This study is intended to examine an innovative approach to internationalisation and Higher Education during the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.  It aims to explore how remote cooperative teaching, based on mutual enrichment across international Initial Teacher Education providers, could support the active participation of students in international activities. From an academic point of view, the objective of internationalisation is to enhance of the quality of a higher education system not only from the economical point of view (Migration Advisory Committee 2018) but especially by fostering a change process in institutions (Qiang, 2003). Literature reported many benefits from an internationalisation experience, for example, improved academic quality of teaching and learning, positive impact on the employability of students (Jibeen & Khan, 2015), reinforcement of competencies such as international orientation, cross-cultural sensitivity, open mindedness, second language competence, flexible thinking, tolerance and respect for others (Chan & Dimmock, 2008). Furthermore, research also highlighted more standardised research methods (Akinbode, Al Shuhumi, & Muhammed-Lawal, 2017) thanks to the sharing of resources and expertise in academic research. Research-based evidence highlighted some challenges associated with the internationalisation of higher education such as resource and investment, workload, partnership management, cooperation and motivation (Jiang & Carpenter 2014). In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions have represented a challenge for internationalisation, mainly based on students’ mobility, with a negative impact on the expectations of students’ studying abroad after the pandemic (Mok, Xiong, Ke, & Cheung, 2021). Covid 19 and the consequent reluctance of international students to travel requires staff in universities to reflect on internationalisation differently by focussing on virtual and digital platforms, rather than physical contact.  (Yıldırım,  Bostancı,  Yıldırım, & Erdoğan,  2021). Lastly, some consideration should be given to the impact that Brexit is having on students’ mobility, on international members of staff and on collaborations in the UK Higher Education sector (Broc, 2020). Evidence shows that one of the key points planning for a successful international activity is to integrate them into core teaching, research and scholarship activity of higher institutions (Marinoni, 2019). According to Hudzick (2020), a focus on developing a culture of mutual support and strategic inclusion of all partner Universities and potentially develop a curriculum inclusive of dual purposing resource and mutual enrichment is the best strategy moving forward. 

This study has explored the outcomes of an internationalisation experience involving two Universities: University of Glasgow, UK and University Niccolo’ Cusano, Italy, from the three key identified aspects:

1. Remote cooperative teaching (RCT): RCT is based on a multilingual and multicultural approach where tutors had to adapt their teaching strategies in a dynamic way to suit the language and uses of the two cohorts of students.
2. Mutual enrichment: Mutual enrichment emerged in the way that tasks were structured so that both cohorts of students could contribute with their own understanding, knowledge, and experience. The discussion of   two diverse national approaches to the same topic - parental engagement in their children’s education – could potentially enrich the students’ understanding. The sessions were spread over three weeks allowing the time for connection, communication, and reflection within and beyond the synchronous sessions.  All students from both countries had to contribute to the same outcome (a PPT presentation) in the respect of their own cultural and language diversity.
3. Active participation:  Active participation was encouraged by the integration of the outcome (PPT presentation and reflection on the experience) in each University’s assessment agenda. Students considered the sessions essential to successfully complete their oral summative assessment for the Italian University and artefact-based formative assessment for the Scottish University.

Participants: •18 Year 3 undergraduate students studying at the University of Glasgow, School of Education, on the Master of Education (MEDuc) ITE programme. •12 undergraduate Italian student teachers attending the course ‘Science of Education’ and 4 graduate students attending the training on the job curriculum experience in the University Niccolo’ Cusano (UNC), Italy. International sessions strategy: - 3 Sessions remotely delivered via zoom, in winter 2021. Sessions were organized focusing on tutors’ cultural and language diversity and culturally adapted. They were in English with concurrently translation into Italian and followed a student-centred pedagogical approach through active learning activities. The teaching team comprised one Italian native speaker; one native English speaker, and one bilingual native Italian and English speaker. They all delivered and supported both cohorts of students in a cross-Language approach based on both languages. Data Collection Data were collected around the three key elements: Remote cooperative teaching: data collected through tutors’ reflective journals and discussed in the discussion session. Mutual enrichment and active participation data were collected through students’ session feedback and focus groups. Students’ session feedback: Data collected using padlet and Zoom polls. The results of students’ session feedback were thematically analysed and used to inform the focus groups prompting questions to further explain and detail opinions on sessions’ structure, multilingual approach, language barriers, active participation and mutual enrichment. Focus groups: Scottish and Italian focus groups were organized. The sessions were carried out in students’ first language thus breaking down the language barriers and allowing participants to express a wide range of feelings and opinions. Data analysis: The transcriptions of the focus groups have been thematically analysed according to a deductive and inductive coding process (Braun & Clarke, 2006), using a pre-existing rubric with themes such as ‘mutual enrichment’, ‘active participation’, ‘cooperative teaching’. ‘Parental engagement’ was added later as fourth theme by an inductive analysis of the Italian sessions’ feedback. The blend of these forms of analysis enables researchers to answer their questions but also to respond to surprising aspects not to be ignored. Data was analysed by using Descriptive, In Vivo and Emotion Coding (Saldaña, 2014), including pre-coding to determine the general trending; descriptive and in vivo coding with a progressing informed recording; emotion coding (for the Italian focus group the coding was analysed in Italian to avoid missing any emotive data lost in translation); an individual re-coding with a following final opinion sharing.

The data analysed so far, has given an initial answer to the research question. The cooperative teaching based on co-development of assessment task embedded in both universities’ assessment agenda has certainly encouraged students to actively participate in the session. The careful choice of topic which was relevant for both countries has certainly pushed the mutual enrichment and collaboration with an implication of networking which went beyond the purpose of the planned sessions. Tutors’ support impacted on the language and communication barriers both as metacognitive teaching role modelling as well as the practical support with simultaneous translation. The cooperative planning focused on the multilingual and cultural aspect of the session created a feeling of “family”, supporting students to actively engage in knowledge exchange and mutual enrichment. This format of internalisation has also been considered a valid small taste alternative to the ERAMSUS programme, in a time when travelling due to the Covid-19 pandemic is restricted, making student mobility difficult. Data also showed that students highly regarded this experience as positive for their professional development and future practice. For example, they reflected on the improvement of their communication skills and their choices of strategies. “[It] was quite tricky to start with, but the more time we spent with them and more dialogue we had, [and] that line of communication got better and better”. Future research Further analysis of data is ongoing and on reflection tutors are now planning a possible follow up project with more balance focused on relevant topics for both Italian and Scottish Education system as it was suggested by students ‘feedback.

Akinbode, A. I., Al Shuhumi, S. R. A., & Muhammed-Lawal, A. A. (2017). Internationalisation of Higher Education: The Pros and Cons. In SOCIAL SCIENCES POSTGRADUATE INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR (SSPIS) 2017 (p. 30). Accessed 21.01.2022 Available at: http://www.soc.usm.my/images/pdf/SSPIS-2017-Final.pdf#page=29 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Broc, K. G. (2020). Brexit and its impact on the UK Higher Education sector and the rights of scholars and students. UNIO-EU Law Journal, 6(1), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.21814/unio.6.1.2707 Chan, W. W., & Dimmock, C. (2008). The internationalisation of universities: Globalist, internationalist and translocalist models. Journal of research in international education, 7(2), 184-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240908091304 Hudzik, J. K. (2020) How to strengthen internationalisation post-COVID-19. University World News. The Global Window on Higher Education, Accessed 21.01.2022 Available at https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200605072319401 Jiang, N., & Carpenter, V. (2014). A Case Study of Emerging Challenges and Reflections on Internationalisation of Higher Education. International Education Studies, 7(9), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n9p56 Jibeen, T., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Internationalisation of higher education: Potential benefits and costs. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 4(4), 196-199. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v4i4.4511 Marinoni, G. (2019). Internationalisation of higher education: An evolving landscape, locally and globally: IAU 5th Global Survey. DUZ Verlags-und Medienhaus GmbH. Accessed 21.02.2022 Available at: https://www.iau-aiu.net/IAU-releases-the-5th-Global-Survey-on-Internationalization-of-Higher-Education Migration Advisory Committee. (2018). Impact of international students in the UK. London: Migration Advisory Committee. Accessed 21.01.2022 Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739089/Impact_intl_students_report_published_v1.1.pdf Mok, K. H., Xiong, W., Ke, G., & Cheung, J. O. W. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on international higher education and student mobility: Student perspectives from mainland China and Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Research, 105, p101718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101718 Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalisation of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy futures in education, 1(2), 248-270. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.2.5 Saldaña, J. (2014) 'Coding and analysis strategies', in Leavy, P. (ed.) Oxford handbook of qualitative research. New York; Oxford: Oxford University, (pp. 581-605). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.001 Yıldırım, S., Bostancı, S. H., Yıldırım, D. Ç., & Erdoğan, F. (2021). Rethinking mobility of international university students during COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Evaluation and Development. Accessed 21.01.2022 Available at https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/HEED-01-2021-0014/full/html