction alone, but as a catalyst for reflection and growth.
Leadership and clear role allocation were seen as critical to effective teamwork. Technology enabled global collaboration, yet it also introduced practical challenges, including connectivity issues and time-zone coordination.
The most frequently cited learning outcomes were communication skills, patience, flexibility, and open-mindedness. These outcomes were closely connected to students’ experiences of negotiating meaning, adjusting tone, and coordinating across time zones. Based on these elaborations, several pedagogical implications emerge: explicit discussion of communication styles (e.g., directness, politeness, formality), structured reflection on language use in English as a lingua franca, and guided strategies for managing time-zone coordination and accent variation. Integrating short intercultural debriefing moments during the course may help students articulate and negotiate cultural differences more consciously. These observations echo earlier research suggesting that virtual collaboration can support both intercultural and digital competence.
Reflections and Recommendations
The findings align with earlier COIL research highlighting the importance of pedagogical scaffolding and reflective practice (O’Dowd, 2018; Helm, 2015), while also reflecting what became visible in day-to-day course practice. Successful teams combined structure with empathy and demonstrated intercultural sensitivity beyond linguistic proficiency (Byram, 1997).
Based on this experience, future iterations of the course would benefit from pre-course intercultural orientation, clearer milestones, structured facilitator support, and guided reflection activities. Within a UNINOVIS context, these elements can support teachers in designing shared courses and collaborative learning experiences across institutions. Together, these elements can strengthen accountability, deepen intercultural learning, and sustain pedagogical collaboration between partners.
Conclusion
The International Business Cultures COIL course illustrates that meaningful internationalisation can take place fully online. Students across four continents collaborated, reflected on their experiences, and developed skills that are essential for global teamwork.
For higher education institutions, COIL provides a practical way of integrating internationalisation into existing curricula. In collaborative university alliances such as UNINOVIS, it can serve as a concrete teaching approach for developing joint modules and shared learning experiences. By focusing on pedagogical design, intercultural facilitation, and digital collaboration, educators can create accessible and meaningful opportunities for global learning within their programmes.
References
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters
De Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2015). Understanding internationalisation of higher education in the European context. European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540370/IPOL_STU(2015)540370_EN.pdf
Gudykunst, W. B. (2003). Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Sage.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
Helm, F. (2015). The practices and challenges of telecollaboration in higher education. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 197–217. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a6996e63-a9d2-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1
Helm, F., & Van der Velden, B. (2019). Erasmus+ virtual exchange – Intercultural learning experiences: 2018 impact report. Publications Office of the European Union.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
O’Dowd, R. (2018). From telecollaboration to virtual exchange: State-of-the-art and the role of UNICollaboration in moving forward. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 1, 1–23.
Rubin, J. (2017). Embedding collaborative online international learning (COIL) at higher education institutions. Internationalisation of Higher Education, 2(1), 27–44.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2012). What is culture? A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts. University of Warwick.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. Nicholas Brealey.
Author
Emmanuel Abruquah
MA. MBA. (Senior Lecturer)
School of Pedagogical Innovations and Culture
Tampere University of Applied Sciences
ORCID: 0000-0002-0176-5254
Photo: Jonne Renvall/University of Tampere