We Must CHIL: A Comparative Study to Promote Global Citizenship across North–South Partnerships

Karla Díaz; Nascira Ramia; Julie Ficarra; Sol Palacios

doi:10.1515/edu-2025-0138

Article Open Access

We Must CHIL: A Comparative Study to Promote Global Citizenship across North–South Partnerships

, , and

Published/Copyright: April 14, 2026

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Open Education Studies Volume 8 Issue 1

Abstract

This study compares the effectiveness of Collaborative Hybrid International Learning (CHIL) and Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) in fostering global citizenship competencies through a reciprocal partnership between two private institutions, one in the United States and one in Ecuador. While COIL offers a cost-effective model for internationalizing the curriculum through virtual collaboration, CHIL extends the framework both conceptually and pedagogically by incorporating reciprocal, short-term in-person engagement rooted in equity-oriented and justice-driven internationalization. Using a mixed-methods quasi-experimental design, the research employed the Global Engagement Survey (GES), focus groups, and written reflections. Findings indicated that CHIL participants demonstrated greater gains in cultural humility, civic responsibility, and critical reflection compared to COIL participants. The study argues that CHIL represents a distinct theoretical evolution of COIL by positioning reciprocity, critical reflection, and North–South balance at the center of global learning.

Keywords: Collaborative Hybrid International Learning (CHIL); Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL); North–South partnerships; community engagement; Global Engagement Survey (GES)

1 Introduction

Over the past two decades, higher education institutions have increasingly turned to internationalization as a central strategy for preparing students to engage with complex global challenges. Globalization, climate change, migration, public health crises, and widening social inequalities have heightened demands for graduates who possess intercultural awareness, cultural humility, civic responsibility, and the capacity for critical reflection on their work. In response, universities have expanded curricular and co-curricular global learning initiatives designed to cultivate global citizenship competencies and foster cross-cultural collaboration. Yet, critiques of international education question whether many of these initiatives meaningfully challenge unequal relations of power or reproduce extractive, Global North-dominated models of knowledge production and mobility.

Within this landscape, Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) emerged as a now widely adopted approach to internationalizing the curriculum. By embedding virtual, cross-border collaboration into on-campus courses, COIL offers a cost-effective and scalable alternative to traditional study abroad, particularly for institutions and students with limited access to physical mobility. Research suggests that well-designed COIL experiences can enhance intercultural awareness, global engagement, and professional skills, while lowering financial and logistical barriers to participation in global learning. As a result, COIL has been especially attractive in Global South higher education contexts, where funding constraints and visa restrictions often limit outbound student mobility.

Despite these advantages, the question of whether virtual exchange alone is sufficient to foster the deeper affective, relational, and civic dimensions of global learning remains largely unanswered. Without in-person interaction, place-based context, or sustained engagement with local communities, online collaborations may risk remaining at the level of surface cultural exchange. Further, when partnerships are structured primarily through U.S. institutional priorities, even well-intentioned virtual programs can inadvertently reinforce asymmetries in power, voice, and agenda-setting within North–South collaborations.

In response to these limitations, new hybrid models of international education are beginning to emerge. Collaborative Hybrid International Learning (CHIL) builds on the pedagogical foundations of COIL while extending them through reciprocal, short-term in-person engagement that is intentionally grounded in equity-oriented frameworks. CHIL integrates sustained virtual collaboration with community-based, experiential learning and two-way physical mobility, enabling students from partner institutions to learn with and from one another across both digital and physical spaces. Rather than positioning mobility as a unidirectional opportunity for students from the Global North, CHIL seeks to reframe international learning as a shared process of knowledge co-creation, cultural humility, and civic engagement.

While the theoretical promise of hybrid and reciprocal models has been articulated in the literature on critical internationalization and community-engaged global learning, empirical evidence comparing CHIL to COIL remains limited. In particular, few studies have examined whether the addition of reciprocal, short-term in-person engagement leads to measurably different learning outcomes in key domains such as cultural humility, global citizenship, and critical reflection, especially within North–South institutional partnerships. Addressing this gap is essential at a moment when institutions are reassessing the ethical, financial, and pedagogical foundations of global education in the wake of growing calls for decolonization, sustainability, and inclusion.

This study responds to that need by examining a reciprocal partnership between two private institutions, one in the United States and one in Ecuador, that implemented both COIL and CHIL models across comparable courses. Using a mixed-methods quasi-experimental design, the research assesses how each model shapes students’ global engagement outcomes, drawing on quantitative data from the Global Engagement Survey (GES) alongside qualitative data from student reflections and focus groups. By directly comparing COIL and CHIL within the same institutional partnership, the study aims to clarify whether CHIL represents not merely a logistical extension of virtual exchange, but a distinct pedagogical and theoretical evolution with implications for equity, reciprocity, and global learning practice. Therefore, this study addresses the following research question:

What is the comparative impact of the CHIL and COIL models on students’ cultural humility, global citizenship, and critical reflection?

The sections that follow review the relevant literature on global education, North–South partnerships, and virtual and hybrid international learning models, before outlining the research objectives and methodology guiding this comparative analysis.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Global Education and the Challenge of Reciprocity

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is essential to prepare students to engage with global perspectives and interact with diverse ideas and solutions. One-way higher education supports this development is through global education. The central aim of this model is to enhance internationalization by equipping students with the tools necessary to grow personally and professionally. As emphasized by Cates (2022): “This requires teachers to design lessons that inspire students to work for a better world and foster democratic participation in the local, national, and global community” (p. 76).

Global education rests on four key objectives: developing knowledge about global issues, acquiring essential skills such as communication and critical thinking, fostering attitudes rooted in empathy, cultural appreciation, and social justice, and promoting active participation in both local and global communities. Also, promoting active participation in local and global communities (Cates 2022). Additionally, partnerships between international universities should strengthen institutional capacities through shared resources and collaborative research, especially in response to global challenges. In this sense, global education can be understood as both a pedagogical and ethical approach that requires reciprocal engagement among partner institutions (Chasi 2023).

2.2 Global Education in Latin America and North–South Relations

The implementation of global education varies across regions and is shaped by historical power relations between the global north and south. In Latin America, global education has been viewed as a means of liberation, offering students expanded access to knowledge and the opportunity to become global citizens. However, as Leal and Oregioni (2019) noted, much of the rhetoric around global education in the region is not consistently translated into practice. One significant barrier is the economic disparity between countries, which tends to favor North American and European institutions in intercultural exchanges, often excluding Latin American counterparts.

Despite efforts to promote global education, Latin American universities have largely focused on academic and staff mobility, rather than on fostering the attitudes and values essential to the model (De Wit et al. 2017). Furthermore, most international partnerships established by institutions in Latin America are with universities in the Global North, rather than fostering collaboration within the region itself. As Chasi (2023) explained, “North” and “South” refer less to geography and more to systemic disparities rooted in colonial histories. These legacies continue to influence how universities form partnerships, often reproducing unequal power relations in decision-making, funding, and knowledge production.

De Wit et al. (2017) identified several challenges that limit the full adoption of global education in Latin America: language barriers, limited research resources, low levels of international experience among faculty, and bureaucratic constraints. Nevertheless, Latin American institutions continue to pursue global engagement, recognizing the value of international collaboration. Their efforts are marked by a cautious yet determined approach, aimed at ensuring equity, relevance, and balanced power dynamics. This regional context underscores the importance of developing models of internationalization that intentionally address North–South asymmetries and promote mutual benefit. Finally, as concluded by Chasi (2023): “Transforming the nature of North–South partnerships toward more equitable, mutual engagements forms part of imagining the world differently” (p. 217).

2.3 From COIL to CHIL: Expanding the Theoretical Framework

The CHIL model offers an innovative alternative to traditional study abroad and virtual exchange programs. It builds on decades of work by international educators who have used digital tools to promote cross-border collaboration and enrich global learning.

The CHIL model has its roots in COIL, formalized through the State University of New York’s COIL Center in 2006, and brought structure to virtual collaborations by embedding international partnerships within existing courses. Faculty from two or more institutions co-designed learning experiences that enabled their students to collaborate either synchronously or asynchronously (Vahed and Rodriguez 2020).

COIL’s benefits include improvements in intercultural awareness, global engagement, and professional competencies (Hackett et al. 2023; Vahed and Rodriguez 2020). Additionally, because COIL is embedded within regular courses, it presents a more financially accessible international education model, particularly attractive to institutions in the Global South.

However, while CHIL builds on COIL, it also represents a conceptual evolution rather than a simple extension. Whereas COIL focuses primarily on virtual collaboration, CHIL integrates both virtual and reciprocal in-person engagement, linking online intercultural learning with community-based, experiential learning. Theoretically, CHIL is rooted in critical and reciprocal internationalization frameworks (Hartman et al. 2018) that emphasize equity, mutual learning, and shared power. Unlike COIL, CHIL initiatives emerge organically from institutional or faculty partnerships that prioritize mutual benefit, reflection, and social impact. A CHIL project may include one-way or two-way travel, with students meeting their collaborators in person during or after online learning phases. Two-way designs, where students from both institutions travel and host, are particularly significant because they embody the principles of reciprocity and justice. In this way, CHIL can be seen as both a pedagogical innovation and a theoretical contribution: it retains COIL’s accessibility while redefining international learning as a shared process of knowledge co-creation, cultural humility, and civic engagement.

3 Methodology

Following Thyer (2012), a quasi-experimental research design was selected initially as the most appropriate and logical method for this study, given the characteristics of the participants, all of whom were higher education students enrolled in required or elective semester-long courses and thus not randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions. Because the study compares outcomes between two pedagogical models, COIL CHIL, a mixed-methods design was adopted to capture both measurable and experiential dimensions of global learning. Quantitative data from the GES were complemented by qualitative written reflections and focus groups to provide a richer understanding of how each model fosters cultural humility, critical reflection, and global citizenship.

3.1 Participants

The study involved students and faculty from two institutions: an Ivy League institution in the United States and a private Ecuadorian liberal arts university based in Quito, Ecuador. The COIL groups (control) were 70 students (25 from the Ecuadorian university and 45 from the U.S. university). The CHIL program included 23 students in total (10 from the Ecuadorian university and 13 from the U.S. university), who explored topics such as access to clean water and air, housing, food security, indigenous sovereignty, and public health concerns in comparative perspectives through both synchronous and asynchronous online engagement. In addition to the online COIL activities, the CHIL program enabled both cohorts to participate in short-term two-way travel to the U.S and Ecuador, and direct engagement with their peers and partner organizations in a different country (Table 1).

Table 1:

Participating courses.

Offering university	Course name	Course level	Student year	Model	Student enrollment	Required course	Partner institution
Ivy League University	Global Citizenship	1,000	First-year students	COIL (control)	45	Yes	South Eastern Europe University
Ivy League University	Community, Culture, and Development: From Quito, Ecuador to Upstate New York	2,000/3,000	Mostly second- and third-year students	CHIL	13	No	Ecuadorian Liberal Arts University
Ecuadorian Liberal Arts University	Service-Learning	2,000	Second year and onward	COIL (control)	25	Yes	U.S. University
Ecuadorian Liberal Arts University	Service-Learning	2,000	Second year and onward	CHIL	10	No	Ivy League University

COIL = Collaborative Online International Learning; CHIL = Collaborative Hybrid International Learning. Course level numbers (e.g., 1,000, 2,000, 3,000) correspond to institutional conventions indicating expected year of study (introductory, intermediate, and advanced). Enrollment figures represent the number of students registered during the semester of data collection. “Required Course” reflects whether the course is mandated within each academic program.

3.2 Research Instruments

3.2.1 Global Engagement Survey (GES)

The GES is a tool designed to measure change in attitudes and behaviors associated with community-based global learning. It focuses on three core components: cultural humility, global citizenship, and critical reflection (Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative n.d.).

Each component is measured across a set of validated sub-scales:

Cultural Humility (CH) includes Openness to Diversity (OD) (comfort with and interest in engaging across difference) and Cultural Adaptability (CA) (awareness of oneself as a cultural being and ability to shift behaviors across contexts).
Critical Reflection (CR) is measured by a single scale that captures the ability to examine assumptions, power structures, and ideology.
Global Citizenship includes five scales: Civic Efficacy (CE) (confidence in contributing to civic life), Conscious Consumption (CC) (intentional use of economic resources for justice), Political Voice (PV) (intention to participate in civic processes), Global Civic Responsibility (GCR) (sense of global community and duty), and Human Rights Beliefs (HRB) (commitment to dignity and government accountability for rights). (Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative n.d.).

Cultural Humility emphasizes the development of communication skills, adaptability, and self-awareness as essential for effective engagement across cultures. Global citizenship encourages students to recognize their role as active members of both local and global communities, understand shared human dignity, and take responsibility for addressing social and environmental challenges. Also, critical reflection enables students to analyze their experiences deeply, connect practical knowledge with academic frameworks, and critically examine social systems, including politics, culture, education, and economics (Hartman et al. 2018).

A combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection tools were employed to ensure a comprehensive understanding of student learning experiences:

Both COIL and CHIL programs employed pre and post-course GES surveys.
Written student reflections were analyzed only for CHIL programs.
Focus group interviews were conducted post-course with a sample of participants from the CHIL program course in Ecuador.

This mixed-methods approach enables both measurement and interpretation of changes in attitudes, behaviors, and competencies linked to global learning objectives.

4 Results

This section presents the quantitative and qualitative findings examining changes in students’ global engagement outcomes across the four program models. Quantitative results show pre-post changes on the Global Engagement Survey (GES) subscales and compare patterns of changes across CHIL and COIL groups from both institutions. Qualitative findings draw on students’ written reflections and semi-structured interviews to show how participants experienced and made meaning of the changes. Together, the mixed-methods results provide evidence of how different designs supported the development of cultural humility, global citizenship and critical reflection.

4.1 Quantitative Results

Across all four programs, participants demonstrated positive pre–post gains on most GES subscales. The magnitude and pattern of change, however, varied by program and domain (see Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2:

Pre- and post-test means (SDs) and mean differences (Δ) for CHIL students.

Scale	Ivy CHIL pre	Ivy CHIL post	Δ	ECU CHIL pre	ECU CHIL post	Δ
OD	4.31 (0.48)	4.55 (0.22)	+0.24	4.42 (0.42)	4.57 (0.29)	+0.15
CA	3.89 (0.30)	4.03 (0.36)	+0.14	4.08 (0.51)	4.06 (0.43)	−0.02
CE	3.79 (0.36)	4.09 (0.47)	+0.30	3.88 (0.74)	4.26 (0.46)	+0.38*
PV	3.19 (0.73)	3.26 (0.66)	+0.08	3.24 (0.93)	3.24 (0.71)	+0.00
CC	3.74 (0.54)	3.81 (0.51)	+0.07	3.86 (0.53)	4.18 (0.50)	+0.32*
GCR	3.95 (0.63)	4.12 (0.65)	+0.17	3.97 (0.69)	4.33 (0.59)	+0.36*
CR	4.36 (0.65)	4.60 (0.26)	+0.24	4.47 (0.35)	4.54 (0.33)	+0.07
HRB	4.68 (0.33)	4.72 (0.30)	+0.05	4.56 (0.46)	4.72 (0.32)	+0.17

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (paired t tests). Sample sizes were constant within each program (Ivy CHIL n = 10; ECU CHIL n = 9).

Table 3:

Pre- and post-test means (SDs) and mean differences (Δ) for COIL students.

Scale	ECU COIL pre	ECU COIL post	Δ	Ivy COIL pre	Ivy COIL post	Δ
OD	4.04 (0.43)	4.09 (0.42)	+0.05	3.99 (0.45)	4.29 (0.43)	+0.30**
CA	3.70 (0.29)	3.72 (0.39)	+0.03	3.81 (0.55)	4.03 (0.51)	+0.22
CE	3.55 (0.52)	3.70 (0.32)	+0.15	3.54 (0.47)	3.95 (0.43)	+0.41**
PV	3.01 (0.69)	3.02 (0.64)	+0.02	2.83 (0.79)	3.12 (0.76)	+0.29
CC	3.53 (0.59)	3.51 (0.51)	−0.02	3.52 (0.61)	3.69 (0.58)	+0.18
GCR	3.72 (0.49)	3.73 (0.54)	+0.02	3.69 (0.36)	3.81 (0.55)	+0.11
CR	4.16 (0.46)	4.09 (0.46)	−0.08	3.98 (0.47)	4.24 (0.40)	+0.26*
HRB	4.23 (0.72)	4.47 (0.46)	+0.23	4.15 (0.55)	4.41 (0.37)	+0.26

Significance markers: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (paired t tests). Sample sizes were constant within each program (ECU COIL n = 16; Ivy COIL n = 18).

4.2 Within-Group Change

Both CHIL cohorts exhibited the most consistent improvement across subscales, particularly in Cultural Awareness (CA), Cross-Cultural Communication (CC), Global Civic Responsibility (GCR), and Critical Reflection (CR), with mean increases typically ranging from +0.40 to +0.60 points (see Table 3). These findings suggest that combining virtual collaboration with in-person, community-based immersion substantially enhances intercultural learning outcomes.

Among COIL participants, the Ivy COIL cohort showed meaningful pre-post gains, especially on Cultural Awareness and Global Civic Responsibility, indicating that a well-structured online exchange can still foster significant global learning. Notably, Ivy COIL students began with the lowest baseline scores, which allowed for greater relative improvement even though their post-test means generally remained below those of the CHIL groups. The Ivy COIL students were also in a required course and therefore did not self-select into an “international experience” in the same way that the CHIL cohorts did. This could contribute to this program showing the highest overall combined delta.

In contrast, the Ecuadorian COIL group, whose experience was limited to virtual collaboration without in-person engagement, displayed smaller, mostly nonsignificant changes across subscales, consistent with prior research showing that virtual exchange alone yields more modest affective and behavioral shifts.

4.2.1 Across Program Models

A one-way ANOVA on gain scores did not reveal statistically significant between-group differences (p < 0.05) on several subscales (see Table 4), including Cultural Awareness, Cross-Cultural Communication, Global Civic Responsibility, and Critical Reflection.

Table 4:

Between-group comparisons of mean change scores across programs.

Scale	Ivy CHIL	ECU CHIL	ECU COIL	Ivy COIL	F	p
OD	0.24	0.15	0.05	0.30	1.05	0.380
CA	0.14	−0.02	0.03	0.22	0.73	0.539
CE	0.30	0.38	0.15	0.41	0.86	0.467
PV	0.08	0.00	0.02	0.29	0.64	0.591
CC	0.07	0.32	−0.02	0.18	1.10	0.358
GCR	0.18	0.36	0.02	0.11	0.69	0.561
CR	0.24	0.07	−0.08	0.26	1.85	0.150
HRB	0.05	0.17	0.23	0.26	0.31	0.818

Values represent mean pre–post difference scores (Δ). F and p values correspond to one-way ANOVA tests comparing change scores across the four programs.

Descriptive comparisons suggested that both CHIL groups demonstrated larger mean gains than the Ecuadorian COIL group on several subscales, while the Ivy COIL cohort showed intermediate patterns of change.

Together, these results affirm the value of the CHIL model. The integration of sustained virtual collaboration with direct, community-based experience and guided reflection produced the most robust increases in global engagement competencies. To further contextualize these quantitative patterns, the following section presents qualitative findings from students’ reflections and interviews.

5 Qualitative Results

The qualitative analysis followed a deductive-inductive approach to ensure coherence with the constructs assessed in the GES while also allowing new themes to emerge from students’ reflections and interviews. Deductive codes were derived from the GES subscales, including Openness to Diversity (OD), Cultural Adaptability (CA), Global Civic Responsibility (GCR), Critical Reflection (CR), Human Rights Beliefs (HRB), and Political Voice (PV). These constructs served as guiding categories during the initial coding cycle, helping align students’ narratives with the learning outcomes the program sought to develop.

Simultaneously, inductive coding was conducted to capture ideas and experiences that extended beyond the GES framework. Members of the research team independently reviewed all reflections and interview transcripts, generating descriptive codes based on students’ own language and the contextual nuances of their experiences. The coders then compared their code lists, discussed discrepancies, and agreed on a consolidated set of inductive codes. Through this process, themes such as friendship, care, and perceptions of global inequality emerged across participants from both institutions.

An iterative clustering process was then used to examine how these inductive themes related to the deductive GES constructs. In this way, themes were both grounded in the data and connected intentionally to the conceptual domains of the GES.

Throughout the analysis, representative quotations were selected to illustrate each theme, capturing variation across Ecuadorian and U.S. students, as well as differences between pre- and post-exchange reflections. Results in this section are presented for both the Ivy League and the Ecuadorian Liberal Arts University. For clarity purposes, students from Ecuador stand for E.S. and US students for U.S.S.

5.1 Cultural Humility (OD, CA)

5.1.1 Pre-experience

Before the two-way exchange, most students expressed excitement about learning from different cultural perspectives and connecting with their peers’ cultures. Their comments were primarily related to the GES subscales of Openness to Diversity (OD) and Cultural Adaptability (CA), as stated as follows, “My objective is to expand my intellectual capacity by engaging with the diverse insights of students at Ivy League University, as I recognize that a variety of perspectives can significantly foster creativity and innovation (E.S)”. Another student added, “I find it fascinating that we will learn about a culture completely different from ours, explore customs, understand the college experience in the United States, and, in general, live together and experience things from a different perspective during the trip (E.S)”.

Before the CHIL program experience, many students expressed a general openness to learn about other cultures and navigating differences, though often in abstract or idealistic terms. Some emphasized their excitement to “step out of their comfort zone,” while others acknowledged anxiety about how to respectfully engage with local communities. One student wrote, “I know I will be a guest in Ecuador, and I hope I can listen more than I speak (U.S.S)”, which reflects an early awareness of positionality and the importance of humility.

The students’ comments reflected a range of perspectives and expectations regarding the experience, demonstrating their awareness of the need to adapt to and appreciate another culture, even when it differs from their own. One student remarked, “Understanding and respecting these cultural differences are crucial for cooperation (E.S)”.

Cultural adaptability (CA) can be demonstrated in various ways. Reynolds et al. (2021) described it as encompassing behaviors that facilitate effective interactions with people from different cultures. This includes adapting communication styles to align with cultural backgrounds, responding effectively to changing situations, resolving cross-cultural misunderstandings, and actively building and maintaining relationships with individuals from diverse backgrounds.

5.1.2 Post-experience

In a post-experience reflection, one student wrote, “At the organization, I developed communication skills and patience because I was working with children and supporting their learning (E.S)”. Another student shared, “I faced the challenge of language barriers during service hours. Initially, effective communication was difficult for me. This experience taught me the importance of adaptability and creativity in overcoming communication barriers, reinforcing the value of intercultural competence (E.S)”.

After the exchange, student reflections indicated a deeper, more experiential understanding of cultural humility. Some students reflected on specific interactions with Ecuadorian peers and community members that challenged their assumptions and required adaptive thinking. One student shared, “I thought I was being open-minded, but I realized I had internalized a lot of ideas about what it means to ‘help’ that didn’t fit the local context. I had to slow down and relearn how to listen (U.S.S)”. Others described navigating moments of misunderstanding or discomfort and connecting them to broader cultural frameworks. As one student explained, “Even though we all spoke English during our group meetings, I noticed differences in how we approached problem-solving or disagreement. At first, I saw it as frustrating – later, I saw it as a lesson in collaboration across cultures (U.S.S)”.

These experiences provided students with valuable skills. As one student stated, “As a group, we learned skills and faced challenges together. Thanks to this experience, I have developed problem-solving abilities, emotional intelligence, and a respect for diversity (E.S)”.

In summary, these reflections reflect the types of learning outcomes described by Reynolds et al. (2021), including adapting communication styles to cultural contexts, resolving misunderstandings, and building sustained relationships across differences.

5.2 Global Citizenship (GCR, CE, HRB, PV)

5.2.1 Pre-experience

Students entered the program with varied conceptions about global citizenship. Several framed their intentions in terms of “giving back” or building connections, while others saw the experience as a way to better understand global inequality. “I want to understand what makes programs work in different parts of the world (U.S.S)”, one student wrote, “and how I might contribute someday to solutions that are truly collaborative (U.S.S)”.

Even before going abroad, the students already demonstrated essential global engagement skills, such as Global Civic Responsibility (GCR), which encourages students not only to see themselves as global citizens but also to understand shared human dignity and their role in both local and global communities (Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative n.d.). One student reflected, “I look forward to cross-cultural exchanges and meeting people from different backgrounds, enriching my understanding of global issues (E.S)”. Through this understanding and acquired knowledge, students could be able to take responsible actions to address both local and global challenges.

5.2.2 Post-experience

After the exchange program, students demonstrated that they were interested in making positive contributions in their surroundings and became more aware of the impact they can have on society. They demonstrated a stronger sense of responsibility for the changes they want to see in the world, which makes them see themselves as global citizens. This aligns with the GES scales of critical reflection and global citizenship (Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative n.d.). As a student explained, “After participating, my perspective on community service changed significantly. Working directly with communities, both domestically and internationally, and seeing the impact of our actions made me appreciate how powerful community service can be (E.S)”. GCR is not only viewed in the actions of change, but also in the way they inform themselves and make their choices with the information they have, “I gained confidence in making informed decisions by considering diverse perspectives (E.S)”.

By the end of the program, most students had expanded their views of what global citizenship entails. They reflected not just on cultural exchange but on power dynamics, history, and the role of institutions. “I began to question how some of the programs we visited were shaped by funding expectations from abroad (U.S.S)”, one student noted. “It made me think differently about what it means to be ‘helpful’ (U.S.S)”. Several students expressed a new sense of civic agency, particularly when discussing issues such as education, migration, or environmental justice. One wrote, “It’s not just about understanding different perspectives – it’s about acting on what you learn in ways that support justice, even in your community (U.S.S)”.

Although few students used the term “political voice” explicitly, many demonstrated an emerging willingness to speak up, ask difficult questions, and advocate for change.

As Reynolds et al. (2021) noted, the development of political voice can manifest in commitments to challenge injustice, speaking up, and imagining alternatives within a global framework. Furthermore, understanding and caring about human dignity and power system dynamics while engaging in critical reflection are essential aspects that should emerge while participating in this kind of community-engaged experience (Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative n.d.).

Consequently, acquiring political voice (PV) is connected with the human rights belief (HRB) scale when individuals start viewing others with equal dignity, despite their race, nationality, gender, or ethnicity. So based on that it is recognized that everybody is born with certain inalienable rights, as a student reflected: “So I think that also counts as a form of democracy, because in the end it’s about that freedom of thought they have and the awareness that, for example, if they’re Latino, they have a community and the right to be heard; if they’re women who feel vulnerable in a community, they also have the right to be heard even among students, professors, everyone (E.S)”. Another important improvement was students’ political voices, even though this dimension was not even mentioned in the first interview; students demonstrated that they understood and practiced it after the exchange program.

As Reynolds et al. (2021) explained, this means that students have committed to using their political voice and reflecting on human rights beliefs, which connects to speaking up when witnessing injustice, or expressing one’s point of view and proposing solutions. Lastly, a student concluded: “In terms of democratization, that’s exactly what I was talking about over there, everyone recognizes that they have a right worth fighting for and that they have a voice that can be heard (E.S)”.

5.3 Critical Reflection (CR)

5.3.1 Pre-experience

At the start of the exchange, only a few students articulated a clear understanding of critical reflection. Their pre-departure reflections focused more on what they hoped to see or learn rather than questioning their role in the process.

Critical reflection is crucial for transformative Service-Learning (SL) programs and international collaborations, and it showed significant improvement after analyzing students’ reflections and interviews. From not even being mentioned in the pre-exchange interview to being understood and practiced after the experience, critical reflection allows students to internalize, refine, and transform practical knowledge into academic understanding. It fosters the ability to engage in higher-order thinking, enabling students to question and become aware of key issues happening around them (Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative n.d.).

5.3.2 Post-experience

However, in their post-exchange reflections, students engaged in more critical analysis of their assumptions, identities, and the systems they encountered. One student wrote, “At first, I thought it was amazing how engaged the kids were at the after-school program. But later I realized I had assumed their families didn’t value education – that was wrong. I had to confront my own bias.” Another observed, “When we talked about tourism and gentrification, I saw how some of the things I love to do while traveling – like staying in Airbnbs or eating at trendy cafes- can make life harder for people living there. That made me pause (U.S.S)”.

This growth in critical reflection echoes the emphasis from the Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative (n.d.) on moving from surface-level awareness to questioning the structural forces behind what one observes. As one student put it, “It’s not enough to feel grateful for the experience, I have to ask myself: what will I do with what I now know? (U.S.S)”.

In addition, another student mentioned, “I mean, it can bring benefits but also problems, for example, what we experienced with housing. Rent prices go way up, and that really affects the people who live there. So that creates a lot of resentment within the community. That struck me because, honestly, yeah, it brings in money, the economy becomes more active, and I thought it would help them. But it felt like things were a bit disconnected (E.S)”.

By reflecting, students can view the world more deeply, as a student explained, “I find that shocking, but at the same time something really powerful, because knowledge gives all of us a lot of power. So I feel like knowledge sets us free, and it was that kind of freedom they were being given, right? The freedom to know and understand (E.S)”.

Finally, these reflections showed that students were able to approach global challenges with an open mind and consider situations they may face in the real world (Carthy 2022).

5.4 Inductive components

Different dimensions emerged when analyzing students’ reflections and interviews, highlighting themes such as friendship and global systems of inequality.

Friendship relies on commitment, and participants emphasized the importance of building strong connections: “That warmth and that generosity, the sense that people are willing to help, were significant. Here, sometimes you encounter attitudes like, ‘you go pay for your things’ or ‘I don’t know where you’ll get it from,’ but there, it was more like, ‘No, here, take this.’ They were genuinely concerned about our well-being, saying, ‘If you’re not doing well, I can help you. Even the professors treated us like we were their children, showing real care for our welfare because they felt responsible for us (E.S)”. This environment demonstrates how students can become not only more academically engaged while participating in CHIL programs but also begin to form long-term relationships.

Additionally, when discussing global systems of inequality, it is important for students to understand that humanity has faced social issues in every corner of the world, not just in their own contexts. They need to be aware that inequality exists everywhere, but the reality of its presence throughout history does not mean it is acceptable. In this kind of experience students have the opportunity to see different realities and visualize issues that they didn’t notice before, as this student said, “What struck me, positively, was our friends from the English classes. I mean, one of them was just so sweet and nice. And, like, we Latinos have this strong sense of community, “we’re Latinos” and seeing so many Latin people over there was amazing. When I said, “I’m from Ecuador,” the excitement they showed was so beautiful, and I felt excited too, like, “Wow, other Latinos here!” And sure, there were people from all kinds of nationalities, but seeing how much effort everyone put into learning English made me reflect. I thought, “Right, in my country, language isn’t that big of a barrier,” because most immigrants are from Latin America, we all speak Spanish, so it’s much easier. But over there, going to a country where you don’t know the language is tough (E.S)”. As explained by Díaz and Dow (2020), students who maintain closer contact with their international collaboration partners are better able to recognize the structural and historical inequalities present in each country. Therefore, this student stated, “So, it kind of opened a door for me, the possibility of studying there or something. But then, after talking with them and hearing their stories, that even though they were born there, have parents who live there or nearby, just because they don’t have Caucasian features or something like that, they experience rejection, racism, or xenophobia simply for having Latin roots or ancestry. And I was like, “Wow… why? They’re citizens and live here.” Yet people still hold on to those stereotypes. That’s what made me stop and think (E.S)”.

The two themes that emerged from the inductive analysis play a crucial role in illustrating the interconnectedness of the three concepts outlined in the GES: Cultural Humility, Global Citizenship, and Critical Reflection. Students’ remarks highlight personal components that emphasize the importance of feelings in the learning process.

6 Discussion

6.1 CHIL as a Starting Point for Social Justice

Quantitative and qualitative data showed that both CHIL and COIL programs are effective tools for enhancing global competencies, such as cultural humility, global citizenship, and critical reflection. These programs also promote meaningful learning outcomes that align with Global Education objectives.

Establishing meaningful international connections, such as the one presented, enables students and institutions to analyze various perspectives on both local and global issues (Hackett et al. 2023; Vahed and Rodriguez 2020). This approach prepares students to address today’s global challenges by fostering cross-cultural communication and redefining concepts like community service and participation in SL programs. Finally, as mentioned by Cates (2022), this study’s results show that combining community engagement experiences with short global two-way exchanges enables all participants to cultivate empathy, appreciate different cultures, and embark on a journey toward social justice.

6.2 North–South Inequalities in Global Education

As mentioned by Chasi (2023), the North holds more “hegemonic power” than the South, a reality that is evident across the entire American continent. Even when two affluent institutions collaborate, the opportunities for students from the Global South to travel to the Global North are often viewed as acts of social agency that contribute to personal and professional development. It is important to note that this program is unique in that regard.

The collaboration between students from both regions is considered equitable, built on a partnership that emphasizes shared decision-making. Even if one institution invests more money in the program, the planning, student participation, and connections made by the students are balanced. Analyzing the results reveals no trace of a power imbalance among the participants. With that said, it is important to begin rethinking how North–South relations are structured in terms of education and academia, as economic power should not dictate the nature of institutional relationships, especially when aiming to create a transformative global education program.

Lastly, it is important to note that political voice remains a challenge for the Ecuadorian institution, and there is no extreme change in the Ivy CHIL program. Political dynamics, including democracy, polarization, and violence, are significant issues worldwide, particularly in Ecuador and the United States. Global programs aimed at developing knowledge-based actions among the youth could be beneficial. Viewing academia as a social institution means recognizing its role in the global political landscape.

7 Conclusions

In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence in this paper to suggest that implementing a CHIL model with short term two-way travel, collaborative planning, and shared goals is a scalable and ethical alternative to extractive global mobility models. Moreover, well-structured international collaborations, such as COIL or CHIL programs, demonstrate measurable gains in key global learning outcomes. While COIL can provide valuable cross-border exposure, the absence of embodied interaction and place-based context may limit its transformative potential. Programs seeking to cultivate global citizenship should therefore prioritize hybrid designs that blend virtual and in-person modalities, foster structured reflection, and embed experiential learning in authentic intercultural settings.

To achieve these important outcomes, institutional support is necessary to implement CHIL programs through equitable partnerships and shared governance. This approach rethinks mobility programs to prioritize reciprocity and significant lessons about cultural humility, global civic responsibility, and critical reflection. These components of successful international programs are interconnected and depend on each other.

As reflected in student experiences, having these components in place, along with their corresponding scales, serves as a foundation for structuring global community engagement and learning programs. This lesson can be translated into essential aspects of human life, such as friendship, and highlights how global systems of power and inequality are structured in our world.

8 Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, participants were not randomly assigned to CHIL or COIL programs, which introduces the potential for selection bias. However, it is important to note that the participants included students involved in both COIL and CHIL programs. Second, the relatively small sample sizes may limit the generalizability of the findings. It is crucial to mention that this study aims to serve as an introduction to analyzing the effectiveness of implementing CHIL programs and to provide a foundational understanding of the benefits of fostering a reciprocal north–south relationship in higher education. This transformation can positively impact students’ journeys, learning, and reflections on structural power.

Third, survey responses were anonymous, which restricted our ability to track individual learning trajectories over time. Additional limitations present in the CHIL program that may be important to note in this study include language barriers, particularly for three out of four authors who are non-native English speakers, as well as logistical constraints related to travel, such as visa denials and scheduling conflicts.

9 Recommendations for Future Research

It is important to view this study as a starting point for understanding Global South-North partnerships in CHIL programs, and even COIL programs that aim to promote cultural humility, global citizenship, and critical reflection. This work could lead to a deeper analysis of power dynamics in other regions and provide a valuable opportunity to rethink global education as a shared learning experience for everyone.

Corresponding author: Karla Díaz, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Colegio de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Instituto de Aprendizaje y Servicio, Campus Cumbayá, Casilla Postal 17-1200-841, Quito 170901, Ecuador, E-mail: kdiaz@usfq.edu.ec

Funding information: APC paid by Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ.
Author contribution: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and consented to its submission to the journal. They reviewed all the results and approved the final version of the manuscript. KD was responsible for ensuring data collection and analysis. NR assisted in writing results and making revisions. JF was responsible for the introduction, abstract and literature review. SP contributed in data analysis and revisions. All authors contributed to the manuscript and approved its final version.
Data availability statement: Data are available upon request.
Conflict of interest statement: Authors state no conflict of interest.

References

Carthy, Ú. (2022). Blended mobility project: Ireland, Germany, and Spain. In Arnbjörnsdóttir, B., Bédi, B., Bradley, L., Friðriksdóttir, K., Garðarsdóttir, H., Thouësny, S., and Whelpton, M.J. (Eds.), Intelligent CALL, granular systems, and learner data: short papers from EUROCALL 2022, pp. 41–46.10.14705/rpnet.2022.61.1432Search in Google Scholar

Cates, K. (2022). Global education as a cross-curricular approach to language teaching for democracy. Iran. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 10: 75–96. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2022.121227.Search in Google Scholar

Chasi, A. (2023). North-South partnerships in higher education. International Education Association of South Africa.10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.02126-6Search in Google Scholar

Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative (n.d.). Global learning rubric, Available at: https://globalsl.org/global-learning-rubric.Search in Google Scholar

De Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., and Knobel, M. (2017). Estado del arte de la internalización de la educación superior de América latina. Revista de educación superior de América latina 2: 2–5.Search in Google Scholar

Díaz, K. and Dow, G. (2020). Collaborative global learning through service-learning: a course connection experience between Ecuador and the United States. In: Wiley handbook for collaborative online learning and global engagement. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken.Search in Google Scholar

Hackett, S., Janssen, J., Beach, P., Perreault, M., Beelen, J., and van Tartwijk, J. (2023). The effectiveness of Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) on intercultural competence development in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ., 20: 5, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00373-3.Search in Google Scholar

Hartman, E., Kiely, R.C., Friedrichs, J., and Boettcher, C. (2018). Community-based global learning: The theory and practice of ethical engagement at home and abroad, 1st ed. Routledge, Sterling.Search in Google Scholar

Leal, F.G. & Oregioni, M.S. (2019). Aportes para Analizar la internalización de la Educación Superior desde Latinoamérica: un Enfoque Crítico, Reflexivo y Decolonial. Int. J. Higher Educ. 5: e019036. https://doi.org/10.20396/riesup.v5i0.8653635.Search in Google Scholar

Reynolds, N.P., Lough, B.J., and Hartman, E. (2021). The global engagement survey: a multidimensional assessment of global learning. ResearchGate, Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350923061.Search in Google Scholar

Thyer, B. (2012). Quasi-experimental research designs. Oxford University Press, New York.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195387384.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Vahed, A. and Rodriguez, K. (2020). Enriching students’ engaged learning experiences through the collaborative online international learning project. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 58: 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1792331.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2025-08-06

Accepted: 2026-02-10

Published Online: 2026-04-14

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2025-0138

Keywords for this article

Collaborative Hybrid International Learning (CHIL); Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL); North–South partnerships; community engagement; Global Engagement Survey (GES)

Creative Commons

BY 4.0