Beyond Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL): Building capacity for global curricula

Internationalisation of the curriculum has moved well beyond the occasional overseas exchange, an international student cohort or a module with a few global case studies. Universities are now expected to create learning experiences that connect students across borders, disciplines and cultures — from Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) and virtual exchange to joint programmes, international partnerships, and genuinely internationalised curricula. 

The ambition is welcome. The challenge is that universities can easily end up doing more without necessarily doing it better. 

The question we should therefore be asking is not simply: How many international initiatives do we offer? It is: Do our staff, systems, and curricula have the capacity to make international learning meaningful, inclusive, and sustainable? 

This distinction matters. 

From activity to educational design 

Internationalisation can sometimes become an impressive list of activities: a COIL project here, an overseas partnership there, perhaps a joint degree or international week. Yet students experience internationalisation primarily through the curriculum and their everyday learning. 

That means internationalisation needs to begin with educational design. 

Learning outcomes should make clear what students are expected to understand about global perspectives, intercultural collaboration, and the application of knowledge across different contexts. Teaching activities should then create genuine opportunities to engage with those perspectives, while assessment should allow students to demonstrate what they have learned. 

This is where constructive alignment and internationalisation need to work together. 

COIL, for example, can offer students an international experience without requiring them to travel. It can connect students from different countries within an existing course and make international learning part of the curriculum rather than an additional opportunity available only to some. Research also highlights the importance of aligning COIL with programme learning outcomes and developing staff capability to deliver it effectively. 

But putting two groups of students online together does not automatically create international learning. The activity has to be designed around meaningful intercultural interaction, disciplinary learning and reflection. That requires skilled academics and time. 

The hidden workload of internationalisation 

One of the least discussed challenges is the amount of work that sits behind successful international curriculum initiatives. 

An internationalised module may involve finding and sustaining a partner relationship, agreeing learning outcomes, coordinating timetables across time zones, designing collaborative activities, resolving technology issues, managing different assessment expectations, and supporting students who have different levels of confidence in intercultural communication. 

Joint degrees and more complex international partnerships add another layer: quality assurance, governance, credit recognition, academic regulations, student support, and sometimes accreditation across different systems. 

The risk is that universities build ambitious international strategies while leaving individual academics to work out how to deliver them. This is not sustainable. 

Capacity-building therefore needs to move from the margins of international offices into mainstream academic development. 

What do academics actually need? 

The next generation of internationalisation support needs to be practical. 

Academics need access to development that helps them design international learning outcomes, facilitate intercultural learning, use digital technologies effectively, manage collaborative online activities, and create inclusive assessments. They also need something less glamorous but equally important: time. 

International curriculum development should be recognised as academic work rather than treated as an enthusiastic addition to an already full workload. There is also a need for stronger collaboration between academic development, international offices, learning technology, quality teams, and programme leadership. Too often, these functions operate in parallel when the student experience crosses all of them. 

A successful internationalised curriculum is therefore not owned by the international office alone. It is a shared institutional responsibility. 

Inclusion must sit at the centre 

Internationalisation is not automatically inclusive. Physical mobility remains inaccessible to many students, while Internationalisation at Home and COIL can broaden access to global learning. However, digital access alone is insufficient. Inclusive internationalisation requires diverse knowledge, perspectives and meaningful participation, enabling students to question assumptions, compare viewpoints, and understand how knowledge is shaped by cultural, and contextual differences. Inclusive curriculum design and internationalisation should therefore be seen as complementary rather than competing agendas. 

Building institutional capability, not internationalisation fatigue 

Universities do not necessarily need another strategy document - they need the capability to translate existing ambitions into consistent educational practice. This requires investment in professional development, workload recognition, partnership infrastructure, digital capability, and communities of practice, alongside a willingness to share successes, and acknowledge challenges. Programme leaders, lecturers, learning designers, quality professionals, international teams, and students should collaboratively shape these developments. International partnerships should extend beyond recruitment and mobility to support reciprocal curriculum development and professional learning. Ultimately, the key question is not simply how international a university is, but how capable it is of creating meaningful global learning opportunities for every student. 

The next phase: making global learning normal 

Internationalisation of the curriculum is entering a more demanding phase. The sector has moved from asking whether internationalisation matters to asking how it can be embedded effectively across increasingly complex educational models. 

The answer cannot simply be to do more. We need to build the capacity to do it well. 

Effective internationalisation requires integrating academic development, inclusion, mobility, curriculum design, technology, staff capability, and institutional ambition. Its success should not be measured by partnerships or activities alone, but by whether students develop the confidence to understand diverse perspectives, collaborate across cultures, and apply their knowledge effectively in an increasingly interconnected and complex world.