In light of the fact that only a small percentage of students in higher education institutions (HEIs) take part in face-to-face mobility, which has become even more pronounced in the time of the pandemic, virtual exchange (VE) presents itself as a valid strategy promoting internationalisation at home and internationalisation of the curriculum (Jager et al., 2019). VE entails “bringing together groups of learners from different cultural contexts for extended periods of online intercultural collaboration and interaction” (O’Dowd & O’Rourke, 2019) as a part of a formal learning programme and under the guidance of teachers or facilitators (Belz, 2003). VE is often referred to as telecollaboration, online intercultural exchange or teletandem. Although these terms carry different connotations, O’Dowd and Dooly (2020, p. 262) indicate that “they all highlight both the medium (virtual, online, digital, distance, global, networked) and the underlying purpose (exchange, intercultural, collaboration, learning).” So far the research has tended to focus on investigating the impact of VE on foreign language competences (Sauro, 2009), intercultural skills (Vogt, 2006), learner autonomy (Fuchs, Hauck, & Müller-Hartmann, 2012) and selected transversal skills (Vinagre, 2010).

There is an acute shortage of studies and case studies that would explore and elaborate on the topic of assessment in this mode of learning. Assessment in VE remains a largely underexplored topic despite the fact that it is perceived by many practitioners as one of the most difficult aspects of running such a course (O’Dowd, 2013). As an inherent element of institutionalised VE projects, assessment poses a considerable challenge as it is 1. culture-dependent and, hence, largely determined by an educational and institutional context; 2. multifaceted – as it embraces linguistic, intercultural and digital competencies and 3. highly unpredictable due to its dynamic and interactive nature (e.g. Akiyama, 2014).

This papersets out to present the outcomes of an EU-funded project that aims to investigate foreign/second language (FL) teachers’ beliefs about and perceptions of assessment in VE courses and collect examples of promising practices across a large number of educational contexts.

In particular, in this paper we will centre on two research questions:

1. What forms of assessment of student learning in VE are perceived as successful by research participants?
2. What factors affect the successful implementation of assessment in VE courses on classroom and institutional levels?

The data was collected by means of oral in-depth oral interviews conducted with FL teachers in tertiary education. The interviews focused on their assessment practices, instruments and strategies in courses involving elements of virtual exchange. The interviews additionally touched upon the factors that affected the implantation of assessment in VE. The interviews were transcribed and content analysed by means of NVivo software. These data were supplemented with the analysis of assessment-related resources and documents (e.g. syllabi, assessment rubrics, descriptions of assessment tools) provided by research participants. Due to the international nature of VE projects, the practitioners who took part in the study came from a wide range of educational context in Europe and beyond, which enabled us to explore the diverse approaches to assessment in VE in different institutions and in different countries.

The research findings indicate that teachers tend to use formative and task-based assessment to assess student learning in VE. Due to heavy workload and time load associated with this form of feedback provision, its successful implementation depends to a large extent on the institution’s flexibility and willingness to accommodate the VE as an integral part of a course and syllabus. Although the study was conducted on foreign/second language teachers on tertiary level, its implications will prove significant to teachers of other subjects across different educational context. The results and the practical implications of the study may be of interest also to school authorities and policy makers interested in improving the quality of VE or in introducing this form of learning as an element of internationalisation at home.

Akiyama, Y. (2014). Review of Issues and Potential Solutions of Japan-U.S. Telecollaboration: From the Program Coordinator’s Viewpoint. Studies in Japanese Language Education, 11, 3-14. Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 68–99 Fuchs, C., Hauck, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2012). Promoting learner autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 82-102. Jager, S., Nissen, E., Helm, F., Baroni, A., Rousset, I. (2019) Virtual Exchange as Innovative Practice across Europe. Awareness and Use in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://evolve-erasmus.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/Baseline-study-report-Final_Published_Incl_Survey.pdf O'Dowd, Robert (2013).Telecollaborative networks in university higher education: Overcoming barriers to integration, Internet and Higher Education, 18, 47-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.02.001 O'Dowd, R., & Dooly, M. (2020). Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration and virtual exchange. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 361-375). Milton Park: Routledge. O’Dowd, R., & O’Rourke, B. (2019). New developments in virtual exchange for foreign language education. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 1–7. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44690 Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120. Vinagre, M. (2010). Teoría y práctica del aprendizaje colaborativo asistido por ordenador. Madrid: Síntesis. Vogt, K. (2006). Can you measure attitudinal factors in intercultural communication? Tracing the development of attitudes in e-mail projects. ReCALL, 18(2), 153-173.