Purpose Instantiated in UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4: Quality Education for All is the target that all learners acquire skills necessary for global citizenship. Cross-cultural virtual exchanges (VEs) using problem-based learning can be valuable for students’ global awareness and, relatedly, their intercultural communication competencies. In a VE, facilitators from diverse contexts collaborate to guide student discourse by making discursive decisions (planned and impromptu) that shape the course of conversation. This study aims to explore facilitator positioning, including their discursive choices, during a problem-based, SDG 4-focused VE that brought together secondary students situated in the USA and China, two countries facing heightened geopolitical tensions. Design/methodology/approach This case study used discourse analytic methods to examine the discursive roles that three facilitators took on during a cross-cultural VE between Chinese and US secondary students in fall 2023. Data sources included semistructured interviews with facilitators; transcripts of VE facilitator work sessions; and transcripts of VE sessions, including multimodal artifacts produced and shared by VE student participants. Findings Facilitators described “charged” moments as emotionally and socially tense instances, often triggered by student comments on geopolitically sensitive topics. Results revealed that facilitators enacted patterned, discursive positioning roles – e.g., framer, repair maker and amicable host – to manage these moments. Facilitators struggled to balance open dialogue with perceived geopolitical sensitivities; at times, conversations were constrained, limiting the intended purpose of shared exploration of SDG 4: Quality Education for All. The results point to some incongruence between facilitators’ beliefs in the value of open discourse and their impromptu and planned discursive choices, indicating value for improved preparation for VE facilitators. Positioning, as an anticipatory pedagogical frame for VE facilitators, is discussed as a tool to align facilitator discursive choices with pedagogical aims. Research limitations/implications As is true for any case study, the findings are not generalizable to a broader population and instead should be interpreted as a close analysis of phenomena that occurred in this bounded setting with this bounded population. The study demonstrates the value of research studies that examine discursive interactions and the ways facilitators influence dialogic, problem-based global learning experiences. Practical implications The study examines facilitator discourse and positioning work in a problem-based cross-cultural VE. It explores facilitator discursive positioning during perceived “charged” dialogue and introduces positioning theory as a useful anticipatory pedagogical tool for improved facilitator preparation. Originality/value The study examines facilitator discourse and positioning work in a problem-based cross-cultural VE. It explores facilitator discursive positioning during perceived “charged” dialogue and introduces positioning theory as a useful anticipatory pedagogical tool in preparing VE facilitators to navigate sensitive topics, promote inclusive dialogue and cultivate students’ global citizenship competencies.
Bausell et al. (Fri,) studied this question.