As higher education confronts global complexity and rapid technological change, new pedagogical models are needed to prepare students for interdisciplinary collaboration and responsible innovation. Challenge-Based Collaborative Online International Learning (CBL-COIL) combines student-centered learning, cross-cultural teamwork, and real-world problem-solving aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). This study explores how students experienced learning in a virtual, cross-institutional course spanning Switzerland and the United States. Using an exploratory, qualitative, student-centered design, we analyze four dimensions: interdisciplinary and international collaboration, pedagogical design and instructional scaffolding, experiential learning outcomes, and engagement with global sustainability challenges. Students developed AI-enabled solutions to real-world problems while navigating the cognitive, relational, and emotional dimensions of globally distributed teamwork. Findings highlight how structured collaboration phases, digital tools, and instructional scaffolding supported learning across cultural and disciplinary boundaries. Students reported growth in creative confidence, theoretical application, and professional identity, while also encountering coordination, motivation, and clarity challenges. Emotional engagement—ranging from stress to pride—played a pivotal role in their learning experience. By foregrounding student perspectives, this study extends CBL theory into globally networked, virtual contexts and offers design principles for educators aiming to foster active, collaborative learning in international and interdisciplinary environments.
BanduraA.WaltersR. H. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
4.
BlockerC. P. (2023). Take a hike: Promoting interdisciplinary learning and sustainable value with design thinking. Marketing Education Review, 33(2), 149–155.
5.
ChengE. W.ChuS. K. W.MaC. S. (2016). Tertiary students’ intention to e-collaborate for group projects: Exploring the missing link from an extended theory of planned behaviour model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 958–969.
6.
ChristerssonC. E.MelinM.WidénP.EkelundN.ChristensenJ.LundegrenN.StaafP. (2022). Challenge-based learning in higher education: A Malmö University position paper. International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 3(1), 1–14.
7.
CooperD. R.SchindlerP. S. (1998). Business research methods. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
DillenbourgP. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In DillenbourgP. (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier.
10.
DuusR.CoorayM. (2014). Together we innovate: Cross-cultural teamwork through virtual platforms. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(3), 244–257.
11.
FalcusS.CameronC.HalsallJ. P. (2019). Interdisciplinarity in higher education: The challenges of adaptability. In SnowdenM. H.HalsallJ. (Eds.), Mentorship, leadership, and research: International perspectives on social policy, administration, and practice (pp. 129–145). Springer International Publishing AG.
12.
FilhoW. L.RibeiroP. C.MazuttiJ.SalviaA. L.MarcolinC. B.BorsattoJ. M.SharifiA.SierraJ.LuetzJPretoriusR.TrevisanL. V. (2024). Using artificial intelligence to implement the UN Sustainable Development Goals at higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 31(1), 1–20.
13.
GallagherS. E.SavageT. (2023). Challenge-based learning in higher education: An exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1135–1157.
14.
García-ChitivaM. P.Vázquez-VillegasP.CorreaJ. C. (2025). Collaborative skills developed in collaborative online international learning as a multivariate research subject. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 15(2), 74–92.
15.
Garizurieta-BernabeJ.PrakaschandraR. (2024). Using the COIL pedagogy as a strategy for improving the virtual international educational experiences of students: North–South hemisphere case study. Active Learning in Higher Education, 26, 397–411.
16.
GeorgiouD.GallagherS. E.ChmielewskaK. A. (2025). Beyond the challenge: Exploring student, lecturer, and stakeholder challenges with challenge-based learning. Active Learning in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874251326099
17.
GibbsG. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. SAGE Publications.
18.
HailikariT.VirtanenV.VesalainenM.PostareffL. (2022). Student perspectives on how different elements of constructive alignment support active learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 217–231.
19.
HelkerK.BrunsM.ReymenI. M.VermuntJ. D. (2025). A framework for capturing student learning in challenge-based learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 26(1), 213–229.
20.
InadaY. (2022). Collaborative Online International Learning classes to enhance co-creation in Canada and Japan. Journal of Education and Learning, 11(4), 15–30.
21.
JohnsonL. F.SmithR. S.SmytheJ. T.VaronR. K. (2009). Challenge-based learning: An approach for our time. The New Media Consortium.
22.
KnappJ.ZeratskyJ.KowitzB. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon & Schuster.
23.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
24.
MachemerP. L.CrawfordP. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 9–30.
25.
MalmqvistJ.RådbergK. K.LundqvistU. (2015, June8–11). Comparative analysis of challenge-based learning experiences [Conference session]. 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Sichuan, China (pp. 1–15).
26.
MartinF.RitzhauptA.KumarS.BudhraniK. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34–43.
27.
MayfieldC. O.ValentiA. (2024). Team satisfaction, identity, and trust: A comparison of face-to-face and virtual student teams. Active Learning in Higher Education, 25(2), 213–226.
28.
NizamisK.Van DunD. H.SullivanB. P.HermsenE.Van DalenM. (2026). Cocreating societal impact through transdisciplinary, challenge-based learning. International Journal of Management Education, 24(2), Article 101360.
29.
PetrovaM.de SteffenM. D.PiumattiR. G.LingánC. R. (2022, September8–9). Collaborative learning in international interdisciplinary teams [Conference session]. International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, London. South Bank University.
30.
ReschK.FreudhofmayerS.Martínez-UsarraldeM.-J. (2025). A promising methodology. Assessing the pedagogical value of hackathons. Active Learning in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874251330793
31.
RobinsonH.HeldF. (2025). Psychological safety in online interdisciplinary student teams: What teachers can do to promote an effective climate for knowledge sharing, collaboration and problem-solving. Active Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241275346
32.
RoschelleJ.TeasleyS. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’MalleyC. (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer.
33.
RubinJ. (2017). Embedding Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) at higher education institutions. Internationalization of Higher Education, 2, 27–44.
34.
SchlegelmilchB. B. (2020). Why business schools need radical innovations: Drivers and development trajectories. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(2), 93–107.
35.
SimonB.HaghirianP.SchlegelmilchB. B. (2003). Enriching global marketing education with virtual classrooms: An effectiveness study. Marketing Education Review, 13(3), 27–39.
36.
StilgoeJ.OwenR.MacnaghtenP. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.
37.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
SwartzS.BarbosaB.CrawfordI. (2020). Building intercultural competence: Virtual team collaboration across global classrooms. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 57–79.
41.
TarasV.CaprarD. V.RottigD.SaralaR. M.ZakariaF. Z.JiménezA.WankelC.LeiW. S.MinorM. S.BryłaP.OrdeñanaX.BodeA.SchusterA.VaiginieneE.FroeseF. J.BathulaH.YajnikN.BaldeggerR.HuangV. Z. (2013). A global classroom? Evaluating the effectiveness of global virtual collaboration as a teaching tool in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 414–435.
42.
TualauleleiE.BurkeK.FanshaweM.CameronC. (2022). Mapping pedagogical touchpoints: Exploring online student engagement and course design. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 189–203.
Van den BeemtA.Van de WateringG.BotsM. (2023). Conceptualising variety in challenge-based learning in higher education: The CBL-compass. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(1), 24–41.
47.
VermuntJ. D.IllieS.VignolesA. (2018). Building the foundations for measuring learning gain in higher education: A conceptual framework and measurement instrument. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1), 266–301.
48.
Versnik NowakA.GrayM.OmodaraD.GibsonL. (2024). Development of a U.S./U.K. Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) partnership for undergraduate education in public health. Journal of Virtual Exchange, 7, 1–17.
49.
WidmannA.MulderR. H. (2018). Team learning behaviours and innovative work behaviour in work teams. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(2), 501–520.
