


































Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

73 

 

Original Paper 

Practical Challenges to Teachers and Students in Asynchronous 

Cross-cultural Communication Projects 

Kate J. M. Sato
1*

 & Birte W. Horn
2
 

1
 Center of Liberal Arts & Sciences, Hokkaido University of Science, Sapporo, Japan  

2
 Hamm-Lippstadt University of Applied Sciences, Lippstadt, Germany 

*
 Kate J. M. Sato, Center of Liberal Arts & Sciences, Hokkaido University of Science, Sapporo, Japan 

 

Received: November 5, 2021  Accepted: November 17, 2021  Online Published: December 16, 2021 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v4n4p73              URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v4n4p73 

 

Abstract 

Teachers are expected to prepare their students for life in a world that changes daily, fueled by 

technological progress and globalisation (Howells, 2018). In this internationalized world, English has 

become the lingua franca for business, science and education (Tatsioka et al., 2018). Young 

professionals are expected to be proficient in English and able to easily communicate with colleagues 

from other countries. Achieving these objectives presents challenges for teachers and students.  

Practical approaches to incorporating authentic communication across cultures in the English 

language classroom are discussed in this paper. Over three years we authors implemented several 

projects using different didactic methods to bring students from Japan and Germany together to 

improve their proficiency in language as well as their cross-cultural communication skills. Students 

worked in small teams on joint tasks, in which the use of ICT (information and communication 

technologies) was crucial to successful outcome. Naturally, any careful advance planning was quickly 

met by the emergence of unforeseen problems that needed immediate attention from teachers and 

students.  

In this paper, we focus on challenges teachers and students may encounter when developing new 

strategies to include meaningful cross-cultural and intercultural exchanges in the tertiary ELF 

classroom, based on teacher and student experiences.  

Keywords 

cross-cultural communication, asynchronous virtual projects, higher education, online learning 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

74 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

1. Introduction 

Over the past three years, we have created and implemented five projects in our English language 

classrooms that were aimed at strengthening both language and cross-culture communication skills of 

our students. Those projects were completed with varying degrees of success. The majority of our 

students are pre-service engineers and often not very interested in language learning. Nevertheless, we 

also found that students from other academic backgrounds such as health science or media had a more 

open attitude to languages and cross-cultural communication projects. Additionally, in some of our 

projects, we not only included students from our countries of residence (Germany and Japan), but also 

from various parts of Africa, Asia and Europe, who were studying in Germany.  

In this collaboration, our initial idea was to increase our students‟ motivation and language proficiency 

by providing a very hands-on experience of working with colleagues from another country and the 

subsequent necessity to use English as a common language. We were very conscious of the challenges 

that many EFL/ESL teachers face in their classrooms: motivating students in their use of English and 

offering them opportunities to use English as a means of communication rather than an object of study. 

However, initially, we were unaware that such a cross-cultural virtual exchange might be a “very 

complex and difficult activity to integrate and use in the foreign language classroom” (O‟Dowd, 2012, 

p. 350).  

The beginning of the collaboration presented here, was very spontaneous. From idea to implementation 

of the first project in the classrooms, less than two weeks passed. Though fuelled by enthusiasm, at 

least on the teachers‟ side, it is easy to imagine that we soon became aware of numerous challenges 

throughout the course of the project. This paper covers challenges that we have faced in our projects, 

literature to frame our experience, and notes that we feel are most pertinent to consider when 

embarking on an asynchronous cross-cultural communication project.  

 

2. Background 

The interactions that took place and that we refer to in this paper, were between students studying at a 

German science university and students at a Japanese science university. In this context, we will briefly 

discuss the terms intercultural communication and cross-cultural communication. While these two 

terms are often used synonymously, some voices in literature differentiate in their interpretation. For 

example, Tichnor-Wagner., Parkhouse, Glazier, & Cain (2019) state that intercultural communication 

is “also referred to as cross-cultural communication” which is comprised of several elements, including 

an awareness of differences in communication, both verbally and non-verbally. Indeed, they are closely 

connected, however, when we ask how those two terms are understood in the respective languages of 

the participants, we can see that the German language, for example, implies that a cross-cultural study 

may be analytical, or compares cultures, but also where interaction between those of different cultural 

backgrounds is taking place. Intercultural communication, however has a different nuance that implies 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

75 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

interaction in the German language. Japanese researchers translate the two English terms seemingly 

indiscriminately into one of two terms in Japanese. Yashiro & Wakita (2001) define intercultural 

communication as a place where „my common sense is not yours, and your common sense is not mine”. 

Holliday says, “interculturality is a reflexive awareness of Self and Other” which aligns with Yashiro & 

Wakita (ibid.). We acknowledge that not all languages have both words (such as French which uses 

“intercultural” for intercultural, but for cross-cultural the translation is less straightforward). 

Intercultural communication requires an examination of oneself, one‟s own culture and the perception 

of others. It is through intercultural communication that “students are expected to recognise aspects of 

culture and create their own communication styles to accomplish the objectives” (Tasaki, 2020, p. 96).  

Cross-cultural communication also acknowledges a difference in cultures, but the focus lies less on 

application of the knowledge, or the practicalities of communicating, and more on the differences of 

cultures and the way they communicate. In short, we focused more on the practicalities of 

communicating with people from different cultural languages and background, and while doing so 

learning about them. Therefore, in the context of this study, we formalize the occurrence of 

cross-cultural communication when students from different cultural backgrounds meet and interact, 

which may include making comparisons between their respective countries. Nevertheless, we 

acknowledge the two terms are intertwined and due to the nature of our projects cannot be separated. 

The terms intercultural communication, and cross-cultural communication are used throughout the 

paper on this basis. However, where the literature may deviate from our definitions, we have not 

changed the terminology therein.  

The majority of Japanese students have had limited experience communicating with someone from a 

different cultural background, let alone intercultural encounters. They are often anxious to enter into 

any conversation with “a foreigner” and it has long been accepted that Japanese EFL learners are 

reluctant to speak in English (Cutrone, 2009). On the other hand, while the German students have more 

contact with others from different countries, their awareness of “interculturality” is almost non-existent.  

Therefore, it is of little surprise that in pre-project surveys, most of our students‟ worldview can be 

qualified as essentialist. For example, comments that were given ran along the lines of “Germans drink 

beer”, and “Japanese people eat sushi”. As a consequence, we consciously aim to expand our students‟ 

understanding of culture to encompass “the skills, attitudes, and behaviours needed to improve 

interactions across difference, whether within a society (differences due to age, gender, religion, 

socio-economic status, political affiliation, ethnicity and so on) or across borders” (Deardorff, 2020, p. 

i). We endeavour to foster the awareness that perceived differences are based more on individual 

notions of identity than on national cultures when engaging with students from abroad. Thus, we seek 

to train and strengthen our students‟ “ability to relate constructively to people who have mindsets 

and/or communication styles that are different from one‟s own” (Dypedahl, 2019, p. 102) in our 

projects.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

76 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

In creating and assigning tasks to our students, we put the focus on individual experiences and 

preferences that are to be shared with their respective partners from the other country. Our focus is thus 

less on “broad constructs like „culture‟ and more on the everyday concrete actions through which 

culture is produced” by the individual (Scollon, 2012, p. 18).  

However, while our projects are designed to enhance our students‟ intercultural competence, we also 

need to be aware of how relatively little time we were able to spend on them. Most of the projects only 

make a very small part of an otherwise packed syllabus and need to use a fairly uncomplicated 

approach to be successfully completed by our students. Since we put a strong emphasis on relationship 

building and cooperation, we ask our students to communicate with their partners abroad regularly via 

a chat app or video chats. We encourage them to discover personal commonalities and differences that 

stem from being part of different identity-groups such as age, gender or interests rather than different 

countries. However, due to the short-term nature of the projects we have implemented so far, personal 

relationships between our students often stay on the surface. Nevertheless, there are also teams in 

which students have continued communicating with each other long after a project had ended.  

Finally, before embarking on describing the challenges that surfaced to both teachers and the students, 

it should be noted that in each project ethical procedures were followed. However, this paper shares 

summaries of issues that arose during our projects, rather than details of data from individual projects 

that would require the use of pseudonyms. 

 

3. Challenges for the Teachers 

3.1 The Syllabus 

One of the first challenges a teacher may face is positioning an exchange within the frame of a 

syllabus, deciding goals, working out details of implementation and grading. O‟Dowd (2016) argues 

that telecollaboration should not only be integrated into current study programmes, but also be used as 

“alternative credit systems for students” (Hauck & MacKinnon, 2016). Furthermore, when working 

with engineering students “[d]esigning an appropriate syllabus, selecting appropriate materials and 

methodology for teaching English language and culture in a technical university with a view of 

developing the engineering students‟ cross-cultural understanding, constitutes a challenge for language 

teachers as they have to enhance everyone‟s motivation to learn and communicate” (Catana, 2014. p. 

346). There are a number of ways to approach this and the solution is going to depend on a number of 

interdependent factors. Nevertheless, organising a cross-cultural project means taking on quite a 

considerable amount of additional work. Teachers lead busy lives: In tertiary education our roles 

include teaching, conducting research, writing papers, being part of university committees or academic 

organisations, and working on a variety of other projects at any given time. Consequently, when adding 

a cross-cultural project to your regular workload, you must be prepared that this will put increased 

pressure and demands on your time.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

77 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Many teachers have to deliver a prescribed syllabus content whilst wishing to impart what they 

perceive will be necessary for students in their futures. Those with complete freedom over the syllabus 

are left to determine what should take priority in the EFL classroom. Both of these situations can be 

challenging as our world becomes increasingly complex. Syllabi can “enable the students to 

acknowledge and evaluate cultural differences, to empathize with other cultures, to enhance their 

motivation to learn and their ability to act in line with the rules of the culture they will encounter in 

their lifelong work and social experience” (Catana, 2014, p. 345). Therefore, finding the focus of any 

project is of primary importance. 

While deep learning and AI are delivering increasingly high-quality text translations, and reliance on 

those tools will become inevitable in a future work environment, cross-cultural projects challenge 

students on many different levels-giving them a learning experience beyond translations of text whilst 

facilitating communication. Thus, examining what to teach, how to teach and when to teach, need to be 

examined. 

Consequently, in this part we discuss some of the underpinning challenges teachers face when 

embarking on the more practical aspects of conducting an asynchronous cross-cultural communication 

project, including what the students need to learn, or should learn, and why.  

Having successfully weaved a telecommunication project into your syllabus, the question of evaluating 

the project arises. There are two aspects to the evaluation: the tally of the project in the whole syllabus, 

and the evaluation of the project itself.  

It is important to assess the coursework in the class, and determine the portion that can reasonably be 

allotted to the project. In many cases, it is not possible to commit 100% of the course evaluation to a 

telecommunication project despite O‟Dowd‟s (2016) case for doing so. When deciding the tally of the 

project in the course, it is also important to respect the decision the other teacher(s) you may be 

working with. Therefore, it is possible that in one country the participants will have a greater weighting 

of their course on the project, than in another. This may affect the degree of success of the project and 

thus it is helpful to be aware of decisions made by other teacher(s).   

With the evaluation of the project, again, we would like to emphasise the importance of mutual respect. 

Some teachers may choose to evaluate the amount of interaction between participants, or the outcomes 

of the interactions. These are relatively easy to understand for the students and for the teachers to create 

a grading framework. However, other teachers may wish to approach grading from a different 

perspective. Leontjev and DeBoer illustrate how in one study “learners used multimodal resources to 

develop their English and conceptual understanding” (2020, p. 14). This insight would not have been 

achieved if the interaction between students had not been carefully examined. Furthermore, this may be 

attractive to a teacher who wishes to evaluate language development. However, with 

telecommunication projects, it is also possible to focus evaluation on aspects such as Bloom‟s 

taxonomy, or critical thinking skills. In such cases, the project can be organised so that participants‟ 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

78 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

feedback, or other responses, will provide evidence for grading. Since our students‟ interactions are 

generally on LINE, and the privacy of their communication is respected, we chose the latter approach 

for evaluation.  

3.2 Cultural Aspects 

Teachers in tertiary education are tasked with preparing students to succeed in a world that is complex 

and rapidly changing. Perpetual developments in technology and globalisation challenge teachers and 

students on social, economic, and environmental levels (Howells, 2018). According to the OECD and 

other organizations aiming to define and explain skills needed for the demands of a global workplace, 

communication and, more specifically, intercultural communication are of top priority (Ananiadou & 

Claro, 2009). Communication is no longer understood as immediate, face-to-face interactions, but 

includes digital formats since students need to “have the ability to communicate, exchange, criticise, 

and present information and ideas, including the use of ICT [Information and Communications 

Technology] applications to participate and make positive contributions to the digital culture” 

(Ananiadou & Claro, 2009, p. 5).   

There are many facets to intercultural communication which not only focus on language but also 

negotiation skills, a knowledge of hindrances, diversity awareness, non-verbal communication, and 

communicative business skills such as giving presentations (Gibson, 2002). Many teachers are already 

aware of, and teach, business communication skills to their students. These are often called “hard 

communication skills”, which we define as a communication skill that predominantly relies on the 

deliverer of the message.  

“Soft communication skills” are defined as skills that rely on communication between two or more 

participants where the outcome relies heavily on the participants (e.g., negotiation). Needless to say, 

the hard communication skills are more concrete, the outcomes more controllable and predicable; thus 

it is easier to create a framework with which to teach them. There are abundant variables in soft 

communication skills, which make them harder to implement in the EFL context. Additionally, when 

communication is taking place predominantly online, it is difficult to access, whereas written language 

is available for interpretation. These all interlink with the challenge of how to evaluate or grade 

students‟ coursework as mentioned above.  

Consequently, when conducting a project such as we describe, reflection on the cultural aspects are 

fundamental. Gibson states that “in intercultural communication it is vital to distinguish between what 

is part of a person‟s cultural background and what is part of their personality” (2002, p. 12). One way 

to approach this may be to follow Hadley‟s suggestion which says that the first step in “teaching for 

cultural understanding in our classroom” is “becoming aware of our own biases” (2001, p. 354) for 

both teacher and student. Additionally, Williams and Burden point out that: 

Humanistic teaching, therefore, is not just learner-centred, but person-centred. A teacher‟s 

view of teaching mirrors [a] view of [oneself] and [one‟s] teaching behaviour reflects [one‟s] 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

79 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

essence as a person. One consequence of taking such an approach is having to accept that 

teaching is an expression of values and attitudes, not just information or knowledge. Another 

consequence is that teachers must recognize that they themselves are constantly involved in a 

lifelong process of learning and change. (1997, p. 63) 

Certainly, for a teacher to be aware of their own cultural biases is vital to facilitating intercultural 

communication projects.  

Meanwhile, another approach that can be taken is to start with establishing a “sphere of 

interculturality”, emphasising the diversity that exists within all cultures and then critically examining 

“cultural content” (McKay, 2002). Regardless of one‟s teaching situation, we have found that being 

aware of one‟s own cultural biases as a teacher, and respecting and understanding those of the students, 

helps lay a foundation which facilitates reducing potential hindrances. Nevertheless, how this is done, 

and the depth to which is it done may be dictated by several factors including logistical limitations 

imposed by time, teaching tools and methods, as well as syllabus requirements.  

Therefore, teachers need to decide on the priority for each project. We recommend continually focusing 

on the aims of the project and revisiting them as the project proceeds. Consequently, teachers need to 

evaluate their own situation, and prioritise what they deem necessary for their students. In our 

situations, we chose to focus on cultural background as a starting point for all our projects while 

maintaining teacher-teacher communication throughout the project. Often, it is a challenge to find, 

take, and give the time needed to guarantee smooth execution of the project. It cannot be overstated 

that flexibility, honest communication, and the willingness to support one another is fundamental.  

3.3 Communication  

Above all, good communication in all directions is vital to an intercultural project: between teachers, 

teachers and students, and the students themselves. The main communication tool for us teachers was 

email. However, we also tried to meet via video conference as regularly as possible. While we did not 

use this tool as much at the beginning of our collaboration, we noticed the high value of direct 

conversation during our third project. When time differences are an issue, as in our case, emails are 

easier. Nevertheless, while a project is active, direct feedback, reassessing expectations and quick 

adjustments to strategies are imperative. Video exchanges enable the teachers to “alter the logistics of 

the exchange to adapt to developments and problems as they arise” (O‟Dowd, 2015a, p. 67). 

Furthermore, this face-to-face communication also helps the teachers to become more familiar with 

each other. 

Throughout all stages, clear and honest communication between the teachers involved is required. 

Since our first project was created so spontaneously, we did not give much thought to our own 

expectations towards the projects. This led to a misunderstanding, which translated to some confusion 

for our students. In later projects, we always made a point of discussing the academic background of 

our students and the outcomes we aimed to achieve. When team-teaching, especially with a colleague 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

80 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

from abroad, mutual understanding, tolerance and respect are the foundation of success. These aspects 

will strengthen when a personal level is added.  

3.4 Tools and Instruments 

Having decided to include an exchange into the syllabus, the logistics need to be planned carefully. 

How are the students to interact? If you participate in an externally organised exchange, then only 

limited technological access or knowledge might be needed. One such example is the International 

Virtual Exchange Project which has had seven thousand participants from 15 different countries, and 

which has taken place on a Moodle platform on which participants and teachers enroll (Hagley, 2020). 

Such large projects with defined goals and parameters tend to be less flexible and while only limited 

technical knowledge is needed teachers still need to be prepared to learn how to use the interface tools. 

Thus, regardless of the type of project, the teachers need to decide on communication tools. In our case, 

communication between teacher and students pre-dominantly happens in class (whether face-to-face or 

virtual) and/or via email. Other technological tools are also useful in asynchronous projects. However, 

choosing and finding the right tool is not always easy, as the “wide range of options can be daunting for 

inexperienced practitioners” (O‟Dowd, 2015b, p. 5). 

Overall, for general communication we have experimented with emails, messaging apps, google docs, 

Survey Monkey and Moodle. While google docs and Survey Monkey both have the advantage that 

students from both countries can access the survey, sharing and analysing the results were not very 

practical. Since both universities use Moodle as an LMS, we settled on this tool often, as it was simply 

the easiest way for teachers to collect information from their own student cohorts. We collected 

feedback from our students mainly using the feedback module on Moodle. By the end of our fifth 

project we found teacher-teacher communication worked best using emails (as mentioned above), 

LINE (a powerful messaging app which we outline in more detail below) and a shared Moodle course 

which served as a space for sharing documents between us teachers.  

To facilitate easy and immediate communication between students in our first project, we chose to 

include a chat, or messaging, app. We knew that the majority of students were already using chat apps 

frequently and thus were familiar with this method of communication. In Japan, the app LINE was 

most popular; in Germany, students regularly used WhatsApp. We decided on the app LINE for several 

reasons. Firstly, LINE allows users to create a QR code to add contacts. Since students might have been 

uncomfortable sharing their private phone numbers, we deemed this as appropriate for protecting 

students‟ personal information and data (Sato & Horn, 2020). Secondly, the first project was rather 

spontaneous, and rapid in its inception as mentioned above. The German students involved in this first 

project were media students. Consequently, we correctly assumed that they might enjoy trying out a 

new chat app. Knowing your students helps reduce hindrances in the exchanges. Ultimately, finding 

LINE suitable we have continued with it for all the remaining projects together. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

81 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

As mentioned above, both of our universities use Moodle. With this background, for the exchange 

platform in project 3, we used Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) and linked our institutions‟ 

Moodle courses to a central Moodle course. This was achieved as “LTI can be utilized for integrating 

different remote activities for advanced online collaboration” (Harashima et al., 2015). In Project 3, we 

also introduced another new element: a synchronous meeting of all participants via Skype. During the 

meeting, students could participate in a quiz using laptops or cell phones. The answers to the questions 

appeared on the screen either in the form of a diagram, a word cloud or text for everyone to see. Some 

of the responses led to further questions directed at students, which individual students would answer. 

In our fourth project, we invited all students to a MoodleCloud course, where we could share 

information and facilitate different types of communication. One conversation platform was the forum 

on Moodle, where each week a new question (e.g., What do you like about your home town/country?) 

was posted and answered by students. Project 5 was undertaken during the Covid-19 pandemic when 

our classes were online. To streamline the project we returned to LINE for the students to communicate 

directly with one another, and for us teachers: emails, LINE, video conferencing and our shared 

Moodle course for sharing documents. Ultimately, finding what works for both teachers has taken some 

time and testing, but eventually, we have settled on tools that we know or are familiar with, have found 

easy to use, and with which we are comfortable.  

3.5 Teacher Collaboration 

Teacher collaboration on a project can either reduce tensions and facilitate the project, or increase 

tensions and possibly hinder it. Therefore, it is helpful to be aware of the socio-constructivist 

approaches that underpin such exchanges:  

[w]hile telecollaborative teachers do often come to exchanges with widely shared beliefs about 

teaching and learning, … It is precisely the ability to tolerate and work with these differences 

that is part of the intercultural skills and beliefs of the telecollaborative teacher. (O‟Dowd, 

2013)  

Being comfortable working together in the project, being open to ideas, and being flexible in our 

execution of the projects are three components that have facilitated the collaboration in the projects. 

Using these three components as a check-post is recommended for any type of cross-cultural project 

preparation.  

The demands on teachers when engaging in cross-cultural, online collaborations are manifold. O‟Dowd 

(2015a) has created a set of 40 descriptors of what is expected from a teacher in such projects which 

may serve as a useful reference for teachers wishing to prepare before embarking on an exchange. The 

descriptors are in four sections: “(a) organisational, (b) pedagogical, (c) digital competences, and (d) 

attitudes and beliefs” (p. 66). In the above sections, we have touched on all of these four areas.  

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

82 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Consequently, a critical aspect to the success of projects is the mind-set of the teachers collaborating on 

the project. They need to be open to another country‟s cultural beliefs and traditions, especially, but not 

exclusively, with regard to foreign language teaching. One crucial aspect is the ability of the teacher to 

“prepare students for their online interaction, to debrief following contact with their partners” (O‟Dowd, 

2015a, p. 66). Therefore, having illuminated some of the most pertinent challenges to teachers we now 

turn to the challenges students may encounter when participating in online exchange programmes.  

 

4. Challenges to Students 

Challenges to students come from various directions. In the increasingly global society in which we 

live today, reliance on import/export of goods, services, and information is increasing. Even though 

students may not envisage working overseas, or even in an intercultural environment, raising awareness 

to be a responsible, educated global citizen is pertinent. However, in science universities, we have 

observed that students are not always strong communicators. This is even more the case when we 

challenge them to communicate in a foreign language (Sato & Horn, 2020). 

Nevertheless, globalisation has been an external force affecting business (Gibson, 2002). In turn, this 

has trickled down into education where instructors strive to equip students for their future as part of a 

global community. This is where the challenge to the teacher lies; how to integrate 21
st
 century skills 

into the academic environment, and more specifically, the EFL classroom. 21
st
 century skills, which 

focus on life-long learning skills and competencies, offer a new definition of what teachers need to 

keep in mind when designing classes. Binkley et al. defined four categories and ten skills that reflect 

the needs of life-long learners. The first category, “ways of thinking” includes the skills: creativity and 

innovation, critical thinking (problem solving, decision making) and learning to learn (metacognition). 

The second category, “ways of working” lists important skills such as communication and 

collaboration (teamwork). The “tools for working” are defined in category three as information literacy 

and ICT literacy. Lastly, in category four we find essential skills that reflect an increasingly global 

world with citizenship (local and global), life and career and personal and social responsibility 

(including cultural awareness and competence) (2012, pp. 18-19).  

All of these 21
st
 century skills play an important part in cross-cultural projects. Where teaching English 

as a foreign language (TEFL) has relied on students gaining linguistic competence, in an intercultural 

communicative settings participants also need interactional competence and sociocultural awareness 

(Gibson, 2002). Preparing students for the projects and guiding them through the process is important 

for successful completion. 

4.1 Preparing Students for Projects 

Often a curriculum focuses on target vocabulary as well as the linguistic structures (such as grammar 

and syntax), which students are accustomed to learning, and being graded on. Nevertheless, topics that 

may arise in students‟ future careers spanning 30 years post university studies could very well include 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

83 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

issues covered in the limited time given to studying EFL at university. Therefore, expanding the current 

curriculum to equip students for competent communication in the global workplace is an element that 

instructors need to consider teaching. Meanwhile, students must be made aware that such studies have 

considerable benefits (Hagley, 2020).   

When preparing students for the global business context there are three elements an instructor might 

consider as the focus for the students: global awareness, global perspective, and global engagement. 

Global awareness may include the students showing an awareness of cultural differences and how these 

may affect their workplace in later life. Global perspectives may include examining a problem in a 

business setting (possibly through a case study) as a foundation to teaching students how to solve a 

problem considering local and international cultural understandings (Catana, 2014). While these can 

expand the knowledge base of the student, undertaking a project will also expand their experience.  

Global engagement requires students to work collaboratively to find practical solutions to global issues, 

whilst considering the global and intercultural elements of the context. Therefore, the instructor(s) 

should determine the extent to which students can work within the practical limitations of working and 

learning in a project (such as time, study load) whilst also choosing which elements students should 

engage with or experience. In other words, knowing your students and tailoring the focus of the project 

to their needs is elemental. 

4.2 The Projects 

Finding the focus suitable for the students is one factor teachers have to consider, but students also 

need to perceive they are learning something new, and relevant. Out of the EFL context, international 

business communication courses are taught, which include instruction on appropriate use of (English) 

language. As we were working with students who often had a limited proficiency in English, one 

challenge was to integrate linguistic elements into the practical side of the project. In our first project, 

we were able to reduce the linguistic challenge by using their knowledge about their field of study as a 

foundation for the project. This was possible since the participating students in both countries were 

media students in mandatory classes. In doing this, the students had a springboard from which they 

were able to rise up and overcome challenges that appeared.  

In all of the projects, it was central to us teachers that students recognise the importance of English as 

an instrument to achieve a goal. The objective of some of the tasks that were given to students were to 

create a video giving cultural advice to a business traveller from the other country, create a joint 

PowerPoint presentation with narration on a topic such as festivals, education, or our students‟ carbon 

footprints. Simultaneously, we encouraged and provided avenues through which students could forge 

more personal relationships with other students. Whether students worked in larger or smaller groups, 

in teams of four or two, they used Line to communicate with each other on a more personal level. Thus, 

we also integrated the use of Line to create a platform where the students could get to know each other 

unmonitored by teachers, and from which they were to introduce their partners to the class in their 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

84 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

respective universities. As already mentioned above, we introduced a synchronous video meeting 

between the participants in both countries, which was received very well by the students.  

Through these avenues, we were able to combine the challenges of the EFL classroom and the ten 21
st
 

century skills mentioned above, to achieve the aims, which were to engage and ultimately challenge 

our learners to become more responsible citizens of the world.   

4.3 Frequency of Communication and Time Difference 

Despite achieving the goals, cross-cultural projects can hold a number of challenges for the students. 

Considering the geographical distance, one of the main issues for participants was working in different 

time zones.  

Time lags between posts were quite common. Students, who expected quick replies, were often 

frustrated. On a more positive note, others mentioned that the lack of immediacy allowed them to think 

more carefully about a reply or to find the correct phrasing. However, those students who complained 

about not receiving replies were in the majority. Additionally, we observed strong variations in 

frequency of communication (Sato & Horn, 2020). Some teams chatted regularly, whereas others 

would not hear from their overseas‟ partners for days or even weeks. Naturally, this led to 

dissatisfaction among students whose teams or partners were not very loquacious. Interestingly, these 

types of issues could be observed both with larger teams (up to ten members) and with teams where 

only two students, one from each country, were matched. Since students from both countries voiced 

these concerns, we assume that diverging cultural communication styles are not necessarily an 

explanation. However, more research into this matter will be undertaken in the future. Potential reasons 

for this behaviour could be individual strengths and weaknesses in communication as well as the 

overall motivation of students. Consequently, when planning a cross-cultural project across different 

time zones, allowances for lags in communication need to be made. Solutions lie in setting schedules 

and deadlines and, in allowing time between questions that include class assignments.  

Further considerations need to be given to differences in academic schedules as well as holidays. For 

example, during the spring term, there will be a one-week vacation for German students around Easter, 

and for Japanese students during Golden Week. Unfortunately, these periods vary and do not overlap. 

Since many students think of their cross-cultural projects as “school work”, they do not feel the need to 

continue communication with their overseas‟ partners during these holidays. Again, this leads to lag in 

conversation and often frustration with team members.  

While in Japan, students need to study for mid-term exams, German students in our projects only had 

exams at the end of each semester. Accordingly, we observed a decline in conversation during 

mid-term exam period. In teams, where this issue was voiced and communicated, students had fewer 

problems catching up after the exam period compared to groups where communication simply stopped. 

In a few cases, once interrupted conversation never really took off again and the team could not 

successfully complete the project.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

85 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Time and time differences, are obviously issues that need to be carefully considered when planning a 

cross-cultural project. To increase agency, and as a good exercise to develop life skills needed for 

future success, students can be asked to prepare for these issues and to find solutions to overcome 

them. Nevertheless, this can be quite challenging. 

4.4 Language Proficiency  

Differences in language proficiency can also lead to issues in communication. For the majority of 

students in our projects, English is their second, at times even their third language. While some 

students are quite fluent and confident speaking English with teachers and fellow students, others are 

much more hesitant about using their English skills and try to avoid it whenever possible.  

Two extremes we have observed are students who struggle to write even one clear and correct sentence 

in English; they often have difficulties understanding and following instructions, and there are those 

that are too shy to ask. On the other hand, we have had students for whom communication in English is 

quite normal, either because their secondary school education was bilingual, or they are part of an 

international degree programme where English is the working language. While this does not mean that 

these students‟ English proficiency is perfect, they are experienced in using English as a 

communication tool and do not mind making mistakes or asking for clarification.     

Throughout the projects, we have also received feedback from students who said that not always being 

able to understand their partners immediately, was a stimulating challenge. They would have to ask for 

explanations, which would in turn lead to further conversations.  

4.5 Cultural Background, Collaboration, and Group Dynamics 

Communicating with a total stranger is a challenge. This can further be amplified in online 

asynchronous cross-cultural communication projects due to a number of factors: the participants are 

using a foreign language, their experience of such projects is limited or non-existent, cultural 

differences, and furthermore, written communication can be hard to interpret. This was clearly evident 

with the Japanese and German students however, less so with the international students.  

According to Lewis (2010), Japan is a reactive society, which means that the Japanese students will 

seldom take the first step towards a conversation. For some of the Japanese students, our projects were 

the first time they had to engage with someone from another country, other than a teacher. To them, the 

situation was entirely unknown. Japan is an island nation that was historically cut off from the world 

for 200 years. It has never been colonised; the only time it was ruled by another power was post World 

War II, and even during this time, media and education were heavily censored by the US (Dower, 

1999). As a nation, being shy (hazakashii) is accepted by society, thus in a project such as ours, 

communication is rarely initiated by the Japanese students, and it is acceptable in the culture to remain 

quiet, making communication challenging. In addition, the group mentality is strong, thus stepping out 

and doing something by oneself is not common. Conversely, Japanese work well in groups. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

86 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

On the other hand, Germany, being at the centre of Europe has more immediate exchanges with people 

from other countries. Many German students have a migration background or know colleagues with 

migration backgrounds, so that speaking to people with different cultural roots and different languages 

is much more common, or at least not too far removed from everyday life. Furthermore, going on 

holiday to neighbouring countries is normal and many German students will have travelled to several 

foreign countries by the time they enter university. However, because German and international 

students may have more experience with different cultures and languages, it does not mean that they 

know how to successfully engage and work with others. These projects often offer a very new 

experience for them as well.  

Adding to these dynamics in some of our projects was the inclusion of international students in 

Germany, who come from a variety of countries in Africa, Asia and Europe. These students add to the 

melange of cultural norms and expectations of each group. Being aware of such dynamics and 

considering them when embarking on an asynchronous cross-cultural communication project is 

essential to their success.  

4.6 Communication Styles and Other Issues 

Other issues we observed concerned the use of emoji and stickers (Sato & Horn, 2020). For most of the 

German students, stickers and emoji in the Line app were rather different from what those they had 

used in WhatsApp. Consequently, we were told about a few misunderstandings, which occurred 

because one side used emoji, or stickers, which were misinterpreted by the other side. However, these 

issues were normally clarified quickly and both sides mentioned having learned something from the 

experience.  

During our 5
th

 project, which happened during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, several students 

expressed a desire to have face-to-face, video meetings with their colleagues from abroad. As teachers, 

we encouraged these types of meetings. However, since we had not included this in the plans for the 

project, students were reluctant to initiate video chats. In general, we have observed that when clear 

instructions are not provided, students hardly ever engage and stick closely to the written rules. Thus, 

we are planning to encourage our students actively to venture beyond the general project guidelines.  

 

5. Conclusion 

Entering a project with great enthusiasm will carry you through many rough patches. However, without 

careful organisation and planning, it will only get you so far. It is crucial that the teachers clearly 

outline content, teaching methods and outcomes together. This reflects O‟Dowd‟s descriptor 

concerning teachers‟ competencies in which the teacher needs to “negotiate effectively with the 

partner-teacher the structure and organisational technicalities of the exchange which take into account 

both institutional contexts (calendars, etc.) as well as the needs and interests of both sets of 

participants” (2015a, p. 67). While considering all of this, one must create tasks for the students that 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

87 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

take into account their interests, language abilities, technological knowledge, etc. Another aspect is the 

grading: will the students be evaluated for participating in the project and will it affect their grades, or 

is it voluntary participation relying on intrinsic motivation? Will evaluation be the same, or similar, in 

both countries, or will it be different? In our experience, the pressure of achieving a good grade has led 

to stronger communication efforts among out students. When the project was voluntary, we 

encountered issues with students dropping out of the project without notice leaving their partners to 

struggle by themselves.  

As shown from the literature, and feedback from participants in our exchanges, cross-cultural 

communication projects offer enormous potential to enrich students‟ learning. However, there are 

potential hindrances, which we have outlined in this paper. Nevertheless, there are solutions: focus the 

course content on the project, and include language instruction at the discretion of the instructor. In 

addition, awareness raising tasks can be interwoven into the project to help focus students‟ attention to 

cultural biases and differences. In this way, hindrances can be reduced and cross-cultural 

communication projects can become more attractive to the teacher and the students.  

 

References 

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners 

in OECD countries. No. 41, OECD. 

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). 

Defining twenty-first century skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17-66). 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2 

Catana, S. E. (2014). Teaching cross-cultural communication issues—A way of successfully 

integrating into the multicultural knowledge society. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 

128, 343-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.168 

Cutrone, P. (2009). Overcoming Japanese EFL learners‟ fear of speaking. Language studies working 

papers, 1(1), 55-63. 

Deardorff, D. K. (2020). Manual for developing intercultural competencies: Story circles. Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429244612 

Dower, J. W. (1999). Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake of World War II. WW Norton & Company. 

 

Dypedahl, M. (2019). Intercultural communicative skills. In T. Burner, C. Carlsen, & K. Kverndokken 

(Eds.), 101 ways to work with communicative skills—English teaching in primary and secondary 

schools (pp. 99-112). Fagbokforlaget. 

Gibson, R. (2002). Intercultural Business Communication: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice 

of Intercultural Business Communication for Teachers, Language Trainers, and Business People. 

Oxford University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.168
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429244612


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 4, No. 4, 2021 

88 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Chapter 8.  

Hagley, E. (2020). Effects of virtual exchange in the EFL classroom on students‟ cultural and 

intercultural sensitivity. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 21(3), 74-87. 

Harashima, H., Rawson, T. W., Kanda, A., Yamauchi, M., & Sato, S. (2015). Implementing Online 

School Collaboration Projects with Learning Tools Interoperability. In Pixel, Conference 

Proceedings. ICT for Language Learning: 8th Conference Edition (pp. 48-53). 

Hauck, M., & MacKinnon, T. (2016). 11 A New Approach to Assessing Online Intercultural Exchange. 

In Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (p. 209).  

Howells, K. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030: The future we want. OECD. 

Leontjev, D., & DeBoer, M. A. (2020). Multimodal mediational means in assessment of processes: An 

argument for a hard-CLIL approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and 

Bilingualism, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1754329 

Lewis, R. (2010). When cultures collide (pp. 171-211). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. 

McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and 

perspectives.  

O‟Dowd, R. (2011). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. The Routledge 

handbook of language and intercultural communication, 340, 358. 

O‟Dowd, R. (2015a). Supporting in-service language educators in learning to telecollaborate. 

Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 63-82. 

O‟Dowd, R. (2015b). The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. The Language Learning 

Journal, 43(2), 194-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.853374 

O‟Dowd, R. (2016). Emerging trends and new directions in telecollaborative learning. Calico Journal, 

33(3), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i3.30747 

Sato, K., & Horn, B. (2020). Cultivating Students‟ Communication Skills for the Global Workplace: A 

Cross-Cultural Online Exchange Project with Non-Native Speakers. International Journal of 

Teaching and Education, 8(1), 64-83. https://doi.org/10.20472/TE.2020.8.1.005 

Scollon, R. et al. (2012). Intercultural Communication. In A Discourse Approach (3rd ed.). 

Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0555 

Tasaki, A. (2020). Role of Japanese in English-medium Instruction Programs at Japanese Universities: 

Toward the Globalization of Education that Values Diversity.  

Tatsioka, Z., Seidlhofer, B., Sifakis, N. C., & Ferguson, G. (Eds.). (2018). Using English as a lingua 

franca in education in Europe. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503115 

Tichnor-Wagner, A., Parkhouse, H., Glazier, J., & Cain, J. M. (2019). Becoming a globally competent 

teacher. Ascd. 

Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist 

approach. Cambridge University Press.  

https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1754329
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.853374
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i3.30747
https://doi.org/10.20472/TE.2020.8.1.005
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0555
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503115

