Internationalizing the Curriculum

The drive to internationalize higher education has seen the focus shift in recent years
toward its defining element, the curriculum. As the point of connection between
broader institutional strategies and the student experience, the curriculum plays a
key role in the success or failure of the internationalization agenda. Yet despite much
debate, the role and power of curriculum internationalization is often unappreciated.
This has meant that critical questions, including what it means and how it can be
achieved in different disciplines, have not been consistently or strategically addressed.
This volume breaks new ground in connecting theory and practice in internation-
alizing the curriculum in different disciplinary and institutional contexts. An extensive
literature review, case studies, and action research projects provide valuable insights
into the concept of internationalization of the curriculum. Best practice in curricu-
lum design, teaching and learning in higher education are applied specifically to the
process of internationalizing the curriculum. Examples from different disciplines and
a range of practical resources and ideas are provided. Topics covered include:

• why internationalize the curriculum?

• designing internationalized learning outcomes;
• using student diversity to internationalize the curriculum;
• blockers and enablers to internationalization of the curriculum;
• assessment in an internationalized curriculum;
• connecting internationalization of the curriculum with institutional goals
and student learning.

Internationalizing the Curriculum provides invaluable guidance to

university managers, academic staff, professional development lecturers, and
support staff as well as students and scholars interested in advancing theory
and practice in this important area.

Betty Leask is Professor of Internationalization and Pro Vice-Chancellor

Teaching and Learning at La Trobe University, Melbourne, where she leads
curriculum innovation and improvement across the institution. She is Editor-in-
Chief of the Journal of Studies in International Education and Honorary Visiting
Fellow at the Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation, Università
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan.
Internationalization in Higher Education
Series Editor: Elspeth Jones

This series addresses key themes in the development of internationalization within

Higher Education. Up to the minute and international in both appeal and scope,
books in the series focus on delivering contributions from a wide range of con-
texts and provide both theoretical perspectives and practical examples. Written
by some of the leading experts in the field, they are vital guides that discuss and
build upon evidence-based practice and provide a clear evaluation of outcomes.

Titles in the series:

Tools for Teaching in an Educationally Mobile World

Jude Carroll

Developing the Global Student

Higher education in an era of globalisation
David Killick

Governing Cross-Border Higher Education

Christopher Ziguras and Grant McBurnie

Internationalizing the Curriculum

Betty Leask
Internationalizing the
Curriculum

Betty Leask
First published 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2015 Betty Leask
The right of Betty Leask to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Leask, Betty.
Internationalizing the curriculum / Betty Leask.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-415-72814-0 (hardback)—ISBN 978-0-415-72815-7 (pbk.)—
ISBN 978-1-315-71695-4 (ebook) 1. International education. 2. Education,
Higher—Curricula. 3. Multicultural education—United States. I. Title.
LC1090.L44 2015
370.116—dc23
2014038961

ISBN: 978-0-415-72814-0 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-415-72815-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-71695-4 (ebk)

Typeset in Galliard
by diacriTech, Chennai
Contents

List of figures and tables vii

Series editor’s foreword ix
Acknowledgments xiii

PART I
Concepts and processes 1

1 Introduction 3
2 Why internationalize the curriculum? 16
3 A conceptual framework for internationalization
of the curriculum 26
4 The process of internationalization of the curriculum 41
5 Graduate capabilities, global citizenship and intercultural
competency 53

PART II
Practical matters 69

6 Learning, teaching and assessment 71

7 Using student diversity 89
8 Blockers, enablers and encouraging powerful ideas 105

PART III
Resources and case studies 119

9 Using key resources 121

10 Case studies 154
vi Contents

Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work 170

References 182
Index 193
List of figures and tables

Figures

Figure 1.1 Three interactive elements of the curriculum 9

Figure 3.1 A conceptual framework for internationalization of the
curriculum 27
Figure 4.1 The process of internationalization of the curriculum 42
Figure 4.2 Using the questionnaire on internationalization of the
curriculum: A guide for program directors and
facilitators 46
Figure 5.1 Taxonomy of intercultural competence 65
Figure 7.1 Student diversity questionnaire 94
Figure 9.1 The process of internationalization of the curriculum 121

Tables

Table 5.1 Indicators of graduate quality 7 57

Table 6.1 Examples of intended international learning outcomes 74
Table 6.2 Internationalizing learning outcomes 75
Table 6.3 Internationalization outcomes and ICTs 87
Table 7.1 Good practice principles: Teaching across cultures 96
This page intentionally left blank
Series editor’s foreword

Internationalization in Higher Education is a series that addresses a rapidly

changing and highly topical field. Historically, the concept of international edu-
cation began with scholars traveling to wherever they could pursue their studies
in seats of learning around the world. In due course curricula with international
themes were encompassed within the term, including development studies and
comparative education. More recently, use of the term “internationalization”
arose during the latter part of the twentieth century. In those 25 years or so,
attention to the international dimension of higher education has become increas-
ingly visible in institutional strategies as well as national and international agen-
das. Early distinctions were established between, on the one hand, market-driven
interests in the recruitment of fee-paying international students and, on the other,
an increasing number of practitioners who see transformational potential through
internationalization activities as a means of enhancing personal and professional
development.
While those themes continue to be of importance, the intervening years have
seen a more nuanced range of interests bridging that divide. Informed by diverse
disciplines including anthropology, languages and communication, business and
marketing, environmental studies, strategic leadership, and pedagogy, interna-
tionalization is now high on the priority list for universities around the world.
This is, in part, as a response to changing global environments but also in reaction
to globalization itself with its potential for homogenization if taken to extremes.
The many dimensions of contemporary internationalization require institutions
to adjust and define the concept for their own purposes, adding to the richness
of our understanding of the “meta-discipline” of internationalization in prac-
tice. This is perhaps most evident in countries where institutional and curricu-
lar internationalization is a more recent development, and traditional ‘western’
internationalization practice requires further exploration for appropriateness in
local contexts. Development and implementation of the concept in such new
environments will add to our understanding of the benefits and challenges of
internationalization practice over the coming years.
x Series editor’s foreword

The answer to the question “what is internationalization” will thus vary from
one university to another and indeed by subject discipline within that institution.
It will also change over time. Books in this series provide some guidance for
those seeking to determine “what is internationalization for this university, in this
particular context, and for this discipline within it?” reflecting the diversity and
complexity of this growing field.
Today there are compelling drivers for university leaders to adopt an integrated
rather than a unidimensional approach to internationalization. Intensifying com-
petition for talent, changes in global student flows, international branch cam-
puses and growing complexity in cross-border activity, along with the rising
influence of institutional rankings, all provide economic impetus and reputational
consequences of success or failure. Meanwhile additional incentive is provided
by growing awareness that the intercultural competence required for global con-
texts is equally important for living and working in today’s increasingly diverse
and multicultural societies. Students themselves are showing increased interest
in international and intercultural experience, while research indicates a rising
demand by employers for university graduates with enhanced global perspec-
tives and intercultural competence. Internationalization thus has both global and
more local intercultural interests at its heart.
Internationalization can facilitate an inclusive, intercultural dimension to the
teaching, research, and service dimensions of a contemporary university includ-
ing its commercial and entrepreneurial pursuits. It is most successful when seen
as an enabling factor in the achievement of wider corporate goals rather than as
an aim in itself. Embedding internationalization through changing institutional
language, culture and attitudes into standard university practice is more likely to
achieve this than if seen as a separate goal in itself.
Internationalization as a powerful force for change is an underlying theme
of this series, in contrast to economic or brand-enhancing aspects of interna-
tional engagement. It seeks to address these complex topics as internationaliza-
tion matures into its next phase. It aims to reflect contemporary concerns, with
volumes geared to the major questions of our time. Written or edited by leading
thinkers and authors from around the world, while giving a voice to emerging
researchers, the series offers theoretical perspectives with practical applications,
focusing on some of the critical issues in this developing field for higher educa-
tion leaders and practitioners alike.

Internationalizing the Curriculum

The present volume addresses an issue that is of central importance in embedding
a coherent approach to internationalization within institutional strategy. Academic
programs, the students who study them, and the academics who design, deliver,
and assess them are at the heart of university endeavors. Research both informs
and results from these programs; outreach and enterprise activities are fueled by
 Series editor’s foreword xi

and support them. So the curriculum on which programs are based is fundamen-
tal to what we understand by a university, and thus, as this book argues, where the
drive to internationalize should be located. More specifically, the key role of the
academic disciplines is explored in depth as the author articulates the importance
of curriculum internationalization, while setting out a means by which it can be
achieved.
Initially the volume focuses on the nature of curriculum and the rationale for
its internationalization. The author provides a conceptual framework for interna-
tionalizing the curriculum before outlining the process involved. Foundations for
curriculum internationalization and the building blocks for achieving this provide
a comprehensive structure for practical application within academic disciplines.
Detailed advice resulting from the author’s substantial experience is offered
throughout, with an emphasis on what has worked in different contexts. Blockers
to, and enablers of, success are discussed in depth. Parts II and III of the book
offer a wealth of guidance to those wishing to implement curriculum internation-
alization using case studies from different institutional and disciplinary contexts
along with resources which can be adapted or applied. The result is a volume that
not only explores theoretical perspectives but also offers a means of delivery in
this complex field, which has challenged academic leaders in universities across
the world for many years.
The book is aimed at academic leaders as well as classroom practitioners and
offers comprehensive pathways to internationalizing the curriculum at the level
of institutions or individuals.

Elspeth Jones
Emerita Professor of the Internationalisation of Higher Education
Leeds Beckett University
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgments

My academic colleagues and mentors all over the world share my passion for
internationalization and never cease to inspire, amaze, and challenge me, and
without their inspiration and encouragement this book could not have been
written.
The Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching supported the
research undertaken as part of my Teaching and Learning Fellowship on which
much of the work in this book is based.
This page intentionally left blank
Part I

Concepts and processes

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 1

Introduction

Internationalization of the curriculum is situated at the intersection of policy

and practice in in universities and the cause of fascination, frustration, confusion,
and fulfillment for students, academic staff, and university managers. To dis-
cuss the internationalization of a university education without discussing the
internationalization of the curriculum and student learning is nonsensical.
However, internationalization of the curriculum as a concept is poorly under-
stood and developed in practice (Shiel & Takeda 2008). If we are to interna-
tionalize learning, we must do that within the context of the different cultures
and practices of knowing, doing, and being in the disciplines. But if academic
staff do not have the experience, skills, or knowledge required to internationalize
the curriculum they are likely not to engage with the concept or to adopt a
narrow focus. This has serious consequences for the international strategy of the
university and for what students learn.
This book explores the intersection between the disciplines, the curriculum,
internationalization, and student learning in higher education—a space that offers
rich opportunities for students and staff. This chapter provides some background
information on how and why this book came to be, defines some of the key terms
used throughout the book, and briefly discusses some common misconceptions
and concerns about internationalization of the curriculum and related trends and
issues.

How this book came to be

An Internet search using the terms “internationalization of the curriculum” and
“internationalized curriculum” yields in excess of one million results. There are
links to university websites and scholarly articles, blogs, videos, and online discus-
sions with contributions from all over the world. Further exploration of the results
reveals that internationalization of the curriculum is itself not internationalized.
There is no shared understanding of what it means to “internationalize the
curriculum” or what an internationalized curriculum looks like. Some universities
use general definitions that are over a decade old and limited in scope, and oth-
ers have adopted more recent definitions, or have developed their own. In some
4 Introduction

universities the focus of internationalization of the curriculum is primarily on

outbound student mobility involving a small percentage of students; in some
the focus is more on “internationalization at home” for all students; in most the
focus is more on means than ends, more on what students do rather than what
they learn. So while it is apparent that internationalization of the curriculum is
important, it also clear that this endeavor is very much still a work in progress.
This book is a contribution to that work—part of an ongoing global conver-
sation. It is based on almost 20 years of experience, the findings of a number
of research projects, insights from discussions and collaboration with fellow
researchers and practitioners in internationalization, and my work with academic
staff and those working to support them in different disciplines in universities
around the world.
A significant part of the book is based on the outcomes of an Australian Learning
and Teaching Council National Teaching Fellowship, Internationalisation of
the Curriculum in Action funded by the Australian Government (see www.ioc
.global). One of the primary goals of the Fellowship was to engage with academic
staff in different disciplinary and institutional contexts and to work with them
through a process of internationalization of the curriculum. I worked intensively
with program teams and support staff, encouraging, assisting, and guiding them
through the process of internationalization of the curriculum. However, this book
is more than a report on that work. Rather, it uses that work in combination with
the work of others, in Australia and beyond, to make sense of the process of inter-
nationalization of the curriculum—to develop ideas and share practical strategies
that will assist others who share a common interest in internationalization of the
curriculum in theory and in practice.
To confine work on an internationalization of the curriculum project of
this nature to one country, Australia, made little sense. Hence, I connected
with colleagues working on internationalization of the curriculum in other
countries. We shared experiences, resources, and activities and acted as critical
friends to each other as we stimulated, sustained, and informed the process
of internationalization of the curriculum in our different national and institu-
tional contexts. The insights provided by these international colleagues added
depth to the findings and assisted in ensuring the validity of the outcomes,
including the resources produced. A number of these are included in Part III
of the book.
It is time to take a different approach to the way we design and teach an
internationalized curriculum. If we do so, I think we can make a difference to
the learning of all students and, ultimately, to the world. My primary purpose in
writing this book is to assist academic staff (as teachers, researchers, and curriculum
designers), professional development lecturers, and university administrators to
connect the internationalization of higher education with student learning in
ways that can make a positive difference in our increasingly interconnected yet
divided world.
 Introduction 5

In summary, this book is an argument for, and a guide to, a more international
and critical approach to internationalization of the curriculum, teaching, and
learning. I hope it prompts you to imagine some new possibilities and provides
you with some practical ways to pursue those possibilities in your work as part of
broader institutional and national approaches to internationalization.

The Fellowship—“Internationalization of the

curriculum in action”
In the Fellowship, as a facilitator of the process of internationalization of the
curriculum in teaching teams from different disciplines, I was an “informed
outsider.” My role was to assist disciplinary experts and curriculum coordinators
to clarify the meaning and practice of internationalization of the curriculum in
context. Over a two-year period I conducted an extensive literature review, and
worked intensively with groups of 3–5 academic staff in three different universities
as well as academic developers and academic leaders from each university. In the
same period I ran workshops, presented lectures and consulted with academic
staff and those working with them in universities across Australia and in England,
the Netherlands, the United States, Sweden, and South Africa. A Reference
Group of recognized national and international experts working in the area of
both internationalization in higher education and internationalization of the cur-
riculum acted as consultants and advisors to the project. An evaluator, Professor
Fazal Rizvi, from The University of Melbourne, also significantly influenced the
approach taken as the project progressed. Hence the Fellowship was informed by
state-of-the-art international research and leading thinkers in the field interna-
tionally, as well as being grounded in the reality of life for academic staff working
in different disciplines and programs in universities in very different national and
regional contexts.
The project was structured as Participatory Action Research (PAR). The
participants undertook the work voluntarily and with the approval of their
universities over an initial period of around 12 months. The methodol-
ogy involved an international literature review, institutional document and
policy review, and meetings with university managers, program and course
leaders, coordinators, and professional development lecturers to develop
cross-disciplinary, cross-institutional case studies of internationalization of the
curriculum in action.
There were two research questions:

How do academics working in different institutional and disciplinary contexts

interpret the concept of internationalization of the curriculum?

How can we engage academic staff in the process of internationalizing the

curriculum in their discipline areas?
6 Introduction

The aim of the Fellowship was to “produce knowledge and action directly use-
ful to a group of people” (Reason 1998, p. 71)—in this case, academic staff. It
engaged participants in enquiries into their own lives and teaching experiences
and was effective in moving them forward (Lewin, K 1952). Groups of academic
staff formed a community of research interest. They owned and directed the
local version of the national project, with a view to internationalize their own
curriculum. The model positioned the academic staff involved as equal and
collaborative partners in research, a role they are familiar with; it placed those
assisting them (the academic developer, academic leader, and me) as facilita-
tors of a Participatory Action Research project. The intention was to avoid the
situation of an “outside expert” coming in to take over the curriculum review
process. This is a situation that is often resisted, for good reason. In this project,
academic staff took the lead from the initial design through data gathering and
analysis to final conclusions and any actions arising. The object of the research
was usually the curriculum in its entirety: its foundations and its outcomes. The
process made the tacit explicit. It connected the academics involved in the project
with other people’s experiences in traditional ways, through reading the scholarly
literature, usually but not only in their discipline area, and allowed them to
explore internationalization of the curriculum more generally. Participants were
constantly encouraged and supported to embrace ambiguity and to challenge
their own tightly held views. They found this useful in connecting theory with
their practice. In some instances, they collected primary data from stakeholders
such as employers on their views on the desired learning outcomes of an interna-
tionalized curriculum. Importantly, the way in which the project developed was
directed by the academic staff, not by me as researcher, or by any of the academic
developers I was working with in each university.
Four case studies of the process of internationalization of the curriculum in dif-
ferent disciplines were completed during the project. The selection of disciplines
covered by the case studies was neither comprehensive nor representative; rather,
it was pragmatic. Brief versions of the case studies are included in Chapter 10.
A conceptual framework of internationalization of the curriculum and a process
model were developed and are described in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 respec-
tively. Critical reflection on the role of the academic developer and facilitator of
the process of internationalization of the curriculum was also an important part
of the project. There was a strong emphasis on building capacity for the future to
address critical issues and key questions associated with internationalization of the
curriculum within and across disciplines and institutions. One of the key findings
of the Fellowship was that the role of the facilitator is critical and that indeed, it
is very difficult for academic staff to complete the process without at least some
support from, and sometimes the guidance of, an expert in teaching, learning,
and internationalization.
In total 58 lectures, workshops, and meetings involving more than 1700
participants were held in 15 universities during the Fellowship. Program teams
in the disciplines of accounting, applied science, art, journalism, law, medicine,
 Introduction 7

nursing, public relations, management, and social sciences in nine universities

across Australia were actively involved in the Fellowship activities. As the lead
researcher, I ensured broader perspectives were incorporated by engaging with
literature, academic staff, and those working on internationalization projects in
both the developed and the developing world before and during the research
process. Nevertheless, there were limitations to the scope of the Fellowship and
comparative international research is needed.

Defining terms
There are several terms that are used throughout this book that are a potential
source of confusion. Defining these terms is important before we embark on
further discussions of internationalization of the curriculum. The terms defined
here are:

• Curriculum
• The formal, the informal, and the hidden curriculum
• Internationalization of the curriculum and an internationalized curriculum
• Program and course

The curriculum
There is often confusion about what is meant by “curriculum,” which is derived
from the Latin word currere (to run) and translated literally means a circular
athletic track. The implications of this etymology are that the curriculum may
be perceived as a predetermined course to be followed, or an orderly, planned,
and controlled cycle of study. Sometimes it is conceptualized as no more than a
list of topics or content areas, which in turn is often called a syllabus. At other
times, the term curriculum is described in a more holistic, chaotic, and complex
way, inclusive of content, pedagogy, assessment, and competencies; planned and
unplanned experiences; and intention and actuality. Indeed, since 1633, which
Kemmis and Fitzclarence (1991) identify as the first recorded use of the term,
there has been much debate regarding the definition of the term “curriculum”—
its nature, possibilities, and limitations. In terms of the scope of the curriculum,
and the knowledge base from which it is drawn, as far back as the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries it was noted that the curriculum could restrict learners if
it was too narrowly focused (Goodson 1995). This particular issue is relevant to
internationalization of the curriculum today.
In this book, I use the term curriculum to encompass more than the “running
track,” the list of topics to be studied. I use it to include all aspects of the learning/
teaching situation (Kemmis & Fitzclarence 1991, p. 21). I see the curriculum in
practice as inseparable from teaching and pedagogy. This is the lens that I use to
frame my discussions of internationalization of the curriculum throughout this
8 Introduction

book. Thus I assume that the processes by which we, as educators, select and order
content, decide on and describe intended learning outcomes, organize learning
activities, and assess learner achievement are part of the curriculum. Hence the
objectives of the teaching, the actual processes of learning and teaching, includ-
ing interactions in the classroom and the competencies developed by learners, are
all as important as the content and the ordering and sequencing of that content.
All are places where we might consider making changes and improvements if our
aim is to internationalize the curriculum through innovation.

The formal, the informal, and the hidden curriculum

It is also useful to think about the curriculum in terms of its formal, informal,
and hidden elements. By the formal curriculum I mean the syllabus as well as
the orderly, planned schedule of experiences and activities that students must
undertake as part of their degree program. By the informal curriculum I mean
the various support services and additional activities and options organized by
the university that are not assessed and don’t form part of the formal curricu-
lum, although they may support learning within it. It includes formal mentoring
programs, peer assisted study sessions, and organized social activities. By the
hidden curriculum, I mean the various unintended, implicit and hidden mes-
sages sent to students—messages we may not even be aware we are sending. For
example, the textbooks that are selected, send a “hidden” message concerning
whose knowledge counts in this curriculum and by implication, whose does not.
Hidden messages are also conveyed through the informal curriculum when we,
for example, require all international students to complete cross-cultural skills
training prior to the commencement of classes but do not require the same
of domestic or home students. Is this because the domestic students have the
required skills? Or perhaps these skills are not important for domestic students
because it is up to international students to “fit in” and “make adjustments?”
Are these the messages we want to convey? How could we send a message that
internationalization is part of a mutually engaging intercultural conversation in
which we are all equally likely to need to make adjustments to our behavior and
our world view?
The hidden curriculum is as much a part of the formal curriculum as it is part
of the informal curriculum. What happens in the informal curriculum can be
consistent with and complement what happens in the formal curriculum, or be
inconsistent and opposed to it. It is common for aspects of the informal curricu-
lum to be closely related to the formal curriculum. For example, optional activities
such as Supplemental Instruction and Peer Assisted Study Sessions where high
performing senior students facilitate study sessions for more junior students.
Other examples include social peer mentoring and volunteering programs. Such
activities can be aligned to the achievement of internationalization objectives or
not, depending on how they are planned and delivered. They might for example
use cultural diversity on campus strategically to assist all students to develop
 Introduction 9

Formal
curriculum

Hidden Informal
curriculum curriculum

Figure 1.1 Three interactive elements of the curriculum

greater awareness of their own and others’ cultural identities, an awareness that is
of value to them in class and in the wider world.
The formal, informal, and hidden elements of the curriculum are connected
and interactive, rather than discrete—experienced by students as a dynamic inter-
play of teaching and learning processes, content, and activities in and out of the
classroom. The relationship between them is illustrated in Figure 1.1. Together
they shape the lived experience of all students. They simultaneously define stu-
dents’ present learning and develop the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed
to create future opportunities for them and others within an increasingly con-
nected and globalized society. Together they make up the total student expe-
rience. The point in the center, where all three elements work together, is a
potentially dynamic and powerful space offering rich opportunities for learning
for all students.

Internationalization of the curriculum

In this book I use a definition of the process of internationalization of the cur-
riculum, which identifies internationalization of the curriculum as inclusive of
learning and teaching and a component of both the formal and the informal
curriculum. This definition is based on one I published in 2009 (see Leask 2009,
p. 209), which was modified as a result of the Fellowship activities.

Internationalization of the curriculum is the incorporation of international,

intercultural, and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum
as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods, and
support services of a program of study.
(Based on Leask 2009, p. 209)

It is useful to distinguish between the process of internationalization of the

curriculum and its product, an internationalized curriculum. This helps to distin-
guish between the means and the end, an enduring source of confusion as evi-
denced by, for example, statements that claim mobility programs as evidence of
10 Introduction

internationalization of the curriculum. Mobility programs are a means by which

students might develop desired international and intercultural perspectives. I use
the following definition of an internationalized curriculum.

An internationalized curriculum will engage students with internation-

ally informed research and cultural and linguistic diversity and purposefully
develop their international and intercultural perspectives as global profes-
sionals and citizens.
(Leask 2009, p. 209)

These definitions clearly link the international with the intercultural in the
formal curriculum and the support services and student activities provided by the
university, sometimes referred to as the informal curriculum. They make it clear
that internationalization of the curriculum is about much more than content and
that within the formal curriculum the content that is included will be informed
by research that crosses national as well as cultural boundaries. There is a clear
focus on international and intercultural learning outcomes as well as teaching
and learning processes and on student engagement with diversity in the world,
in class and on campus. These definitions are consistent with a holistic approach
to internationalization that incorporates wide-ranging strategies within both the
formal and the informal curriculum. The latter suggests a campus culture of
internationalization that encourages and rewards intercultural interaction both
outside and inside the classroom.
The focus on “a program of study” highlights the need to plan and scaffold
opportunities for all students to develop deep knowledge and advanced skills
and hence to move beyond approaches to internationalization of the curriculum
based on isolated, optional experiences and activities for a few students.
One of the reasons I developed these definitions was because whenever I started
the process of working with staff interested in internationalizing the curriculum
I would usually have to spend time dispelling some very persistent and restrictive
misconceptions concerning internationalization of the curriculum that have been
circulating for some years now. These misconceptions are discussed later in this
chapter.

Program and course

In this book the term program is used to refer to a course of study leading to
a qualification offered by the university, e.g. a Bachelor of Nursing. In some
universities, the terminology used is course.
The term course in this book refers to a component of a program, e.g. Nursing 1,
Anatomy, and Physiology 1. In some universities, the terminology used is subject,
unit, or module. Where the distinction is not clear from the context, the term
course/subject/unit/module is used.
 Introduction 11

Learning outcomes
Learning outcomes are statements of what we want students to learn as the result
of the learning activities they undertake during a course and a program. They
are the foundation for curriculum design—everything else will flow from them.
In an internationalized curriculum we would expect to see some international,
intercultural, or global elements in the learning outcomes. Learning outcomes
are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

Common misconceptions and concerns

One common misconception about internationalization of the curriculum is
that the recruitment of international students will result in an internationalized
curriculum for all students. It is true that international students bring a wealth
of cultural capital into the classroom and that, wherever they are studying, they
require a curriculum that is internationally relevant and informed, connects with
their previous experience and existing knowledge systems, and extends the breadth
and depth of their understanding. Indeed, all students require an education that
does these things. However, internationalization of the curriculum is not only, or
even principally, about teaching international students. Certainly it is true that the
presence of international students may be a driver for the process of internation-
alization of the curriculum and even a useful resource for those seeking to develop
intercultural competence in their students as part of their approach to interna-
tionalization of the curriculum. But the mere presence of international students
on campus does not constitute internationalization of the curriculum and nor is
it enough to focus our efforts in relation to internationalization of the curricu-
lum solely on recruiting or teaching international students. Indeed, increasingly in
recent times the use of the terms “international student” and “domestic student,”
and the polarization this suggests, is seen as obscuring the diversity within both
groups, and the need to focus on good teaching for all students.
Another misconception, especially in countries such as Australia and the
United Kingdom that emphasize cross-border delivery, also known as transna-
tional education, is that internationalization of the curriculum is the process asso-
ciated with adapting a curriculum to be taught “offshore,” that is, in a country
other than that in which it was developed and is usually taught. This view of
internationalization of the curriculum typically associates it with modifications
to content through, for example, the incorporation of “local” case studies and
sometimes with the adoption of different teaching processes to accommodate
“local” conditions, expectations, and real and perceived differences in learning
style. The intended and actual learning outcomes may or may not include inter-
national and intercultural perspectives. The development of these perspectives
may or may not be supported and assessed. The process of making modifications
to the curriculum to ensure students are provided with appropriate opportunities
12 Introduction

to develop and demonstrate the desired learning outcomes in their local context
is a process of contextualization and “localization.” It is not internationalization
of the curriculum.
Another misconception about internationalization of the curriculum, especially
in the United States and Europe, is that internationalization of the curriculum
is about outbound mobility in the form of study abroad and exchange and the
more opportunities we provide for students to go abroad to study the more
internationalized the curriculum will be. Certainly these experiences can be trans-
formational for the small percentage of students who are mobile. But the results
are also difficult to measure and on some occasions the effects may be negative,
in that they may confirm prejudices and stereotypes, rather than opening students
minds to new ways of seeing and being in the world. Hence in the last few years,
attention in Europe has increasingly turned to “internationalization at home”
for all students, a concept very similar to “internationalization of the curricu-
lum” as defined on page 9, and in the United States the focus on “comprehen-
sive internationalization”—“a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse
international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research,
and service missions of higher education” (Hudzik 2011, p. 10) recognizes that
there is much more to internationalization of the curriculum than outbound
mobility.
An increasing concern for many is that internationalization of the curricu-
lum will result in a homogenized “globalized” curriculum that privileges and
strengthens already dominant groups and knowledge. Universities have assisted
the process of globalization as active contributors to and supporters of the move-
ment of people, knowledge, and ideas around the world, a world in which global
resources, power, and knowledge are not shared equally. Globalization is expe-
rienced as a discriminatory and oppressive force by many. It has contributed to
increasing the gap between rich and poor, and the exploitation of the South
by the North. The oppression is not only economic. It is also intellectual, the
dominance of Western educational models in the developed world defining
what counts as knowledge and who is qualified to understand and apply it, what
research questions are asked, who will investigate them, and if and how the results
will be applied. Universities in the developed world are key agents in this aspect
of globalization. Internationalization of the curriculum can and should be used as
a stimulus to critique and destabilize the dominant paradigms that support the
status quo. I present a more detailed argument on this in Chapter 3.
Furthermore, an internationalized curriculum is not some sort of globalized,
generic curriculum that looks the same everywhere and can be taught anywhere
to anyone. What we are striving for is a curriculum that will facilitate the develop-
ment in all students of the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that will equip them,
as graduates, professionals, and citizens of the world to live and work effectively
in a rapidly changing and increasingly connected global society. The way this is
done will differ depending on particular features of the disciplinary, institutional,
 Introduction 13

regional, and national contexts within which students are engaging in learning
and assessment activities.

Some trends and issues in brief

A focus on the development of international and intercultural learning outcomes
in all students as part of internationalization of the curriculum is often situ-
ated within a movement towards the development of generic skills related to
global citizenship in universities. Increasingly universities include some reference
to the development of skills, attitudes, and knowledge for global citizenship in
the description of the graduate attributes they develop in their students. Some
institutions have used such graduate attributes as a mechanism to redefine and
reshape their approach to internationalization of the curriculum and, within that
context, as a lever to increase levels of home and international student engage-
ment with diversity. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 of this book.
Despite different interpretations of the meaning of internationalization of the
curriculum in different parts of the world, there are several emerging “global
points of agreement.” One of these is that internationalization of the curriculum
is connected with globalization. Universities have a responsibility to prepare their
graduates to live and work in a global society. A common approach to this task in
some parts of the world, notably Australia and the United Kingdom, is to focus
on the systematic development of graduate attributes (sometimes called “gradu-
ate qualities”) related to internationalization and globalization either as part of,
or separate from, program learning outcomes. Typically such strategies have been
focused primarily on the formal curriculum, emphasizing the development of a
broad range of skills, knowledge, and attitudes. These include communicating
and working effectively across cultures, the ability to think globally and consider
issues from a variety of perspectives, awareness of own culture and the capacity
to apply international standards and practices within the discipline or professional
area. A complementary focus on the informal curriculum and campus interna-
tionalization has also recently emerged. The goal is a student experience that pre-
pares graduates to live and work effectively in a rapidly changing and increasingly
connected world, perhaps even making a positive contribution to solving some of
the world’s big problems.
A second emerging point of agreement is that academic staff members are
key players in the process of internationalization of the curriculum. Most of the
materials on university websites are provided to support the work of academic
staff seeking to internationalize their curriculum. This would seem appropriate
given that as leading scholars in their disciplinary fields they often control the
curriculum and it is usually their responsibility to determine what is taught, how
it is taught, and how it is assessed. The obstacles and enablers of academic staff
engagement in internationalization of the curriculum are the focus of Chapter 8
of this book.
14 Introduction

A third emerging point of agreement is that approaches to and interpretations

of internationalization of the curriculum vary across disciplines. Representatives
of “hard, pure” disciplines such as science and mathematics are often less open
to recognizing the cultural construction of knowledge than their colleagues in
the “softer, applied” disciplines such as nursing and education. Scientists and
mathematicians are renowned for arguing that their discipline is in and of itself,
by definition, “international.” Many, but not all of them, argue that knowledge
in their field is culturally neutral and therefore universal. Others argue that
those who make such claims are working within a culturally defined and there-
fore limited frame of reference and are blinded by their own disciplinary cultural
conditioning.
It is this variety of interpretation of meaning that for some is the most puzzling
and damning, and for others the most obvious and liberating characteristic of
internationalized curricula. Some conclude that this variation in interpretation is
because the concept is at best poorly defined and at worst, lacking any legitimacy.
Others, however, conclude that because the curriculum is appropriately and prop-
erly controlled by disciplinary-based academics, and the disciplines are distinctive
and different in many ways, an internationalized curriculum should and will look
unique in different disciplinary contexts. The distinctive history and culture of
disciplines and professions mean that it is different to “be a mathematician, think
like a mathematician, and act like a mathematician,” to “be an engineer, think
like an engineer, and act like an engineer” and to “be a nurse, think like a nurse,
and act like a nurse.” We expect that mathematicians, nurses, engineers, doctors,
artists, et cetera, will think and act differently, locally and internationally. But why
is this so? And what does this mean for the way in which we go about the process
of internationalizing the curriculum in the disciplines?

Conclusion
Internationalization of the curriculum is an essential component of the interna-
tionalization of higher education. The impact of an internationalized curriculum
on student learning will be more profound if:

• Attention is paid to internationalizing learning outcomes, content, teaching

and learning activities, and assessment tasks.
• The approach taken moves beyond isolated, optional subjects, experiences,
and activities for a minority of students and focuses on all students’ learning.
• The process is undertaken in a planned and systematic way rather than con-
sisting of occasional international case studies sprinkled haphazardly across
the program of study.

Common misconceptions of internationalization of the curriculum are

problematic. These views are often focused on learner activity rather than learn-
ing outcomes; on a single aspect of the curriculum such as content or isolated
 Introduction 15

experiences within the broader program of study which are rarely evaluated for
their short- and long-term effects on learning.
Designing, developing, and teaching an internationalized curriculum is
dynamic and challenging. The main focus of this book is internationalization
of the formal curriculum. This does not deny the importance of the other two
elements of the curriculum, the informal curriculum and the hidden curriculum,
and these are considered briefly in relevant places throughout the book.
Chapter 2

Why internationalize the curriculum1?

This is a frequently asked and very important question. There are many possible
answers. In this chapter we explore a few of them, recognizing that there are
many more.
We do not approach internationalizing the curriculum in a vacuum. In theory
and in practice, internationalization of the curriculum is connected with the
concepts of internationalization of the university and globalization. In this chapter
we briefly consider the relationship between globalization and internationaliza-
tion and look at some critiques of existing approaches to internationalization
of the curriculum and some rationales for internationalizing the curriculum in
different disciplines.

Internationalization and globalization

Globalization, “those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorpo-
rated into a single world society, a global society” (Albrow 1990, p. 9) continues
apace. In today’s world those who were once far away are now our students, our
colleagues, and our neighbors. The boundaries between the local, the national,
and the global have been blurred and our future, collectively and individually,
depends on how flexible, open, and creative we are in the way we think, live, and
work. Globalization is now regarded as “the most important contextual factor
shaping the internationalization of higher education” (IAU 2012, p. 1).
Internationalization in universities around the world has been much debated.
Definitions and rationales have been developed and elaborated over time and it
is generally agreed that internationalization means different things to different
people and different institutions pursue it for different reasons. Giddens (1999)
argues that the internationalization of higher education is a positive response to
globalization as international connections are enriching and offer fresh cultural
insights and exchanges. But are they mutually enriching? Or do some gain more
than others? Are they true “exchanges” or are they a one-way flow of informa-
tion and benefit from the developed to the less developed world? In responding
to globalization do universities exacerbate the negative results of globalization?
 Why internationalize the curriculum? 17

There is little doubt concerning the need for universities to respond to and
embrace the forces of globalization. What is critical is the nature of the response
and the impact that response has on students, local communities, and ultimately,
the global community. This book is particularly concerned with the way in which
universities and the leaders and academic staff who work within them might
and should respond to globalization and internationalization as they shape the
curriculum, teaching, and learning.
There has been a sense of urgency surrounding the need to ensure higher
education responds appropriately “to the requirements and challenges associ-
ated with the globalisation of societies, economy and labour markets” (van der
Wende 1997, p. 19). As the world has become increasingly more connected
and more divided, the need to build “bridges of tolerance and respect for other
cultures” (Kramsch 2002, p. 272) through education has become more urgent.
A major challenge faced by universities is to ensure that they promote and sup-
port “critical and independent thought alongside a strong values base of social
justice” (Bourn 2010, p. 27) in a world increasingly dominated by economic
rather than human and environmental interests. International interaction and col-
laboration through education have the potential to develop cultural insight and
exchange that is enriching and enabling for individuals, communities, nations,
and the world. They offer a way to identify and address the issues associated
with globalization and to address inequalities only if we develop in students the
capacity to critique the world they live in, see problems and issues from a range of
perspectives, and take action to address them. This requires a focus on students as
current and future contributors to global society, rather than passive observers or
commentators with little or no responsibility for the creation or solution of world
problems. This is a society in which people and ideas are circulating rapidly, con-
stantly, and haphazardly and knowledge within and across disciplines is growing
rapidly. The tools and resources available to assist in solving problems are expand-
ing at the same time the skills needed to thrive in this environment are constantly
changing and some argue that “the university has abandoned any pretence to be
associated with universal themes” (Barnett 2013, p. 2).
The curriculum is an important site of interaction between people, knowledge,
values, and action in today’s world. The connections between internationalization
in higher education and globalization are complex and dynamic. Globalization
has had an impact on the sort of work we do, the way we work, and who we
work with. This is as true in universities as it is in any other sector. However,
universities have been both agents and products of globalization and bear some
responsibility for the current state of the world. For example, the cross-border
provision of education through the use of technology to deliver programs around
the world, or through face-to-face delivery on branch campuses, has been an
important contributor to the growth of a global knowledge society in which
ideas are “bought” and “sold” to create a fluid global “ideoscape” (Appadurai
1990, p. 296). Cross-border higher education includes the movement of people
18 Why internationalize the curriculum?

(students and academic staff), providers (institutions with a virtual or physical

presence in a host country), programs (courses or programs of instruction), and
projects (such as joint curricula or development projects) as part of international
development cooperation, academic exchanges and linkages and trade in educa-
tion services and is on the internationalization agenda of many higher education
institutions (Knight 2006a). As such, cross-border provision of education is a
force, a primary medium, and an agent of globalization.
The uneven flow of students from the “South” to the “North,” resulting from
excess capacity in the North and unmet demand in the South, has also contrib-
uted to brain drain from the very countries that can least afford it, especially if
students are encouraged to stay on in the receiving country as migrants. Thus,
poorer sending countries lose, while wealthier receiving countries benefit from
the home country government or aid agency funding that has supported the
students as well as the subsequent intellectual and economic contributions the
students make as graduates.
The relationship between internationalization and globalization is undoubt-
edly complex. Marginson (1999, p. 19) argues that internationalization is a form
of soft imperialism because its main function is the “formation of the skills …
required to operate in the global environment itself.” Hence it imposes “west-
ern” ways of thinking, doing, and acting on an ever-increasing proportion of the
world population. Globalization has transformed higher education throughout
the world, propelling local institutions, their staff, students, and their graduates
“irreversibly into the world-wide environment” (Marginson 2003, p. 2). For
example, in the last 25 years we have seen rapid increases in the levels of mobil-
ity in the student population and increasing unmet demand in some areas of the
world, resulting in the establishment of “branch,” “regional,” and “offshore”
campuses and rapid growth in the mobility of programs (transnational education).
These models reproduce Eurocentric practices, programs, and paradigms. There
is concern that the dominance that has been established is irreversible and will
eventually destroy all other forms of knowledge.

Internationalization of the curriculum: The current state

As noted in Chapter 1, there is considerable variation in the way in which inter-
nationalization of the curriculum is defined and enacted. In a globalized world, it
is not surprising that a concept emerging in one national and regional context is
adapted to other contexts. Hence the activities associated with internationaliza-
tion of the curriculum are both similar and different across regions of the world.
This is in large part due to the influence of political, economic and sociocultural
drivers within the local context. There is also variation within the same region at
the same time, and over time.
For example, widely different approaches to Internationalization at Home
(IaH), a form of internationalization of the curriculum, have developed across
Europe since the concept was first introduced in 2001. The scope differs
 Why internationalize the curriculum? 19

from country to country, university to university, and discipline to discipline.

The concept has also developed and changed over time. The original concept
of IaH was focused on intercultural issues and on diversity. It was defined as
“Any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student
and staff mobility” (Crowther et al. 2001, p. 8). This definition led to numer-
ous questions. It implied that IaH was a phenomenon that could be detached
from outgoing mobility. Could an international experience at home promote
outgoing mobility and enhance the quality of a study related stay abroad?
Could it equip students with skills that would allow them to make more of
their study or placement abroad? Despite these questions, IaH has been a
useful way to shift the focus of internationalizing the curriculum onto what
teachers and learners do in their local classrooms and communities rather than
on relying solely on sending students abroad to develop their international
perspectives (Beelen & Leask 2011). The tools for IaH have also evolved
over time resulting in new approaches (Leask et al. 2013). Technology
provides new tools to those who want to internationalize curricula at home.
Virtual mobility enables students to study at a university abroad without
physically leaving home. Lecturers can teach to an international audience,
supervise students, and collaborate with colleagues, all without leaving their
office. Likewise, students can collaborate with other students and lecturers in
different countries, without leaving home. Somewhat paradoxically, virtual
mobility in Europe occurs at the same time as a revival of traditional mobility.
Students from different European countries, working together virtually, may
enhance their collaboration with short-term physical mobility, which is in turn
also facilitated by the availability of low-cost flights. As this type of short-term
mobility is part of the formal curriculum and its outcomes are assessed within
the curriculum, they can be considered elements of IaH. However, they clearly
fall outside the original definition of IaH. There has been a conceptual shift in
response to changing conditions. IaH has changed its focus and character in
response to the changing environment.
UK and Australian universities are well known for their focus on the recruit-
ment of fee-paying international students. This strategy has obvious economic
benefits for institutions and national economies. For some time it was a commonly
held belief that by increasing the diversity of students on campus, bridges of
tolerance and understanding and lifelong friendships between international and
local students would be formed, transforming the learning of all. Bringing the
world to the classroom was seen as a key strategy for internationalization of the
curriculum. It has become increasingly clear, however, that this is not the case.
International students in both the United Kingdom and Australia have reported
difficulties in connecting with local students, returning home after extended
periods of study without having made any local friends (although they had made
many international friends). UK and Australian students report both willingness
and reluctance to engage with international students. Outbound mobility num-
bers have not improved as rapidly as had been hoped. Concerns have emerged
20 Why internationalize the curriculum?

that policy-makers, managers and curriculum designers, as well as teachers, have

been too narrowly focused on international students as the primary means of
internationalization of the curriculum (Leask 2003). Responses to this situation
have varied across Australia and the United Kingdom, and within institutions in
the same country.
Today all Australian universities, and some UK universities, include interna-
tional perspectives and global citizenship in general statements of the qualities
of their graduates. At the same time that IaH was developing as a concept in
Europe, in Australia there was an attempt to refocus internationalization of
the curriculum on the deliberate and strategic use of what were often termed
“graduate attributes” as a driver for embedding the development of international
and intercultural knowledge skills and attitudes into the curriculum (Leask 2001).
Graduate attributes typically focus on all students. Universities began developing
their own individual statements of generic graduate attributes, including such
things as communication skills, the ability to work in groups, solve problems,
etc., that would be developed alongside disciplinary-based knowledge. Many
included a graduate attribute related to preparing students for life in an increas-
ingly globalized, interconnected world, global citizenship, and/or international
professions and careers. These became a catalyst for focusing internationalization
of the curriculum on the learning outcomes of all students. Increasing diver-
sity in the classroom, resulting from both international student recruitment and
the increasingly multicultural nature of the local student population, can be a
valuable resource for developing these graduate attributes. Hence preparing and
supporting students to work in multicultural groups in class is increasingly associ-
ated with internationalization of the curriculum. Just as in Europe, approaches to
internationalizing the curriculum have evolved and continue to evolve over time.
In the United States, internationalization of the curriculum is identified as
an essential component of Comprehensive Internationalization (Hudzik 2011).
Furthermore, while study abroad and exchange and internationalization of the
campus remain key focuses of activity for internationalization of the curriculum,
there is also growing interest in and awareness of the need to develop new strate-
gies to develop all students’ international perspectives. The influence of scholars
such as Mestenhauser (1998; 2011) in raising awareness of the need to challenge
both the nature of the curriculum and the paradigms on which it is based in
order to do this, and to focus attention on all students rather than just a few, has
had impact internationally. Again, however, there are variations in approach in
different universities within the region. Increased interest in the recruitment of
fee-paying international students in some universities in the United States may
result in strategies to modify curriculum content as well as pedagogy in order to
utilize this diversity to internationalize the learning outcomes of local students.
An understanding of the concept of internationalization of the curricu-
lum and the trends and phases observed in the socio-economic and political
“North” (including Europe, Australia, the United States, and parts of East Asia)
have to some extent informed the discourse around the possible meaning of
 Why internationalize the curriculum? 21

internationalization in the “South” (Africa, Latin America, developing Asia, and

the Middle East). Commentators in the developing world have cautioned against
recolonization and a continuation of oppression through the reproduction of
Western policies and practices in developing countries seeking to international-
ize their higher education systems (Mok 2007). Debates about internationaliza-
tion often evoke nationalist reactions akin to those against colonialism as scholars
search for alternative and legitimate knowledge regimes and paradigms. One of
the challenges facing higher education institutions in the developing world seek-
ing to internationalize is resolving the tension between the competing needs of
local versus global development, on achieving an appropriate balance between
developing the skills, knowledge, and mindsets needed to support national devel-
opment and those required for the successful participation of individuals and the
country in a globalized world.
Zeleza (2012) highlights the implications of the hegemony of Western
perspectives from the developed world in South African higher education. He
argues that internationalization that is not grounded and nourished by African
epistemic roots is likely to reproduce and reinforce the production of pale copies
of Western knowledge of little value to Africa and no consequence to world
scholarship. Higher education institutions in South Africa remain challenged by
questions of the relevance and value of the knowledge produced by scholars in
their institutions and the fairness with which this is disseminated and utilized
by students and scholars worldwide. Other African scholars have voiced simi-
lar concerns: having been disconnected from their earlier African identities by
colonization and structural adjustment policies, universities in Africa need to
respond to globalization and internationalization by changing internally so that
they can both meet African needs and contribute to world knowledge (Mthembu
2004; Rouhani & Kichun 2004). Soudien (2005) suggests that this requires that
Africans make critical decisions about

how much or how little of that which we imagine to be distinctly ours, what-
ever that might be, we wish to have at the core of the education our children
ought to receive; or, alternately, how strongly we wish them to be assimilated
into that which has become the dominant culture
(Soudien 2005, p. 502).

For some time internationalization of the curriculum has been associated with
the hegemony of Western perspectives and the export/import of Western con-
ceptions of higher education and internationalization described previously. The
extent to which the dominance of Western educational models defines “what
is knowledge and who is qualified to understand and apply that knowledge”
(Goodman 1984, p. 13), who is expert in what, and who can claim privilege,
prestige and elite status both determine and are to some extent determined by
the curriculum in higher education. There have been calls to move away from
cynical and misguided approaches to international exchange that intentionally
22 Why internationalize the curriculum?

seek to remake other societies as copies of the United States (Ashwill 2011) and
the dangers of intentionally or unintentionally reproducing colonial relationships
through a failure to use “truly international perspectives” to reframe the cur-
riculum and the classroom (McDermott 1998, p. 90). Commentators in the
developing world have cautioned against re-colonization and a continuation of
oppression through the reproduction of Western policies and practices in devel-
oping countries seeking to internationalize their higher education systems (see
for example Mok 2007). Sinlarat (2005, p. 268) urged Thailand’s teachers and
students to “seek and create a new body of knowledge in Thai society” rather
than relying on the import of Western knowledge.
These tensions between the local and the global, and the less developed
“South” and the more developed “North” raise a number of important ethical
question for universities in “developed” countries (IAU 2012). One is how to
ensure that while pursuing their own internationalization agendas, others are
given the time and opportunity to make critical decisions about what interna-
tionalization means for them, both in the short and long term. For example,
countries in Latin America and the Caribbean will need to seek a balance between
exchanges with higher education institutions in the developed world and “ties to
Latin American and Caribbean neighbors” (Gazzola & Didriksson 2008, p. 182)
in their internationalization efforts.
The competing needs of local versus global development also raise a funda-
mental and very practical curriculum question for universities in the “North”
and the “South.” How does a university achieve an appropriate balance between
developing the skills, knowledge, and mindsets needed to support national and
regional development and those required for the successful and ethical participa-
tion of individuals and the nation in a globalized world?
The tensions between the “North” and the “South” described previously and
the associated ethical questions they raise are usually ignored by discipline com-
munities in current approaches to internationalization of the curriculum. In part,
this is because discipline communities are constricted in thought and action by
the paradigms within which they work. Thus critical decisions about what to
include in the curriculum, how to teach and assess learning are often decided with
little if any consideration being given to alternative models and ways of develop-
ing and disseminating knowledge, practicing a profession, or viewing the world.
Discipline communities face some significant challenges if this is to change.
How can they ensure that as a community they are inclusive and open in their
approach to membership? How can they ensure that the long-held assumptions
and beliefs of the community are open to critique? How can they maintain stabil-
ity yet be flexible and adaptable enough to adopt new ideas and create new forms
of knowledge? Without resolving these challenges in the short term, inviting
and engaging in a critique of the dominant knowledge paradigms on which the
curriculum is based is one way to move forward. It is a central component of the
approach taken to internationalization of the curriculum in this book, which is
essentially a new paradigm of internationalization of the curriculum.
 Why internationalize the curriculum? 23

Rationales for internationalizing the curriculum

In the various discussions I have had with academic staff over the years the most
effective starting point for our discussions has been to raise the question “Why
bother?” After discussion of some of the issues raised in this chapter, I usually tell
them that this is my rationale:

The curriculum is linked to broader issues of social power nationally,

internationally, and globally (Bernstein 1971). The big problems of the
world, such as poverty, the spread of infectious diseases, the capacity to feed a
growing world population in the future, and issues of environmental sustain-
ability, require that the graduates of tomorrow are not restricted or parochial
of mind. Therefore we need to ensure that the students of today have access
to knowledge and wisdom from all parts of the world, are open to new ideas
regardless of the origin of those ideas, develop the capacity to solve tricky
problems and find innovative solutions and are committed to actions that
benefit others as well as themselves.

And then I get them to discuss, sometimes in discipline groups and some-
times in mixed discipline groups, why they think internationalization of the
curriculum is important for their program. Here are some of the rationales they
have developed:

As members of a caring profession nurses have an ethical responsibility

towards all members of the global community
(Bachelor of Nursing).

We have a responsibility to empower staff, students, and industry to be global

citizens and practitioners. This means they must be:

• able to enact their ethical and social responsibilities in relation to the

impact of global media communications
• sensitive to the varied cultural responses to communications in interna-
tional, regional, and local markets
• respectful, ethical, responsible, adaptive, and flexible
• critically aware of the impact of their own culture on the way they feel
and act towards others in a global context
(Bachelor of Media and Communication).

The big problems in biology are international problems that require inter-
national solutions. There are many important problems to be solved in the
developing world
(Bachelor of Biological Sciences).
24 Why internationalize the curriculum?

Scientists in a globalised world need to be able to critically analyse the

connections between culture, knowledge and professional practice in science,
employ problem-based methodologies and be flexible, adaptive and reflexive
problem solvers who can conduct community-based as well as industry-based
investigations
(Bachelor of Science based on Carter 2008, p. 629).

Rationales such as these provide the foundation on which the rest of the cur-
riculum can be designed. They give purpose and meaning to the task, but they
are just the beginning. The next chapter describes a conceptual framework of
internationalization of the curriculum that invites a reimagining of internationali-
zation of the curriculum in the disciplines, which includes the development and
use of rationales such as these to stimulate and guide action.

Conclusion
It is essential that we give careful consideration to the question “why internation-
alize the curriculum?” In this chapter we have explored some of the complexities,
tensions, and dilemmas related to internationalization, globalization, and inter-
nationalization of the curriculum. It has been argued that internationalization of
the curriculum needs to take account of the dilemmas globalization presents for
discipline communities and take an ethical stance in relation to these. Preparing
today’s students to take their place as ethical citizens and professionals in a glo-
balized world is complex and requires that academic staff members are both
engaged and committed to the task. The notion of developing graduates who
have “global souls” (Bennett 2008, p. 13), who see themselves not only as being
connected with their local communities, but also as members of world communi-
ties “who value and are committed to a broader sense of the social good” (Rhoads
& Szelényi 2011, p. 28), is not new or unique to any one university, country, or
region. The call to focus less on the instrumental, economic outcomes or compe-
tencies required for individuals to succeed in a globalized economy and more on
ethical and responsible learning outcomes echoes around the world. This requires
that we recognize that “human beings are social and cultural beings as well as eco-
nomic ones” who need to learn to “think locally, nationally and globally” (Rizvi &
Lingard 2010, p. 201). However, for many academic staff members responsible
for internationalizing the curriculum, it is not clear what this means in practical
terms. Hence, while the importance of internationalization of the curriculum is
recognized and some argue that every degree program should incorporate an
international dimension (Turner & Robson 2008, p. 72), there is a sense of frus-
tration at the slow rate of progress in achieving curriculum internationalization
goals (see for example Egron-Polak & Hudson 2010; Leask & Carroll 2011).
The next chapter describes a conceptual framework for internationalization of
the curriculum that is open and outward looking, challenges the complacency of
the taken-for-granted, and encourages academic staff members to explore different
 Why internationalize the curriculum? 25

ways of looking at the world. The framework was developed iteratively during an
Australian Government funded National Teaching Fellowship (Leask 2012) in
which I worked with professional development staff and program teams to inter-
nationalize the curriculum in different disciplines and universities in Australia.
The Fellowship was focused on engaging academic staff in exploring, making
explicit, and disseminating the meaning of internationalization of the curriculum
in different disciplines. The framework was also informed by and tested interna-
tionally by a network of international colleagues.

Note
1 With permission, this chapter includes material previously published in Leask,
B., Beelen, J. and Kaunda, L. (2013) Chapter 5: Internationalisation of the
curriculum: international approaches and perspectives pp. 187–205 in de Wit, H.,
F. Hunter, L. Johnson and H-G van Liempd (2013) Possible futures the next
25 years of the internationalisation of higher education. Amsterdam: EAIE.
Chapter 3

A conceptual framework for

internationalization of the curriculum

Studies of the higher education curriculum have been scarce (Barnett & Coate
2005, p. 70). Studies of internationalization of the curriculum in higher
education are even rarer and, with a few exceptions, are focused on a single
institution and/or a single discipline. Individual examples across disciplines and
institutions lack coherence. Internationalization of the curriculum may mean
different things in different disciplines because the international perspectives
required by different professions vary (Leask 2011, p. 13). However there is no
frame of reference or guide to understanding how these examples fit into the
bigger picture, how valid they are, or whether they prepare students to rise to the
challenge of “being human” as well as “being productive workers” in a complex,
globalized world. It seems somewhat contradictory that we should conceptualize
internationalization and internationalization of the curriculum in national terms,
yet that is the norm. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are distinctive national
and regional approaches to these matters. There are also distinctive institutional
and disciplinary approaches. This chapter describes a conceptual framework for
internationalization of the curriculum that was developed in response to ongoing
confusion, challenges, and frustrations associated with achieving university
goals related to internationalization of the curriculum in the disciplines noted
frequently in the literature (Childress 2010; Egron-Polak & Hudson 2010;
Leask & Beelen 2009).
The conceptual framework takes account of the “differing cultures among
different scholarly fields with respect to internationalization” (Stohl 2007,
p. 368) and explains variation in institutional and national approaches. It is
focused on internationalization of the curriculum as the vehicle for preparing
university graduates for life in a globalized world.
Curriculum review is dynamic and fluid; it is influenced by a range of factors
that shape and drive a lengthy and multidimensional process (Barnett & Coate
2005, p. 71). The case studies that are used later in this chapter to illustrate the
framework are located in multiple institutions with different histories, cultures,
and missions. They illustrate some of the interplays between the layers of context
depicted in the conceptual framework.
 A conceptual framework 27

The framework
The conceptual framework (Figure 3.1) situates the disciplines, and therefore
the disciplinary teams who construct the curriculum, at the center of the inter-
nationalization process. The disciplines, as international communities, determine
whose knowledge is valued and that in turn defines the scope of the curriculum.
The location of the disciplines at the center of the framework explains the many
variations in interpretations of the meaning of internationalization of the curricu-
lum in different disciplines and institutions within the same national and regional
context. The different “layers of context” and their interaction with each other
determine how, individually and collectively, we conceptualize and enact inter-
nationalization of the curriculum. Each layer of context directly and indirectly
interacts with and influences the others, creating a complex set of conditions
influencing the design of an internationalized curriculum. The framework reflects

Assessment of
student learning

Requirements Systematic
nd emerging p
of professional nt a ara development
practice and ina across the
m
dig
Do

citizenship program in
ms

all students
Knowledge
in and across
disciplines

Ins t
tit u ex
tio n al c o nt

L o c al c o n te xt

Na xt
tio n nte
al a n d r
e gio n al c o

G lo b a l c o n t e x t

Figure 3.1 A conceptual framework for internationalization of the curriculum

28 A conceptual framework

the “supercomplex” world in which we live—one in which the very frameworks

by which we orient ourselves to the world are themselves changing and con-
tested (Barnett 2000, p. 257). This world requires that we regularly review and
reconstruct the curriculum as priorities in the different layers of context shift and
change, interdependently.
The top half of the framework is concerned with curriculum design. The bot-
tom half of the framework is concerned with the layers of context that have a
variable influence on the decisions academic staff make when internationalizing
the curriculum. Each dimension of the framework is described in more detail in
the following section.

The framework explained

Knowledge in and across disciplines is at the center of the framework.
Disciplinarity exerts enormous power and influence over the organization and
production of knowledge (Klein 1993). The disciplines are the “life-blood of
higher education” (Becher 1994, p. 151) providing both an organizational focus
for the university and the curriculum and a social framework. Independent cat-
egorizing of disciplines has resulted in significant consensus about “what counts
as a discipline and what does not” (Becher 1994, p. 152) as well as some defin-
ing characteristics of different disciplinary groups. Disciplinary groups have
been described as the equivalent of academic tribes, exclusive global commu-
nities, each with a distinctive culture, their own “set of intellectual values and
their own patch of cognitive territory” (Becher 1994, p. 153), as well as their
own way of seeing the world, understanding the world, shaping the world, and
coping with the world. These tribal disciplinary cultures transcend institutional
and national boundaries (Becher 1994). The evolution of some disciplines has
perpetuated a relatively narrow focus “impoverished by an absence of inter-
cultural and international perspectives, conceptualizations and data” (Bartell
2003, p. 49).
The problems faced by the world and its communities, however, require
“problem-defining and solving perspectives that cross disciplinary and cultural
boundaries” (Hudzik 2004, p. 1). Increasingly, intellectual, practical, and
social problems are exerting a cross-disciplinary pull, requiring interdiscipli-
nary approaches to finding solutions. Hence “boundary work,” the “cross-
ing, deconstructing, and reconstructing of boundaries” (Klein 1993, p. 186)
between the disciplines, is increasingly important. Knowledge production
across the disciplines is at least as important as knowledge production within
the disciplines.
The top half of the framework identifies three key elements of designing an inter-
nationalized curriculum: the international and intercultural requirements of pro-
fessional practice and citizenship and the systematic development and assessment of
 A conceptual framework 29

intercultural and international knowledge, skills, and attitudes across the program.
These curriculum design elements are seen through the lens of dominant para-
digms, and sometimes but less often, the lens of emerging paradigms.

Dominant and emerging paradigms

Curriculum decisions are not value free. They are usually influenced by the
dominant paradigms within disciplines. But while a paradigm or school of thought
may dominate a particular discipline at a particular time, disciplines are not static,
isolated entities. They are influenced by points of view, methods, and ideas from
other related disciplines (Klein 1993, p. 186). From time to time, when domi-
nant examples of practice, laws, theories, and taken-for-granted ways of thinking
are challenged by anomalies, new problems, or changing conditions, there will
be a paradigm shift (Kuhn 1962). While this seems to occur quite suddenly, the
evidence or need for a shift has always been gathering for some time. Following
Mestenhauser (1998), internationalization of the curriculum requires that we
challenge the paradigms on which the curriculum is based (p. 21). Maringe
(2010) argues that we need to move away from the sole use of Western models
as the basis for our understanding of internationalization and globalization. This
requires examination of the assumptions underlying dominant paradigms, con-
sideration of the changing conditions, challenging the “taken-for-granted” and
an openness to alternative ways of viewing the world beyond the obvious and the
dominant.
Discipline communities are to some degree constricted in thought and action
by the paradigms within which they work. Thus critical decisions about what to
include in the curriculum and how to teach and assess learning are often decided
with little if any consideration being given to alternative models and ways of
developing and disseminating knowledge, practicing a profession, or viewing
the world.
An important part of the process of internationalization of the curriculum
is to think beyond dominant paradigms, to explore emerging paradigms, and
to imagine new possibilities and new ways of thinking and doing. This is an
intellectually challenging task. Academic staff have been socialized into their
discipline, prepared for membership of their community through the study
and acceptance of schools of thought and models of best practice (Becher &
Trowler 2001). Through that process they have developed a sense of identity
and personal commitment to the shared values and associated ways of doing,
thinking, and being embedded within the dominant paradigms of their discipline
communities.
The three elements of curriculum design reflected in the top half of the
framework—the requirements of professional practice and citizenship, assess-
ment of student learning, and systematic development of knowledge, skills,
30 A conceptual framework

and attitudes across a program—apply to any curriculum design process. How

they apply specifically, and the key areas for consideration in each element when
the focus is internationalization of the curriculum, are described briefly in the
following section with reference to the literature.

Requirements of professional practice and citizenship

Internationalization of the curriculum is concerned with preparation for citizen-
ship as well as professional practice. It should not just be about training for the
performance demands of professional practice in a globalized world (Barnett
2000; Mestenhauser 1998; Rizvi & Lingard 2010). It should also prepare stu-
dents to be ethical and responsible citizens and human beings in this globalized
world. When the program is accredited by an external professional body the
requirements of professional practice may to some extent already be specified.
Decisions around how to develop in students an understanding of and capacity to
meet the moral responsibilities that come with local, national, and global citizen-
ship are also important in the process of planning and enacting an international-
ized curriculum. They may be more difficult to determine in some programs than
in others.

Assessment of student learning

A central consideration in curriculum design is what students can be expected to
know and be able to do, as well as who they will “be” at the end of a program.
A globalized “supercomplex” world requires multiple dimensions of human
beings and requires a curriculum that addresses epistemological (knowing), praxis
(action), and ontological (self-identity) elements (Barnett 2000; Rizvi & Lingard
2010). In an internationalized curriculum it is important to provide specific feed-
back on, and assess student achievement of, clearly articulated international and
intercultural learning goals related to their lives as citizens and professionals in a
globalized world.

Systematic development across the program

The development of international and intercultural knowledge, skills, and
attitudes in an internationalized curriculum across a program requires careful
planning. The development of skills such as language capability and intercultural
competence may need to be embedded in a number of courses at different levels.
A range of strategies to assist all students to achieve desired learning outcomes
by the end of the program may be required. These might include strategies that
mobilize and utilize student services and the informal curriculum in supporting
the work undertaken in the formal curriculum.
 A conceptual framework 31

The layers of context represented in the bottom half of the framework will have
a variable influence on the decisions academic staff members make in relation to
internationalization of the curriculum.

Institutional context
Universities are always under pressure to adapt their policies, priorities, and focus
in response to “rapidly changing social, technological, economic and political
forces emanating from the immediate as well as from the broader post-industrial
external environment” (Bartell 2003, p. 43). This includes the need to prepare
students with knowledge and skills needed in a job market “which is increas-
ingly global in character” (Bartell 2003, p. 44; see also Mestenhauser 1998; and
Mestenhauser 2011). Since the early 2000s there has been a focus on the devel-
opment of a range of graduate attributes in the policies of universities around the
world (Barrie 2006). Described as the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that uni-
versity students should develop during their time with the institution (Bowden
et al. 2002), the ways in which universities have implemented them have varied.
Some have focused on a few “generic” attributes, others on a broader range of
more specific attributes, defined with reference to the discipline and program of
study. References to the development of international and intercultural perspec-
tives in students and the development of global citizens are common in state-
ments of intent in universities across the world. These graduate attributes are
frequently linked with internationalization of the curriculum.
Institutional mission, ethos, policies, and priorities in relation to other matters
will also influence approaches taken to internationalization of the curriculum.
For example, the range of international partnerships and activities an institution
is engaged in will have an impact on the options available for collaboration in
research and teaching.

Local context
Developing students’ abilities to be ethical and responsible local citizens who
appreciate the connections between the local, the national, and the global is
critically important in a globalized world (Rizvi & Lingard 2010). The local con-
text includes social, cultural, political, and economic conditions. All may provide
opportunities and challenges for internationalization of the curriculum. For
example, there may be opportunities for students to develop enabling intercul-
tural skills, knowledge, and attitudes through engagement with diversity in the
local community. Local accreditation requirements for registration in a chosen
profession may require a focus on local legislation and policy. However, the local
context is reciprocally connected to national and global contexts. Developing all
students’ understanding of these connections is an important part of the process
of developing their ability to be critical and reflexive social and cultural as well as
economic beings in the local context.
32 A conceptual framework

National and regional context

Cross, Mhlanga, and Ojo argue that “the university is simultaneously global/
universal, local, and regional,” operating at “the interface of the global and the
local” (2011, p. 77). Indeed, different national and regional contexts will deter-
mine to some extent the options available to internationalize the curriculum. Four
factors shape the strategic options available to internationalize a university: “the
economic strength of the country, the international status of the home country
language, the academic reputation of the national system of higher education and
the size of the country” (Teichler 2004, p. 21). In different regions and within
different countries within a region, these factors interact in unique ways to drive
and shape internationalization goals. Hence approaches to internationalization
are both similar and different across different nations and regions.
Regional and national matters and related government policies around
internationalization are the background against which institutions formulate
policy and academic staff do or do not engage in internationalization of the
curriculum. The similarities and the differences in the context and conditions
faced in nations and regions have resulted in a range of contrasting and comple-
mentary ideas and practices in internationalization across the world.

Global context
World society is not one in which global resources and power are shared equally—
“globalization is being experienced as a discriminatory and even oppressive force
in many places” (Soudien 2005, p. 501). It has contributed to increasing the gap
between the rich and the poor of the world. This domination is intellectual as
well as economic, the dominance of Western educational models defining whose
knowledge counts, what research questions are asked, who will investigate them,
and if and how the results will be applied (Carter 2008). Globalization has con-
tributed to the dominance of Western educational models (Marginson 2003).
The hegemony of Western perspectives and the export/import of Western
conceptions of higher education have not gone unnoticed or unchallenged.
There have been repeated outcries against re-colonization and a continuation
of oppression through higher education (Mok 2007), the legitimization of uni-
versalizing concepts and approaches emanating from West European and North
American countries, and the passive acceptance of unproved “globally established
truths” (Cross, Mhlanga & Ojo 2011, p. 76).
These and other commentators highlight the need for those working in
education in both the developed and the developing world to be aware of the
consequences for individuals and world society of delivering a curriculum that
presents only one view of the world—especially if this view of the world does not
challenge the neo-liberal construction of globalization and produces graduates
in the dominant developed world who, in pursuing their own economic goals,
create even greater inequality in the economically less developed world.
 A conceptual framework 33

In the process of internationalization of the curriculum, it is therefore

important to consider the kind of world we currently live in and the kind of
world we would want to create through our graduates. The answers to these
questions will have an impact on what we teach (whose knowledge), what sort of
experiences we incorporate into the curriculum and the pedagogies we use (how
we teach), and what sort of learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and attitudes)
we look for in our graduates.
Brief illustrations of the way the different layers of context in the framework
influenced the thoughts and actions of three different disciplinary teams in
three different universities are described below. In these descriptions, relevant
contextual background information on the institutions, the programs, and the
staff involved has been provided. I have found it quite useful to discuss these
examples illustrating the contextual framework with staff members who are inter-
ested in finding out more about what internationalization means in different
disciplines.

Accounting
The accounting discipline is often seen as jurisdiction-specific, and thus a difficult
case for internationalization. Typically, national professional accreditation bodies
place significant restrictions on the curriculum. The literature on internationaliza-
tion of the accounting curriculum goes back some 40 years (Cobbin & Lee 2002).
One rationale for internationalization is that accounting reporting occurs increas-
ingly across national boundaries within multinational corporations. Additionally,
in a globalized world, “a large number of graduates will be employed in inter-
national jurisdictions” or working for local branches of international organiza-
tions that report internationally (Cobbin & Lee 2002, p. 64). These professional
conditions suggest that the accounting curriculum should prepare graduates to
think, communicate, and act beyond their home jurisdiction. Another rationale
has been high demand for accounting degrees from international students study-
ing outside their home country. However, “accounting education has failed to
equip students with the requisite set of generic competencies required by the
profession” (Lee & Bisman 2006, p. 5), and there is “a perception among aca-
demics that development of graduate attributes is not their responsibility” (Evans
et al. 2009, p. 597).
The accounting team involved in this project was located in a research uni-
versity of 27,000 students ranked in the top ten research universities in
Australia. One fifth of the student population was international students.
Internationalization of the curriculum was an institutional priority and a senior
member of staff had recently been appointed to lead activity in this area. The
accounting team leader incorporated a review of internationalization of the cur-
riculum within a general review of graduate attributes efficacy. In this university,
graduate attributes included operating on a body of knowledge, communication
and problem-solving skills, intercultural competence, social responsibility, and a
34 A conceptual framework

global perspective. This “global perspective” graduate attribute was the sole focus
of internationalization initiatives and was narrowly interpreted, usually acquitted
by an international case study from the United States or Europe. The approach
was one-dimensional, the focus on knowledge and content rather than skill and
attitude development. After reviewing current practice, and being challenged to
think differently about internationalization, a new approach to internationali-
zation of the curriculum was described by the team leader. This approach was
broader and focused on the development of skills and values as well as content.

Throughout all our graduate attributes we’ve incorporated internationaliza-

tion. Under ‘Knowledge’ we want to see how our students are able to apply
knowledge in an international context as well as in an Australian context.
Under ‘Communication’ we want to see how our students can articulate
a message to culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Under problem
solving we want to make sure our students are actually doing research with
an international context, looking at international research. Under ‘social
responsibility’, because we’re talking about business, we want to see how
our students are considering the impact their decisions will have on different
countries, on culturally diverse peoples.
(Testimony of academic, University A, 2011)

Course/unit-specific articulation of these graduate attributes was linked

directly to assessment items, thus allowing for student achievement of the inter-
nationalized learning outcomes to be measured and traced across the program.
The importance of the informal curriculum, particularly as it relates to student
interaction on campus, was affirmed as an area requiring future work. Professional
development for teaching staff was also identified as a priority.

Staff need to be comfortable with the pedagogical aspects of internation-

alization, that is, with the internationalization of the curriculum in action.
Intercultural competence is a particular priority.
(Testimony of academic, University A, 2011)

For academic staff in this program, at this university, elements of the global,
national, and institutional contexts interacted to influence the decisions taken.
The dominant aspects of the global context were the dominance of large mul-
tinational accounting firms and the cross-border flow of accounting informa-
tion within multinational companies. Nationally there was increasing diversity in
the workplace resulting from globalization and in the local context, the require-
ments of national accreditation bodies dominated. In the institutional context,
the adoption of graduate qualities as a policy and the recent adoption of inter-
nationalization of the curriculum as an institutional priority influenced the deci-
sions that were made and highlighted the need to provide appropriate support
 A conceptual framework 35

and development opportunities for staff in areas such as developing and assessing
intercultural skills in students.
Despite a global approach to accounting education that was essentially
content-based, a national approach that was somewhat restricted due to accredita-
tion requirements and an institutional internationalization context that was gen-
erally supportive but still evolving, the accounting team was able to articulate new
conceptualizations of internationalization that included intercultural and ethical
considerations relevant to the discipline. The process of internationalization of
the curriculum broadened the curriculum beyond local professional accreditation
restrictions and constructions to include, among other things, the development
of intercultural competence. The university’s graduate attributes policy was used
to refocus the degree on preparing graduates for professional practice in a glo-
balized world while still meeting local professional accreditation requirements.
Leadership at the local team level was a critical factor driving change.

Journalism
The journalism team was also located in a large and very traditional research-
intensive university with around 45,000 students, one quarter being international
students. The university had a well-developed and articulated approach to inter-
nationalization embedded in its policies and mission and supported by profes-
sional development activities. Prior to their engagement in the research project,
a comprehensive university-wide review and report on internationalization of the
curriculum had been completed. In policy, this university included recognition
and reward for staff for undertaking internationalization initiatives, and was com-
mitted to internationalizing the curriculum for all students, with the aim that
they develop not just international, but inclusive perspectives (University B policy
documents, 2010–2011).
Following an initial review of current practice and perceptions, the core team
of four academics, all from different cultural backgrounds, identified two courses
that were fully focused on international and intercultural content: International
Journalism and Cultural Communication. However, these courses were optional
and disconnected from the rest of the program. Discussions involving the team
and two “outsiders” from different disciplinary backgrounds (a professional
development lecturer and myself as researcher), led them to conclude the pro-
gram as a whole did not develop students’ “understanding about what it means to
work in a globalized or international context” and that furthermore “just because
they would be working locally didn’t mean they didn’t need to understand these
things as well” (testimony of a Journalism academic, 2011).
This led to concern about:

the dominant mode of journalism and professional communication that

has been established and is perpetuated by the same journals, the same
36 A conceptual framework

associations, the same relevant theories being applied, without a sense of

why? What else is out there?
(Testimony of a journalism academic, 2011)

Journalism scholars have begun to contest the North American dominance

of both professional and educational practice. As the team worked through the
process of internationalization of the curriculum, they engaged more compre-
hensively with an emerging literature critical of the role of journalism in perpetu-
ating dominant political orders. Much of this literature argued that journalism
actually reinforced unequal power relationships, in local and global settings.
Wasserman and de Beer (2009) describe a “global ‘political realignment’” that
has “led to a questioning of the link between journalism and a particular form
of political organization, opening the way for a definition of journalism that is
more inclusive of global political differences.” They call for “critical journalism
studies [which] would also turn the gaze upon itself and the normative assump-
tions underlying comparative work, by locating comparative studies within global
power relations both epistemologically and politically” (Wasserman & de Beer
2009, pp. 428–429).
Papoutsaki likewise identifies a need to:

create journalism/communication curricula that promote awareness

of the social and cultural significance of local knowledge that has been
taken … for granted or dismissed as irrelevant in a modern and increasingly
globalized world.
(Papoutsaki 2007, p. 10)

As a result of the focus on internationalization of the curriculum, the journalism

team in University B became aware of the overwhelming dominance of Western,
mainly North American, approaches to the discipline in published teaching mate-
rials. In this context, they made the decision to approach internationalization of
the curriculum through the lens of de-westernization. What this might mean was
explained by one member of the team:

What does de-westernisation mean for journalism and communication at

[University B]? It means reflecting on the standing of our students, where
they’re from, where they’re going and what they need; it means challenging
the normative model by which we judge and assess; it means understanding
local environments in global perspectives; it means not treating other jour-
nalism as alternate or alternative and locating these within a boutique course
on how they do things in other countries, which is the danger of discrete
courses; it means understanding localised practices and where technology has
enabled interconnections with wider potential audiences but also other less
technologically driven environments … It also means taking seriously what
others may have been taking seriously themselves for some time, that we
 A conceptual framework 37

from a Western perspective have been working in a paradigm which assumes

a dominance, which assumes a norm, whereas others haven’t, but no one
has been that interested. It means being reflexive and with differences in
approach and practice. We need to be adapting in relation to the student
cohort, but also to where the professions are going at this point. And it
means embedding this in all areas of the curriculum.
(Testimony of a journalism academic, 2011)

The team set out to develop students’ awareness of the dominance of Western
paradigms in journalism practice. They did this through the introduction of com-
parative assessment items and developing in their students an understanding of
alternative approaches to journalism. They embedded these approaches within
and across different compulsory units in the degree program, rather than adding
on discrete, optional units.
For academic staff in this program, at this university, the most important
aspects of the global context were the domination of the Western paradigm of
journalism and challenges to this domination in the literature. The relevance to
their program of this emerging way of thinking about journalism education had
hitherto not been considered. In the national context, journalism degrees have
been focused on ensuring graduates’ ability to face the challenges associated
with the digital environment and, predominantly, but not exclusively, national
law. While graduate attributes were an important part of the institutional con-
text, the teaching team acknowledged the need to interpret these more com-
prehensively within the context of the discipline, rather than “glossing over”
them. The process was assisted by the fact that the academic team was itself
multicultural and multilingual and leadership was strong and consultative with
an emphasis on negotiation of meaning and outcome throughout the process.
This team benefited from an institutional context in which internationaliza-
tion of the curriculum was obviously and tangibly valued and supported. There
was strong leadership at the university and disciplinary level and the teaching
team was culturally and linguistically diverse. The disciplinary context, character-
ized by some contestation of the prevailing hegemonic professional paradigm,
assisted the formulation of a broad understanding of internationalization in terms
of de-westernization.

Public relations
The public relations (PR) team was located in a younger and smaller innovative
research university, University C, which had 18,000 students, including around
2,000 international students. It had recently established an internationaliza-
tion policy, quite broad, though limited to a certain extent by resourcing issues.
The university had a number of graduate attributes, of which “global citizenship”
was one (University C documentation, 2010–2011). The PR team had “worked
38 A conceptual framework

with generic graduate attributes of global perspectives and social justice” but they
were not sure “how we assess these things … and we want to embed intercultural
competence as a specific learning outcome in the public relations degree” (testi-
mony of a University C public relations academic, 2011). The teaching context
for the team was complex: they taught several offshore programs in very diverse
locations and issues of consistency in delivery and assessment across onshore and
offshore programs were prominent. The core team of three staff involved in the
project had previously engaged in internationalization of the curriculum, focused
mainly on adapting the curriculum to suit the needs of international students,
onshore and offshore. This had resulted in the inclusion in most core units of
scholarship from a range of countries and academic papers and case studies from
the various countries where the program was taught.
Like journalism, public relations is a profession undergoing rapid transforma-
tion, due in part to technology-driven changes in communication practices, such
as increased use of blogging and social media networks. Over a decade ago Taylor
noted a growing “desire for competency in the skills necessary for the success-
ful execution of international public relations” emanating from industry, which
she attributes to the technology-driven globalization of communications (Taylor
2001, p. 73). More recently Archer reports on an internationalization initiative
developed in response to a “dearth of skills … found from practitioners working
internationally and the increasing demand of global companies and agencies for
professionals with international/intercultural experiences” (2009, p. 3).
Not surprisingly, therefore, this PR team viewed internationalization through
the lens of industry stakeholders. Following intensive discussion of the current
state of the program, they decided to conduct interviews with employers of their
graduates. The aim was to gain better understanding of the specific international
knowledge, skills, and attitudes valued by industry. A range of key attributes of
“internationalized” public relations practitioners were identified. The results
highlighted the relevance of intercultural competence to public relations practice
and identified specific desirable attributes such as “innate curiosity”, a willing-
ness to question the status quo, and communication skills focusing on the ability
to consult and engage. Sensitivity towards Indigenous cultures in Australia
was also identified as important (testimony of a University C public relations
academic, 2011).
The global context for this program was one in which a rapidly globalizing
profession was reassessing its criteria for what makes an effective practitioner.
Both global and national contexts were dominated by a Western model of practice;
there was recognition amongst the academic community of the need to challenge
this, but uncertainty as to what this might mean for the curriculum. Ultimately,
industry and academic concerns were addressed through the introduction of
a new unit exploring the theory and practice of public relations through the
lenses of globalization and culture. The sociocultural approach of the new unit is
described in this extract from the unit description:
 A conceptual framework 39

a shift away from the functional and normative understandings of public

relations, which historically—and until recently—have dominated the field.
Rather than viewing public relations as an organisational or management
function, this unit explores public relations as a cultural activity influenced by
social, political and cultural contexts, and actively involved in the construc-
tion of meaning.
(excerpt from “Public Relations in Society” Unit Handbook)

In this case study, the approach to curriculum internationalization was sig-

nificantly informed and driven by industry perspectives. The curriculum response
focused on how to develop intercultural skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant
to a variety of workplaces in the Australasian region in which graduates were
most likely to be employed. The dominance of a US professional paradigm was
acknowledged and addressed through the introduction of a developed a new
compulsory unit in the public relations course. This unit explored public rela-
tions through the lenses of globalization and culture using recent scholarship
to present alternative understandings of the field. It focused specifically on the
impact of different social, political, and cultural contexts on professional practice.
The unit made the tensions between local, national, and global contexts explicit.
This team balanced the need to work with potential employers of graduates
and meet their needs, while simultaneously engaging in the important academic
work associated with encouraging and nurturing the emergence of new para-
digms. It is interesting to note the very different approaches to the process of
internationalization of the curriculum in the journalism and the public relations
teams given that public relations and journalism are “interacting professions”
facing similar issues in professional practice (Breit 2011, p. xix). Approaches to
internationalization of the curriculum are not entirely determined by the nature
of the discipline. Other contextual factors also have an impact as illustrated in the
conceptual framework.

Conclusion
The reciprocal and uneven relationship between the multiple contexts within
which curricula were formulated and enacted in the case studies resulted in a
variety of interpretations of internationalization of the curriculum. Interactions
between a complex set of circumstances influenced each team and the individuals
within it as they worked through the process of internationalization of the cur-
riculum. Flexibility, diversity, and creativity are good things in a rapidly changing
world. Hitherto narrow definitions and interpretations of internationaliza-
tion of the curriculum have neither allowed for nor encouraged the emergence
of dynamic, innovative, or imaginative responses to changes in institutional,
national, regional, and world contexts. An important part of the process of inter-
nationalization of the curriculum is inviting, accommodating, and nurturing new
40 A conceptual framework

rationales and alternative paradigms that legitimate hitherto hidden or ignored

perspectives and provide gateways into alternative futures.
The framework situates the disciplines and the disciplinary teams who construct
the curriculum at the center of the internationalization process. An important
part of the process is inviting, accommodating, and nurturing new rationales,
alternative paradigms, and interpretations of internationalization of the curricu-
lum that legitimate hitherto hidden or ignored perspectives and provide gate-
ways into alternative futures. Much depends on the backgrounds and agency of
individual staff in the teams.
The conceptual framework captures the complexity of internationalization of
the curriculum through the interactions between the different layers of context
and the importance of acknowledging and responding to critical social and ethical
questions related to globalization in discipline-specific curricula. It prompts aca-
demic staff to consider hitherto marginalized alternative paradigms and accom-
modates and legitimates different perspectives.
The case studies demonstrate how placing the disciplines and emerging par-
adigms at the center of the concept of internationalization of the curriculum
influences and challenges the thinking of the academics involved. They are practi-
cal and grounded illustrations of the conceptual framework at work in different
disciplines. They also provide some insights into the process of internationaliza-
tion of the curriculum. The process, and the factors which both impede and
enable the process, are described in more detail in the next chapter.
Chapter 4

The process of internationalization of

the curriculum

Against the background of ongoing confusion over what internationalization

of the curriculum means in practice and the challenges and frustrations asso-
ciated with achieving university internationalization goals noted frequently in
the literature (Childress 2010; Egron-Polak & Hudson 2010; Knight 2006b;
Leask & Beelen 2009) this chapter describes a loosely structured process of situ-
ated learning in communities of practice focused on internationalization of the
curriculum (Green & Whitsed 2013; Lave & Wenger 1991). The staged process
of internationalization of the curriculum is akin to a traditional action research
cycle commonly used to review and revise curriculum. There are, however, two
key differences between the process described here and traditional approaches
to curriculum redesign. First, curriculum design and redesign is rarely critically
reflective. Second, this cycle prompts academic staff to imagine new possibilities
in regard to their curriculum. Specifically, in relation to internationalization of
the curriculum, Bartell (2003) found that “some disciplines tend to adopt a
relatively narrow focus, impoverished by an absence of intercultural and inter-
national perspectives, conceptualisations and data” at a time when the need for
international and intercultural perspectives has become “a generalised necessity
rather than an option” (p. 49). The process described here prompts staff to
push the boundaries of possibility in relation to the curriculum by challenging
dominant disciplinary paradigms.
In this and subsequent chapters I have attempted to describe each stage of
the process in sufficient detail for others to adapt it to their situation. However,
it will always be important to consider the importance and complexity of the
interactions between the different layers of context described in the conceptual
framework in Chapter 3 as you work through this process. The contextual layers
described in the framework and the process complement and enhance each other.
Collectively they offer more than the sum of each considered separately.
Any process of curriculum design involves decisions about program and course
goals and intended learning outcomes, assessment tasks, and teaching and learn-
ing arrangements. It is common to hear staff talk with both passion and con-
cern about the “crowded curriculum;” how there is never enough time to
42 Imagining new possibilities

“fit everything in.” Often such comments result from a focus on the delivery of
content rather than a focus on engaging students in active learning. An inter-
nationalized curriculum must focus on more than content. To make sense of
and thrive in the world, students need to develop their ability to think critically,
their intercultural competence, and their problem-solving skills as well as the
ability to apply these skills and competencies in a rapidly changing, increasingly
globalized and interconnected world. Chapter 3 highlighted the dynamic nature
of the process of designing internationalized curricula with these characteristics.

The process in summary

The process is represented graphically in Figure 4.1.
The key difference between this process and commonly used curriculum review
cycles is Stage 2, the Imagine stage. Stage 2 is essential and integral. It stimu-
lates creative uncertainty through challenging the traditional and the taken-for-
granted and inviting a broadening and deepening of engagement with difference
in the process of constructing the curriculum. It invites academics to engage with
alternative knowledge traditions. In the process of curriculum design, knowledge
is too often regarded as certain rather than contested, simple rather than com-
plex. It is important to scrutinize the curriculum both close-up (from within the
dominant tradition) and from a distance (from the perspective of non-dominant
traditions). Consideration of whose knowledge currently counts in the curricu-
lum and why, as well as what other options there might be, are often pushed aside
in the rush to complete the required approval documentation or move onto the
next task in the busy life of the academic-teacher-researcher.

Review
and
reflect

Evaluate Imagine
The process of
internationalization
of the curriculum
(IoC)

Revise
Act and
plan

Figure 4.1 The process of internationalization of the curriculum

 Imagining new possibilities 43

Throughout the process of internationalization of the curriculum described

here, academic staff members are stimulated to embrace ambiguity. It is critical
that they do this both individually and in small groups. Typically the groups I
worked with as we refined this process consisted of 3–5 key people who could
make decisions about the assessment tasks, the learning activities, and the content
of the curriculum. Together these groups interrogated the foundations of knowl-
edge in their disciplines and challenged the certain and the taken-for-granted.
Importantly, they also negotiated what this meant for the curriculum. Together
they began to think about internationalization of the curriculum in new ways and
imagined new possibilities for student learning.
While each stage of the process appears to be separate and bounded, in practice
these boundaries were soft and permeable rather than hard and impenetrable.
The process of reviewing and reflecting often led to some imagining of new possi-
bilities, which then stimulated further review and reflection. Within and between
each stage negotiation was frequently required as program teams discussed the
details of desired learning outcomes, assessment tasks, content, and teaching and
learning activities.

The process explained

One important part of the process is not represented on the diagram—getting
the right group of people together. It was essential to involve the program leader
as well as at least two or three other key academic staff. It was also important, if
not essential, that these staff had volunteered rather than being required to par-
ticipate (Green & Whitsed 2013). The group, and the individuals within it, had
to be prepared to debate issues, negotiate meaning, and develop shared under-
standing. They also needed to be able to use these as the basis for decisions
concerning the content, teaching and learning activities, and assessment in the
program. It was an advantage if the group was culturally diverse, although this
was not always possible.
I often acted as the facilitator for these groups. I was more actively involved
in the early stages, explaining the process and prodding and provoking criti-
cal reflection. In later stages, I was able to step back. However, I was always
assisted by at least one teaching and learning specialist from the university
working within or outside of the discipline group.

Stage 1: Review and reflect

From the very beginning, it was important to confirm what we were talking
about when we referred to internationalization of the curriculum. The definition
that was used was the one used in this book:

Internationalization of the curriculum is the incorporation of international,

intercultural, and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum
as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods, and
support services of a program of study.
(Based on Leask 2009, p. 209)
44 Imagining new possibilities

First meetings were focused on clarifying the goals, purpose, and scope of
the project as well as discussing this definition of internationalization of the
curriculum, covering much of the discussion included in Chapter 1. The fact
that the process was part of a research project interested and engaged staff.
Each stage of the process has a focus question. The focus question in this first
stage of the process was: “To what extent is our curriculum internationalized?”
A Questionnaire on Internationalization of the Curriculum (QIC) was used
to stimulate reflection and discussion amongst groups of teaching staff about
internationalization of the curriculum in their program. It proved to be a useful
aid to identifying possible actions.
The QIC consists of 15 questions about components of the program of study
and the program as a whole. They are all “to what extent” questions related to
various aspects of the curriculum including the rationale for internationalization
of the curriculum, learning objectives, learning activities, assessment tasks, etc.
Respondents must place the different aspects of the course onto a continuum
from 1–4 where 1 represents what you would expect in a localized curriculum
and 4 represents what you would expect in an internationalized curriculum.
Descriptors for each of the four points on the continuum are described. For
example, in one question respondents are asked:
In the COURSE/UNIT for which you are responsible, to what extent do
the TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS assist all students to
develop international and intercultural skills and knowledge?

1 The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS do not include

any activities designed to assist students to develop international or intercultural
skills and knowledge
2 The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS include some activ-
ities designed to assist students to develop international or intercultural skills
and knowledge but no constructive feedback is provided
3 The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS include a range
of activities designed to assist students to develop international and/or
intercultural skills and knowledge and constructive feedback is provided
4 The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS include a range of
activities designed to assist students to develop international and intercultural
skills and knowledge, these are integrated into the COURSE/UNIT and
constructive feedback is provided on their development

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Two versions of the QIC are included in Chapter 9—the original version and
a modified version developed in a subsequent project, led by two of the pro-
fessional development facilitators who worked with me during the Fellowship
activities described in Chapter 1. (Green & Whitsed 2013). Either version can
be adopted or adapted to different curriculum internationalization projects.
 Imagining new possibilities 45

The main purpose of the QIC is to stimulate critical reflection and robust
discussion within the program team on the current state of internationalization
of the curriculum in the program.
The QIC was used in different ways by different teams. In some instances, all
participants involved in the discussion had completed the questionnaire prior
to meeting together to discuss the team’s individual and collective responses.
Some team leaders put the questionnaire online in a slightly modified form.
Other groups found it useful to complete it together rather than individually,
discussing and debating the answers to questions as they went.
The QIC was specifically designed to assist teams to identify what was already
happening while challenging their views of what constituted internationalization
of the curriculum. It prompts thinking beyond the level of the individual course/
unit by requiring consideration and discussion of the broader context of what
is being taught and assessed in other courses/units as well as the institutional
context in which the program is taught.
Other activities following on from the QIC, or sometimes independent of it,
included:
• establishing/reviewing/reflecting on the rationale for internationalization
of the curriculum in the program. Why is it important? What international/
intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes will students need as graduates
of the program?
• reviewing content, teaching and learning arrangements, and assessment
in individual courses and across the program. What is their relationship to
the rationale for internationalization of the curriculum in the program? In
which courses/units are key skills developed and assessed? Is there a pro-
gressive development of more advanced skills as students progress through
the program?
• reviewing student evaluation and feedback in relation to international and
intercultural elements of the curriculum. What did the evaluation suggest
were the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach to internationali-
zation of the curriculum? Was the evaluation sufficient and appropriate? How
might it be modified?
• comparing and contrasting feedback on different elements of the program
from international students, Australian students, and offshore students. Are
their responses appropriately differentiated? Are their experiences equivalent?
• reviewing feedback from other stakeholders such as professional associations
and industry stakeholders. What are their views on internationalization of
the curriculum? How do you know? What do they think of the graduates of
the program? How do you know? If you don’t know their views, how can
you find out?
• reviewing institutional goals related to internationalization of the curriculum
and the alignment of the program with these. What are the institutional goals
related to internationalization of the curriculum? Are they embedded within
the program? Are they achieved? To what standard?
• reflecting on achievements and identifying possible areas for improve-
ment. Considering all of the previous questions, what are some possible
46 Imagining new possibilities

modifications we might want to consider? What additional information do

we need?
• negotiating meaning. Does this information mean the same to all of us? How
important is it to us individually and collectively?
This first stage of the process of internationalization of the curriculum lays the
foundations for further work in later stages. It can itself be divided into four dif-
ferent steps as described in the guidelines that were developed for those leading
the process (see Figure 4.2).

Step 1: Identifying the team

This would generally be the group that teaches in the “core” of the PROGRAM, or
the COURSE COORDINATORS of the COURSES constituting the ACADEMIC
MAJOR. Staff teaching on the PROGRAM with an interest in internationalization
could also be invited to join the review. They should participate voluntarily.You may
also want to involve an academic or professional development lecturer with some
expertise in internationalization of the curriculum in your team at this point—as
well as, or alternatively, at Step 3 and Step 4.

Step 2: Completing the questionnaire

Individual team members may complete the questionnaire, on their own, as best
they can. They should be advised that it is likely that the answers to individual ques-
tions will vary considerably across the team. Alternatively, you might bring the team
together to complete the questionnaire together, discussing their answers as they
work through the questions. This approach effectively combines this Step and the
next Step, Discussing the responses.

Step 3: Discussing the responses

If staff completed the questionnaire individually, the team should come together
soon after having completed the questionnaire to share their responses and discuss
the rationales for their answers and any similarities and differences between them.
This discussion can be facilitated by the PROGRAM Director or another trusted
colleague with some knowledge in the area of internationalization of the curricu-
lum. It is useful to keep a summary of the key points—you may want to record the
discussion or nominate a note-taker.

Step 4: Deciding what to do next

After staff members have discussed the issues raised by the questionnaire you will
be better placed to develop a short-term and a long-term plan to internationalize
the curriculum in the PROGRAM.

Figure 4.2 Using the questionnaire on internationalization of the curriculum: A guide for
program directors and facilitators
 Imagining new possibilities 47

Stage 2: Imagine
The focus question in this stage of the process is: “What other ways of thinking
and doing are possible?”
The aim of this stage is to provoke discussions of existing paradigms within
the discipline, which will eventually result in an imagining of new possibili-
ties. Green and Whitsed describe this as “creating a place to play” (2012,
p. 159). The focus is on inviting questions concerning the validity of “the
way we always do things,” “what we know,” and “what we believe” in rela-
tion to the curriculum and student learning. The imagining worked best when
it was based on collective experiences and knowledge and critical reflection
within a team but it was never easy. Scholars have decried the demise of the
imagination in education given the limitless possibilities it provides (Nussbaum
2010; Egan 1992). In this stage of the process the intention was to open up
opportunities for transformative learning through “cultivating the imagina-
tion” (Norman 2000). Those involved highlighted the value of this phase of
the internationalization of the curriculum process. They cited benefits includ-
ing building and uniting the team, making connections, and identifying new
opportunities and directions for internationalization of the curriculum—all in
their unique context.
To prompt and guide discussion, the conceptual framework for interna-
tionalization of the curriculum described in Chapter 2 was used. The visual
representation of the relationship between internationalization of the curricu-
lum and disciplinary and institutional conditions in the framework was useful.
It led to debates concerning the relationship of the curriculum of the program
to national, regional, and world conditions. It prompted interrogation of the
foundations of knowledge in their disciplines, critical reflection on dominant
disciplinary paradigms, and consideration of emerging issues and challenges
in the broader discipline community and how these were or were not reflected
in the curriculum. In some instances, discussion of the framework facilitated
participation by those who had been silent or marginalized in the past, because
their experiences and views were different from others in the team. Review
and sometimes critique of the framework itself assisted understanding of the
broad concept of internationalization of the curriculum as well as the role of
the disciplines and academic staff in it. Staff began to consider what might be
possible, rather than just what could be possible. As discussion continued, they
explored alternative narratives, opportunities and possibilities. They moved
beyond assumptions about “the way we think about things” and “the way we
do things” in our discipline community and in our program to consider new
ways of thinking and doing.
The inclusion of the Imagine stage, approached in this way, ensures that
internationalization of the curriculum provides an intellectual challenge, increased
motivation to expand research collaboration with international colleagues, and
new opportunities to connect research with teaching. It has emerged as a critical
stage in the process as is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.
48 Imagining new possibilities

The activities associated with this stage might include:

• discussing the cultural foundations of dominant paradigms in the discipline

• examining the origins and nature of the paradigm within which the
curriculum is constructed
• identifying emergent paradigms in the discipline and thinking about the
possibilities they offer
• imagining the world of the future including what and how your students will
need to learn in order to live and work effectively and ethically in this future
world
• imagining some different ways of doing things in the foreseeable future
• brainstorming a range of possibilities to deepen and extend the
internationalization of the program.

Stages 1 and 2 lay the foundations for the more concrete revision and planning
to be undertaken in Stage 3. While the boundaries between stages are permeable
rather than hard, it is desirable to be as creative and imaginative as possible in
Stage 2, before moving on to the more practical work involved in Stage 3.

Stage 3: Revise and plan

The focus question in this stage of the process is “Given the possibilities for
internationalizing the curriculum, what changes do we want to make to the
program?”
It is this stage where decisions concerning actions that will be taken immediately,
in the medium term, and in the long term need to be discussed and some decisions
made. Here the practicalities associated with university planning and approval pro-
cesses and timelines must be considered. Some teams approached this stage as one
where they negotiated with the wider team concerning the approach they would
take to internationalization, developed program internationalization goals, and
developed detailed short-, medium-, and long-term plans. Some found it useful to
directly connect their program plans with broader university plans by, for example,
linking internationalization of the curriculum closely to the development of uni-
versity-wide graduate attributes or policy initiatives related to the incorporation of
Indigenous perspectives in the curriculum. The most successful plans were those
that identified some quick wins, the achievement of which ensured momentum
and enthusiasm for the harder, longer-term goals was not lost.
The activities associated with this stage might include:

• establishing program-specific goals and objectives for internationalization of

the curriculum
• detailing end-of-program international and intercultural intended learning
outcomes
 Imagining new possibilities 49

• mapping the development and assessment of these learning outcomes for all
students across the program
• identifying blockers and enablers for students and the teaching team in
achieving the desired outcomes
• identifying experts, champions, and latent champions in the team and across
the university who can help to achieve the plan
• identifying and sourcing support and resources to assist staff and students to
overcome major obstacles
• setting priorities and developing an action plan focused on who will do what,
by when, and what resources and support will be required
• discussing how the effectiveness of any changes made to the curriculum will
be evaluated, including their effect on student learning
• negotiating the roles of individual team members in the process of interna-
tionalization of the curriculum in the next two stages.

A useful resource used in this stage was a survey of “blockers and enablers” to
internationalization of the curriculum. Informed by the work of Stohl (2007),
Clifford (2009), Childress (2010), and Egron-Polak and Hudson (2010) and
using the experience and interaction I have had with a wide range of academic
staff, academic developers, and university managers, I created a list of 13 enablers
and 17 blockers. The survey asks participants to indicate which blockers and ena-
blers apply to them. Where a factor applies, they classify it as major or minor. The
survey is included in full in Chapter 9.
Enablers were defined as any factors in an institutional environment that can
support staff in developing and providing an internationalized curriculum to
students. Enablers included university policy, management practices, human
resource procedures, professional development, or reward structures; leader-
ship; organizational culture; and provision of training and other opportunities
for self-development. Blockers were defined as any factors that inhibited staff in
developing and providing an internationalized curriculum. They include factors
such as disciplinary ways of thinking, which may inhibit or restrict approaches
to internationalization of the curriculum. Other blockers include a lack of sup-
port/resourcing for academic staff to collaborate with or work in international
industry settings, lack of (or poor communication of) institutional vision, and
weakly defined policy and strategy in relation to internationalization. For a
more detailed discussion of the obstacles to internationalization of the cur-
riculum, see Chapter 8.
The survey can be administered formally with discipline groups, schools or
departments, or across whole institutions. It is a useful discussion starter with
small groups. Importantly, once blockers and enablers are identified, strate-
gies can be developed to address them. This avoids the situation where the
good ideas developed in the Imagine stage are lost or abandoned in the face
of practical difficulties.
50 Imagining new possibilities

Stage 4: Act
The focus question in this stage of the process was: “How will we know if we have
achieved our internationalization of the curriculum goals?”
It is in this stage that the plans that have been formulated are implemented
and provision is made to evaluate their impact. This might involve, for example,
professional development for teaching staff in teaching and assessing intercul-
tural skills; the introduction of new student activities in the informal (or co-
curriculum) to assist intercultural skills development in students and/or others
the introduction of a new course into the core curriculum focused on the cultural
foundations of knowledge in the discipline.
Other activities associated with this stage might include:

• negotiating and implementing new teaching arrangements and support ser-

vices for staff and students
• introducing compulsory workshops for all students prior to a multicultural
team work assignment
• introducing new assessment tasks
• introducing a new course/unit into the core curriculum
• introducing a new elective
• developing assessment rubrics for use in different courses across the program
• collecting evidence required for evaluation of changes made on the develop-
ment of intercultural and international knowledge, skills, and attitudes in
students (qualitative and/or quantitative).

Stage 5: Evaluate
The focus question in this stage of the process is: “To what extent have we
achieved our internationalization goals?”
This is where the evidence is gathered to evaluate how effective changes
have been in achieving the desired goals. As with all action research the process is
cyclical, the data collected in this phase informing the next cycle, beginning with
Stage 1: Review and Reflect.
The activities associated with this stage might include:

• analyzing evidence collected from stakeholders

• reflecting on the impact of action taken
• considering any “interference” factors e.g. unexpected events that may have
had a positive or negative impact on achievement of goals
• considering any gaps in the evidence and collecting post-hoc evidence if
necessary
• summarizing achievements and feeding results into “Review and
Reflect” stage
• negotiating ongoing roles and responsibilities for internationalization of the
curriculum within the program team.
 Imagining new possibilities 51

Reflections on the process in action

The process was neither quick nor simple. It was certainly not formulaic however
neat and defined the stages appear to be in Figure 4.1. In reality, stages were
overlapping and even chaotic at times. The “Imagine” stage emerged as the most
important. “Imagining” excited and engaged staff more than any other activity,
yet it was the most challenging for them. Ideally, the process will involve all pro-
gram/discipline team members in the “Review and Reflect” stage when existing
practice is being reviewed and rationales for internationalization of the curricu-
lum for the program/discipline are being developed. Similarly, in the “Imagine”
stage, it is desirable for all or most team members to be involved when the cul-
tural foundations of dominant paradigms in the discipline are discussed and dif-
ferent ways of organizing and delivering the curriculum are imagined. Once these
matters have been discussed, involving 4–5 core team members in the initial part
of the “Revise and Plan” stage is also valuable. At this stage, some team mem-
bers may take on different roles in the process. For example, in some instances
those teaching distinctively “Australian content” (for example “Australian legal
requirements”) were not interested in having any ongoing involvement in inter-
nationalization of the curriculum. In other instances, those staff members saw
value in ongoing involvement in the discussions. This varied in different teams.
What was important was that each team negotiated the best solution for them at
that time. Negotiation was identified as an important feature of all stages in the
five-stage process of internationalization of the curriculum by participants in the
case studies. Four case studies illustrating the stages of the process in action in
different disciplines and universities are provided in Chapter 10.
As a whole, there were five key lessons learned about how to ensure the
effectiveness of the process of internationalization of the curriculum.

1 The process is effective when it is approached in a scholarly way by disciplinary

communities of practice.
2 The process is effective when it involves critical reflection on dominant and
emerging paradigms within the discipline.
3 The process is effective when it considers the program in a holistic way rather
than as a disconnected set of courses/subjects/modules/units.
4 The process is effective when it facilitates interdisciplinary conversations
within an environment of trust and a culture of investigation.
5 The process is effective when it is “interactive and long term” involving “mul-
tiple opportunities for cycles of engagement reflection and collaborative par-
ticipation” (Green & Whitsed 2013, p. 159).

Conclusion
This chapter has described a loosely structured five-stage process of internation-
alization of the curriculum, resulting in situated learning in disciplinary com-
munities of practice. Significant change takes time and should be undertaken in
52 Imagining new possibilities

a critical, scholarly, and reflective way, with careful monitoring of the outcomes.
Internationalization of the curriculum is not something that can be approached
as a list of disconnected activities that can be crossed off a list and forgotten. It
is best tackled as a developmental and cyclical process across a program. It will
require support by strong leadership at the discipline and school level and col-
laborative action on the part of program teams and support staff. Furthermore,
imagining new possibilities is an essential part of the process of internationali-
zation of the curriculum in any discipline. Institutional, national, regional, and
global conditions are all constantly changing and subject to different interpreta-
tions in different disciplines by different teams and individuals. Staff members
need to return to it, as part of regular program review, with due consideration
being given to the institutional, regional, national, and world context within
which the program is delivered. Given the rapid pace of change in all contexts,
the task of internationalizing the curriculum is unlikely ever to be completed.
Chapter 5

Graduate capabilities, global

citizenship and intercultural
competency

In this chapter, we explore three concepts connected with internationalization of

the curriculum: graduate capabilities, global citizenship, and intercultural com-
petence. All are contested to some degree and all may play an important role
in internationalization of the curriculum. The discussion in this chapter is an
important precursor to the discussion in Chapter 6 on learning, teaching, and
assessment in the internationalized curriculum.

Graduate capabilities
What is it that makes a university graduate of any university unique and different?
What are the core outcomes of a university education? Apart from advanced
knowledge of a field of study do they have a different skillset? A particular set of
values and attitudes? How do these values complement and relate to the discipli-
nary and professional knowledge they have developed?
Graduate capabilities, also referred to as key skills, graduate attributes, gradu-
ate qualities, graduate capabilities, graduate capacities, graduate competencies,
professional skills, and employability skills, are one way in which universities
have attempted to not only define what a university graduate looks like but what
distinguishes graduates of one university from graduates of another university.
Graduate capabilities have been defined as:

the qualities, skills and understandings a university community agrees its

students should develop during their time with the institution. These attrib-
utes include, but go beyond, the disciplinary expertise or technical knowl-
edge that has traditionally formed the core of most university courses.
(Bowden et al. 2002, p. 1)

Certainly prospective students, employers, and society more generally expect

that university graduates will have developed a set of capabilities that distinguish
them from those who have not completed at least an undergraduate degree.
Exactly what these capabilities might be has been the subject of much discussion
54 Graduate skills and global citizenship

in the last 15 years. Fallows and Steven (2000), drawing on reports from
the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia, reported almost universal
acceptance of a need to develop wide-ranging communication skills, informa-
tion management and information technology skills, group-work skills, problem-
solving and lifelong learning skills, and a range of personal skills such as time
management and personal and ethical responsibility. In some universities knowl-
edge capabilities, skills capabilities, and “attitudes and values” are treated as sepa-
rate graduate capabilities; in others “clusters” of skills, knowledge, and attitudes
are grouped under descriptors such as “citizenship” and “ethical and social under-
standing.” Some descriptions of these clusters are more specific than others. For
example, “ethical and responsible citizens” as opposed to “ethical and responsible
global citizens” and “effective communicators and team members” as opposed to
“competent communicators and team members in culturally diverse and inter-
national environments.” Such emphasis, or lack of it, supports the view of Barrie
(2004), that the way in which an institution describes its graduate attributes will
be influenced by its ethos, as well as the broader political and social climate in
which the institution operates. The increasing focus on employability as an out-
come of higher education in recent decades has resulted in many descriptions of
similar but different sets of graduate capabilities in universities around the world.
However, graduate capabilities are about more than employability. They are
also about the development of the whole person in the context of their profes-
sional, personal, and social lives and “the common good.” Hough (1991) argued
that a concern for the common good should be one of the criteria for educational
excellence; the common good including “those conditions such as peace, unity,
and justice, that make possible relations among individuals that will promote
mutual communication for the purpose of living well” (p. 100). Hough traces
the changing perceptions from medieval times of what constitutes the common
good and the changing role that universities have played in supporting the global
common good during this period. He argued that the current dominance of the
research agenda in universities, as important a function as it is, had distorted their
purpose and made it virtually impossible for universities to pursue the common
good until those distortions are addressed. He argued that universities had in
effect become inward looking and self-serving organizations, rather than out-
ward looking community-focused organizations. Hough called for interdiscipli-
nary discourse and for a focus on the “global notion of our common good, which
transcends individualism, nationalism and anthropocentrism” because “the larger
issues of the common good are transnational” (p. 117). This would help to coun-
terbalance the narrow professional and national preoccupations that have come
to dominate universities.
A focus on graduate capabilities has the potential to direct attention to the devel-
opment of students as “social and human beings” as well as “economic beings”
(Rizvi & Lingard 2010). However, the possibilities are not always recognized or
realized. Instrumental approaches based on constructions of citizens as consum-
ers of policy, as passive recipients of what others have created, intentionally or
 Graduate skills and global citizenship 55

accidentally, rather than critical and reflexive agents of change are not appropriate
for a university education. Tomorrow’s world will be a better world if the stu-
dents of today are educated to become graduates who have the knowledge, skills,
and attitudes required to actively participate in creating a better future for others
as well as themselves. A focus on students’ various “beings” within international,
intercultural, and global contexts offers rich potential for internationalization of
the curriculum (see for example Jones & Killick 2013; Leask 2010) but requires
careful attention to identifying appropriate skills, knowledge, and attitudes and
balancing and prioritizing their development.
Fallows and Steven (2000) noted both commonality and divergence in the
approach to the description and development of graduate attributes in students.
Different institutions have differing areas of focus and emphasis, depending on
a range of local factors. While many institutions across the world state cross-
cultural communication and international perspectives as intended outcomes for
graduating students, the focus and importance attributed to these generic skills
varies considerably. In some institutions, they are separated out; in others they
are subsumed under more general headings such as social understanding or skills
for globalization. The following statements are representative of the range of
graduate capabilities linked to internationalization of the curriculum found on
University websites all over the world:

• knowledge of other cultures and times and an appreciation of cultural

diversity
• responsiveness to national and international communities
• the ability to work effectively in settings of social and cultural diversity
• a capacity to work effectively in diverse settings and to relate well to people
from diverse backgrounds
• global perspectives—the ability to understand and respect interdependence
of life in a globalized world
• international perspectives and competence in a global environment
• international perspectives as a professional and as a citizen

Graduate capabilities linked to internationalization assume different levels of

importance in different universities. Some institutions highlight them as key
areas while others present them as subsidiary skills, contributing to the devel-
opment of higher order skills such as the development of ethical and social
understanding.
There is also a range of approaches taken to the implementation of graduate
attributes—some institutions teaching and assessing them separately from the
degree program (“adding them on”), others integrating their development and
assessment into the teaching and learning activities of the program (“embed-
ding” them), and others combining the two approaches by integrating as well as
providing optional additional opportunities to develop graduate capabilities in
extracurricular programs.
56 Graduate skills and global citizenship

My introduction to internationalization of the curriculum related directly to

the implementation of a set of graduate capabilities at the University of South
Australia, where I was employed in the late 1990s. The Qualities of a University
of South Australia Graduate (commonly referred to as the “Graduate Qualities”)
were introduced to assist curriculum planning, to facilitate curriculum change in
all undergraduate programs, and to differentiate graduates of the University of
South Australia from those of other universities. They were an effective means
of directing staff attention to the development of skills and attitudes as well
as knowledge in degree programs. Seven Graduate Qualities were introduced
in 1996 and I was employed in 1998 to interpret and implement Graduate
Quality #7 across the University. The Graduate Qualities were that a graduate of
the University of South Australia will:

1 operate effectively with and upon a body of knowledge of sufficient depth to

begin professional practice
2 be prepared for life-long learning in pursuit of personal development and
excellence in professional practice
3 be an effective problem solver, capable of applying logical, critical and creative
thinking to a range of problems
4 be able to work both autonomously and collaboratively as a professional
5 be committed to ethical action and social responsibility as a professional and
a citizen
6 communicate effectively in professional practice and as a member of the
community
7 demonstrate international perspectives as a professional and as a citizen.

As part of the program planning and approval process the balance of Graduate
Qualities to be developed in courses within a program had to described and these
“generic” qualities had to be interpreted at the discipline and program level. The
intention was to ensure that there was a correlation between the specific needs of
the workplace and the skills balance demonstrated by graduates of the program.
Very early on in the implementation process it became clear that while Graduate
Quality #7 related specifically to internationalization, there were also “interna-
tional perspectives” relevant to other Graduate Attributes. For example, to be
able to work autonomously and collaboratively in any profession you would more
than likely have to be able to work in diverse teams (Graduate Quality 4 and
Graduate Quality 7); to communicate effectively in professional practice and as a
citizen you would need to be interculturally and internationally aware (Graduate
Quality 6 and Graduate Quality 7); and to be an effective problem solver in an
international or intercultural context you would require international/intercul-
tural perspectives (Graduate Quality 3 and Graduate Quality 7). Furthermore,
the specific international perspectives required in different professions are often
quite different. For example, the international perspectives required of a nurse
or a pharmacist focusing more on sociocultural understanding than those of an
engineer, where the focus might be more on the understanding of the global
and environmental responsibilities of the professional engineer and the need
 Graduate skills and global citizenship 57

for sustainable development. And while practicing nurses, pharmacists, and

engineers should all be able to recognize intercultural issues relevant to their pro-
fessional practice and have a broad understanding of social, cultural, and global
issues affecting their profession, the strategies they will need to use to deal with
them will be different in some ways even though they may be similar in others.
Comparable differences exist between the international perspectives required of,
for example, accountants and teachers. The nature, importance, and application
of the graduate quality will therefore be subtly different in different professions.
My role was to explore the possibilities for embedding the development of all
seven Graduate Qualities in different degree programs, but with a particular focus
on Graduate Quality 7.
Nine indicators were provided to academic staff as a guide to the general sorts
of characteristics that graduates who have achieved Graduate Quality 7 might
exhibit as professionals and as citizens. As part of the program planning pro-
cess, program and course writers developed more elaborated or different indica-
tors that related specifically to their discipline area. The development of this and
other graduate qualities in students was then embedded into the regular teaching,
learning, and assessment tasks occurring within the program. The generic indica-
tors for Graduate Quality 7 are detailed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Indicators of Graduate Quality 7

Indicator A graduate who demonstrates international perspectives as a professional

and a citizen will …

7.1 display an ability to think globally and consider issues from a variety of
perspectives

7.2 demonstrate an awareness of their own culture and its perspectives

and other cultures and their perspectives

7.3 appreciate the relation between their field of study locally and
professional traditions elsewhere

7.4 recognize intercultural issues relevant to their professional practice

7.5 appreciate the importance of multicultural diversity to professional

practice and citizenship

7.6 appreciate the complex and interacting factors that contribute to

notions of culture and cultural relationships

7.7 value diversity of language and culture

7.8 appreciate and demonstrate the capacity to apply international

standards and practices within the discipline or professional area

7.9 demonstrate awareness of the implications of local decisions and

actions for international communities and of international decisions
and actions for local communities
58 Graduate skills and global citizenship

The focus in these generic indicators is a dual one—there is emphasis on both

the acquisition of skills and knowledge related to professional areas as well as the
development of values and cross-cultural awareness. Intercultural learning (the
development of an understanding and valuing of their own and other cultures) is
the focus of indicators 7.2, 7.4, 7.6, and 7.7; the development of knowledge and
understanding is the focus of 7.3 and 7.5; and the application of what has been
learned to professional practice is the focus of 7.1, 7.8, and 7.9. The indicators of
Graduate Quality 7 were a public statement of the focus of internationalization
at the curriculum level—they constituted policy in relation to the internation-
alization of teaching, learning, and assessment arrangements of undergraduate
courses and programs at the university.
Graduate capabilities can certainly provide a logical framework and institutional
policy driver for the development and assessment of international, intercultural,
and global perspectives as part of an internationalized curriculum—a framework
that is accessible and relevant to academic staff developing and teaching programs
across a range of disciplines.

Global citizenship
The rationale for internationalization of the curriculum is often associated with
preparing graduates to live and work locally in a globalized world. In 1992, Harari
connected internationalization of the curriculum with the need to prepare gradu-
ates for “the highly interdependent and multicultural world in which they live
and (will) have to function in the future” in the United States (p. 53). In 1995,
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defini-
tion similarly connected internationalization of the curriculum with preparation
for life in national and multicultural contexts through an international orientation
in content (OECD/CERI 1995). In 2005, Webb said that internationalization
of the curriculum in Australia “helps students to develop an understanding of the
global nature of scientific, economic, political and cultural exchange,” (p. 111). In
2007, Ogude argued that internationalization of the curriculum in South Africa
should be connected to preparing students to be globally competitive graduates
as well as generating new knowledge (Ogude 2007). In 2009, the Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada suggested that an internationalized curricu-
lum is “a means for Canadian students to develop global perspectives and skills at
home” (AUCC 2009, p. 5). Today, “this notion of global citizenship has become
part of the internationalization discourse in higher education around the world,”
(Deardorff & Jones 2012, p. 295).
There is, however, less agreement on what is meant by the term “global
citizenship” and the scope and nature of the learning outcomes necessary for
graduates to be global citizens.
As Lewin (2009, p. xviii) observes, “everyone seems to be in such a rush to
create global citizens out of their students that we seem to have forgotten even to
determine what we are even trying to create….” Some even argue that the concept
 Graduate skills and global citizenship 59

has no intellectual substance primarily because citizenship is connected with the

notion of the nation state and related rights and responsibilities. Furthermore,
large numbers of the world’s population do not have access to either citizenship
or, if they have citizenship, they are denied even the most basic rights associ-
ated with it. So for example, Bates (2012) argues that by definition citizenship
requires that an individual is accepted by a state as a member and that this calls
into question “the viability of the very notion of global citizenship which implies
something that is inclusive of all” (p. 266). In reality, however, many in the world
are “stateless” and have no access at all to the privileges the term “global citizen”
implies. Furthermore, pursuing global citizenship as an outcome of higher edu-
cation will exaggerate and exacerbate existing inequalities, excluding some and
creating a global transnational elite. For those who are already members of that
latter group, global citizenship education will extend and deepen their status and
guarantee them ongoing prominence in managing global affairs. However, those
who have no access to secure state citizenship are completely excluded from the
possibility of global citizenship. The danger is that in pursuing “global citizen-
ship” we will increase the negative impacts of globalization by further increasing
the privilege and power of some groups compared with others and ensuring that
the privileges some enjoy are even more unattainable than ever for others.
Rizvi (2007) argues that modern expressions of globalization, such as global
citizenship, are founded on global inequalities produced by colonial conquest.
Hence there is the danger that narrow notions of global citizenship, focused only
on the development of students as economic beings, consistent with instrumental
and commercial education agendas, will exacerbate rather than ease the tensions
and inequalities produced by colonialism. He argues that there is a need to focus
on cosmopolitan learning—learning which understands local issues within the
“broader context of the global shifts that are reshaping the ways in which locali-
ties, and even social identities, are now becoming re-constituted” (Rizvi 2009,
p. 254) as an instrument of “critical understanding and moral improvement”
(p. 263). Rizvi and Lingard (2010) call for “a new imaginary” which recognizes
that all human beings need to think locally, nationally, and globally—a form of
cosmopolitan citizenship that emphasizes collective well-being connected across
local, national, and “global dimensions” (p. 202).
An alternative view is that global citizenship is complementary to national citi-
zenship (Schattle 2009). Global citizenship is entirely cultivated through educa-
tion and experience, whereas national citizenship is bestowed upon individuals by
an authority. Given the increasingly porous nature of the social environment in
which we live, it seems neither tenable nor logical to consider citizenship as solely
connected to the local geographic and national context. Globalization has blurred
national boundaries. When the way in which we live our lives in one part of the
world has a direct impact on the way in which others lead theirs in a completely
different part of the world, today and in the future, our rights and responsibili-
ties take on new dimensions. Globalization has expanded the scope and focus of
social, economic, and political responsibilities. A sensible way forward is to think
60 Graduate skills and global citizenship

of the “citizenship” part of “global citizenship” not in the legal, territorial, and
formal sense of a status but in the sense of attitudes and values—mindset and
mindfulness—a way of thinking about ourselves and others, awareness of how
our actions affect others, respect and concern for their well-being, and a commit-
ment to certain types of action to address world problems. This can be conceptu-
alized as responsible global citizenship.
Responsible global citizens will recognize that the problems we need to solve—
economic, religious, and political—are global in their scope. There is no hope
of these problems being solved unless people see themselves as world citizens,
are able and willing cooperate in new ways, and willing to take positive action,
rather than simply avoiding negative action. Responsible global citizens are not
only knowledgeable and skillful, but they also have particular values and attitudes.
Kubow et al. (2000) articulate these as “a set of civic ethics or values” that have
been internalized and accepted as “part of our individual and social responsibility
to address” (pp. 133–134).
There is some convergence of thinking around the concept of global
citizenship that suggests the idea of responsible global citizenship. A study con-
ducted by Lilley, Barker, and Harris (2015) found less ambiguity than expected
amongst a group of international and intersectoral participants concerning
the disposition and mindset of “the ideal global graduate.” The disposition is
“a process of ‘becoming’ an ethical thinking person”—a view consistent with
the cosmopolitan learner (Rizvi 2009)—and the mindset is “the capacity to
imagine difference, question assumptions, think as the ‘other’ and walk in
their shoes, and critical and ethical thinking” (p. xx). Others also see global
citizenship as founded on a personal ethic which is both local and global in
scope and focused on accountability and social change (see for example Killick
2013; Schattle 2009). Principled decision-making, solidarity across human-
ity (Schattle 2009), and the collective well-being (Rizvi & Lingard 2010) are
other characteristics consistent with the concept of responsible global citizenship.
Responsible global citizens will be committed to action locally and globally in the
interests of others and across social, environmental, and political dimensions.
Awareness of self and others, of one’s surroundings, and of the wider world
coupled with responsibility for one’s actions across these three dimensions char-
acterize responsible global citizenship.
It may be useful to think of becoming a responsible global citizen as a
continuum along which individuals move, or not. At one end of the contin-
uum, the individual is totally engrossed in life at the local level and believes
that globalization has smoothed out most differences. This is the equivalent of
Bennett and Bennett’s “Denial” stage of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett &
Bennett 2004). Interim stages include increasing awareness of self and others
in the world—“Defence,” “Minimisation,” and “Acceptance and Adaptation”
stages (Bennett & Bennett 2004)—and the relationships between local decisions
and actions and global impacts. These interim stages might include awareness of
the interdependent nature of our world, understanding of how local and global
 Graduate skills and global citizenship 61

issues affect the well-being of different groups and individuals around the world,
and avoidance of actions that might have a negative impact. At the other end of
the global citizen continuum, an individual has a set of knowledge, skills, eth-
ics, values, and attitudes that result in action in the best interests of collective
humanity. This individual will be pro-actively engaged in creating and maintain-
ing a more humane and sustainable world locally, internationally, and globally.
The development of this sort of global citizen requires a holistic view of learning
and the development of students’ global selves (Killick 2015) and institutional
approaches that recognize internationalization as a powerful force for change on
a personal and a global level.
The social impact of universities on a global scale is a key feature in the evolution
of higher education (Escrigas et al. 2014). In the last 10–15 years there has been
an increasing focus in universities on the creation and use of knowledge in society
through increased and closer engagement with their communities. An explicit
focus on the development of responsible global citizens as part of a university
education is one way in which universities can have an impact on local communi-
ties and global society. I suggest that developing responsible global citizens who
are deeply committed to solving the world’s problems and well equipped with the
knowledge and skills required to create new and exciting possible worlds requires
careful planning and curriculum design with an explicit focus on:

• the whole world as a global community with a shared destiny

• developing students social consciousness through their program of study
• the long-term benefits of a university education for world society rather than
short-term instrumental benefits for individuals within the socioeconomic
system
• cognitive justice through broadening the scope of whose knowledge counts
in the curriculum.

Escrigas, Sancez, Hall, and Tando (2014) argue that the latter requires moving
beyond dominant approaches to knowledge as being linked to the market and the
economy. These approaches simply reproduce and reinforce existing society from
generation to generation. A more inclusive understanding of knowledge in uni-
versities offers new possibilities, including the capacity to find solutions to com-
plex problems in the local and global context through transnational knowledge
societies and networks. Webb (2005) argues similarly that it is important that
curriculum content engages with multiple and global sources of knowledge and
that students explore how knowledge is produced, distributed, exchanged, and
utilized globally. This suggests the need to critically examine the way in which we
approach not only knowledge dissemination in higher education but also knowl-
edge production. Researchers, curriculum designers, and teachers need to be
aware of and avoid the distortions that will inevitably result if the knowledge on
which programs of study are based is solely the result of narrowly based research
motivated by commercial gain, rather than not-for-profit research focused on
62 Graduate skills and global citizenship

improving human well-being on a global scale. Some argue that in areas such as
medicine, physics, nutrition, and geology, a focus on commercial research has
resulted in the common good of humanity and a critical assessment of ideas being
replaced by competition and economic self-interest. Furthermore, they argue
that the open sharing of ideas and the possibilities afforded by new knowledge
have been replaced with secrecy and restricted access. McArthur (2013) argues
that if commercial research is allowed to dominate it will result in an “enormous
distortion” to the whole community of knowledge (p. 75) and social injustice on
a global scale.
The term global citizenship is variously interpreted and is not necessarily
benign. An approach to the development of global citizens within a cognitively
unjust curriculum may lead to graduates focused more on increasing their own
economic and social power through the intentional or unintentional exploita-
tion of others. A curriculum that develops responsible global citizens must address
the complex, contested, and dynamic nature of knowledge and ensure that the
scope of whose knowledge counts in the curriculum is broad. The development
of responsible global citizens requires that we take action within the curriculum. It
can be a useful driver for internationalization of the curriculum.

Intercultural competence
Intercultural competence is frequently described as a graduate attribute, an out-
come of internationalization (and in particular international activities such as
study abroad and exchange), a requirement for effective global citizenship, and a
professional competency.
Studies of intercultural competence have been undertaken by researchers in
fields such as linguistics, cultural studies, and communication studies over many
years and more recently there have been specific studies focused on intercul-
tural competence in higher education. The latter is to some degree a response
to Knight’s call to address “the intersection of international and intercultural”
(Knight 2004, p. 49) as well as the practicalities associated with the internation-
alization of higher education. The result is many different ways of defining and
understanding the term “intercultural competence.”
There are a number of definitions of intercultural competence that have been
used by scholars and practitioners in universities to inform policy and practice
in internationalization, including the intersection of “the international and the
intercultural.” One definition that has been frequently used is “knowledge of
others; knowledge of self; skills to interpret and relate; skills to discover and/or
to interact; valuing others’ values, beliefs, and behaviors; and relativizing one’s
self” (Byram 1997, p. 34). Heyward (2002) describes intercultural competence
as the “understandings, competencies, attitudes, language proficiencies, partici-
pation and identities necessary for successful cross-cultural engagement” (p. 10).
Paige, Jorstad, Siaya, Klein, and Colby (2003) describe it as “the culture-spe-
cific and culture general knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for effective
communication and interaction with individuals from other cultures” (p. 177).
 Graduate skills and global citizenship 63

These definitions are complementary rather than contradictory, and offer

university policy-makers, administrators, course designers, and teachers some
guidance. Nevertheless, there have been calls for greater definitional clarity from
some working in higher education.
Following such calls, in 2006 Deardorff published a “consensus” definition of
intercultural competence: “the ability to communicate effectively and appropri-
ately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills and
attitudes” (Deardorff 2006, p. 247). This definition was developed following a
study involving administrators from 24 universities in the U.S. and 23 intercul-
tural scholars, 21 from the U.S., 1 from Canada, and 1 from the UK. Hence the
definition represents U. S. consensus on the definition of intercultural compe-
tence, rather than a world view. As Deardorff (2006) points out, this definition
sees intercultural competence as residing “largely within the individual” (p. 245),
reflecting the focus of U.S. and Western culture more generally on the individual,
rather than the group, in contrast to many Asian cultures.
However, these definitions pose as many questions as answers. By what criteria
do we judge effectiveness and appropriateness in relation to intercultural compe-
tence: in instrumental terms (e.g. it achieved the desired result for both parties at
the time) or affective terms (e.g. it felt good for everyone)? Does an interaction
have to be both effective and appropriate? What if it is a social interaction with
no intended outcome? What constitutes effectiveness in this situation? Is it ever
possible to be “interculturally competent” in every situation? I may, for example,
develop linguistic, cultural, and social skills and attitudes that make me “intercul-
turally competent” in China, but will those skills mean I am interculturally com-
petent in Spain? I may have acquired a number of culture-general skills such as
an understanding of some of the reasons for cultural difference, but I will surely
have to learn some very different culture-specific skills in Spain. If every interac-
tion I have in China is both effective and appropriate (by what criteria?) but none
of my interactions are either effective or appropriate in Spain am I interculturally
competent? Must every interaction I have in Spain and China (and indeed in
other very different cultural contexts) be effective and appropriate in order for
me to be deemed interculturally competent? Is language proficiency required
for intercultural competence? How much proficiency do I need? To what extent
is intercultural competence a disposition or mindset, to what extent is it a set
of skills, and to what extent is it dependent on cultural knowledge? Is there an
ethical dimension to intercultural competence? How important is cultural knowl-
edge compared with knowledge of self? These questions not only highlight the
complexity of defining intercultural competence but the complexity of measuring
intercultural competence—if indeed it can be measured.
Intercultural competence is clearly a complex construct. There is agreement
that it includes skills, knowledge, and attitudes and that its development is an
ongoing process. In this regard, intercultural competence is a state of becoming,
rather than a destination. Hence it is particularly important to explore peda-
gogies that will assist students to enter this state of becoming interculturally
competent.
64 Graduate skills and global citizenship

Pedagogies to develop intercultural competence that have been tested in

discipline-specific contexts are, however, limited. This is in part because intercul-
tural learning is often assumed to be an automatic outcome and benefit of inter-
cultural contact on campus, intercultural contact in class, and periods of study
abroad in which students are immersed in another culture. The latter is often
claimed to be “transformative.” However, it is increasingly recognized that this
is not always the case and a growing body of evidence that some sort of interven-
tion is required at home and abroad if students are to enter a state of becoming
interculturally competent in a program of study (Weber-Bosley 2010).
One useful discipline-specific example of the development of intercultural
competence through a program of study is that of Freeman et al. (2009), which
resulted in the development of a taxonomy of intercultural competence designed
to assist academic staff to map existing opportunities, as well as design and incor-
porate new opportunities, for students to become interculturally competent in
their study program. For the project team from across four universities involved
in the development and use of the taxonomy, the foundation for its development
was the recognition that intercultural competence was an important graduate
attribute in the context of a business degree. Following an extensive scan of the
extant literature on intercultural competence, it was defined as:

A dynamic, ongoing, interactive self-reflective learning process that trans-

forms attitudes, skills and knowledge for effective communication and inter-
action across cultures and contexts
(Freeman et al. 2009, p. 13).

This definition was developed by a team of academic leaders with responsi-

bility for leadership in curriculum design across a range of business programs.
It is widely recognized that the ability to work in culturally diverse teams, to
understand and relate to others, and to be able to negotiate and communicate
effectively and appropriately in a range of different cultural and national environ-
ments, are important for graduates given the demands of the business world at
home and abroad (and the connections between them). The task of supporting
staff to develop the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes in students is chal-
lenging. Many academic staff in the disciplines in Freeman et al.’s study (2009)
were not entirely convinced that it was their role to develop it and even those
who were committed were often uncertain of its meaning and how to go about
the process of developing it (including describing intended learning outcomes),
teaching it, and assessing it. This situation is not unique to business programs.
Engineers, archaeologists, and physicists all over the world will at some stage
more than likely work in a multicultural, diverse team and they will need to exer-
cise intercultural competence in other work and social situations—as profession-
als and citizens. The development of intercultural competence is important in
all programs of study, even if the rationale is less obvious. Hence it is important
that both students and staff enter a state of becoming interculturally competent
and deliberate strategies and processes focused on staff and students are required.
 Graduate skills and global citizenship 65

The taxonomy of intercultural competence (see Figure 5.1) provides a tool that
can be used to both map and embed intercultural competence in and across any
program of study. Although it was developed specifically for those involved in
teaching business degrees, and was developed and trialed with staff in business
faculties, the taxonomy is also adaptable to other disciplinary programs.
The taxonomy comprises three overlapping Domains (Knowledge, Attitudes,
and Skills) and three Levels (Awareness, Understanding, and Autonomy). No one
Domain is more important than another, nor is any one sufficient on its own. The
Domains were developed with reference to the intercultural literature from dif-
ferent disciplines (e.g. Crichton & Scarino 2007; Paige, M 1993; Seidel 1981).
The Levels were developed with reference to teaching and learning literature.
Specifically, the description of the three Levels (Awareness, Understanding,
and Autonomy) in the Knowledge Domain were developed with reference to
Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom 1956). The description of the three Levels in the
Attitudes Domain were developed with reference to Bennett and Bennett (2004)
and the description of the three Levels in the Skills Domain were developed with
reference to Biggs (2003). Hence each Domain was aligned to widely recognized
sequences validated within different disciplinary contexts. These were incorpo-
rated into the descriptions of each level of each Domain.
Knowledge, values, and skills aligned across a developmental matrix enable
the practical location and mapping of content and teaching, learning, and assess-
ment opportunities and activities in intercultural competence. So, for example,

Knowledge Attitudes Skills

Acknowledges Applies
Awareness

Identifies the practical significance of own basic skills or directions to

cultural foundations of own and and others’ cultural identity routine tasks and interactions
others’ norms, values, experiences (beliefs, values, norms and biases) to accommodate
and interactions and their impact on behavior and (a) specified
interactions cultural difference/s
Understanding

Analyses Adapts Implements

how diversity influences interaction to differences between oneself appropriate processes and behaviors
(and how culture and others in interactions in varying for interactions with different
manifests itself in interaction) cultural contexts cultural settings and audiences

Reflects Values Selects or creates

Autonomy

and self-evaluates one’s own intercultural interactions and complex skill sets in interactions
and others’ capabilities and limitations experiences with those from other under conditions of uncertainty, risk
in interactions in varying cultural cultures to further one’s own and change in professional
contexts understanding and interactions business situations

Ridings, Simpson, Leask. 2008

Figure 5.1 Taxonomy of intercultural competence

66 Graduate skills and global citizenship

students who are at the Awareness level would know that cultural difference exists
(Knowledge Domain), that it is significant (Attitude Domain), and be able to
apply routine behaviors in new cultural situations (Skills) but they would not
know why the behavior is expected, or the values that it is founded upon. When
visiting China on a study tour, these students would know something about
Chinese culture, be interested to find out more, and be prepared to adapt their
own behavior to conform to common cultural conventions such as those sur-
rounding the exchange of business cards.
The taxonomy provides a guide to embedding learning experiences within the
curriculum in such a way that students achieve increasing autonomy as intercul-
tural learners, rather than achieving a finite state of intercultural competence.
The three levels of learning in the taxonomy, Awareness, Understanding, and
Autonomy, are not progressive or sequential. They are recursive and iterative.
Students may for example demonstrate Understanding in the Knowledge and
Attitudes Domains and Awareness in the Skills Domain in one situation and a
completely different combination of levels across the Domains in another situa-
tion. The goal is that students are themselves seeking to attain the Autonomous
level across all three Domains in a variety of different professional and social
contexts. Students who are Autonomous will be able to reflect on and evaluate
their own capabilities in intercultural competence in different situations, recog-
nizing where an interaction has not been effective or appropriate and seeking
out additional information, challenging their own attitudes and responses to the
situation, and actively seeking to develop the skills required to be more success-
ful next time.
The taxonomy is consistent with the idea of intercultural competence as a state
of becoming rather than a finite destination and is relevant to both students and
staff. It enables staff to both plan how to embed the development of intercul-
tural competence as a state of becoming into their curriculum and to critically
reflect on teaching intercultural competence. Critical reflection, guided by the
taxonomy, has been useful in assisting some staff members to make informed
judgments about their own as well as their students’ intercultural competence.
There are many ways to use the taxonomy. A teacher of a first year market-
ing course has, for example, used the taxonomy as a teaching resource to assist
students to understand the concept of intercultural competence and reflect on
the levels they displayed in the different domains in different situations. This
teacher also linked the development of intercultural competence to a university
graduate capability focused on “displaying international perspectives as a gradu-
ate and a citizen” and what this graduate capability actually meant in the context
of a marketing degree. The discussions included consideration of the value of
intercultural skills in students’ current and future work and personal lives and
opportunities across the degree to become interculturally competent in different
situations. This was linked to the need for professionals in the field of market-
ing to develop long-term, mutually supportive relationships with Australian and
international customers. The taxonomy was useful in raising students’ awareness
 Graduate skills and global citizenship 67

and developing their understanding of how negotiating styles are influenced by

culture and the importance of modifying marketing activity in response to the
cultures of specific markets and customers.
Others have used the taxonomy to assist them to map existing opportunities
across a degree program for students to develop their skills, knowledge, and atti-
tudes through the levels of awareness, understanding, and autonomy. It has also
been used to develop learning outcomes using the verbs in the different levels
and domains and as a means of ensuring that students have opportunities across
the degree program to practice, get feedback from others, and also reflect on and
self-evaluate their level of intercultural autonomy.
Intercultural competence is a complex and contested set of knowledge, skills
and attitudes. While it is relatively easy to see the theoretical connection it has
with internationalization of the curriculum, it is not as easy to identify effective
ways to assist students to become interculturally autonomous as human, social,
and economic beings.

Summing up
Individually and collectively, graduate capabilities, global citizenship, and inter-
cultural competence require interpretation across disciplines and programs.
Individually and collectively, they provide valuable foundations for internation-
alization of the curriculum in the disciplines. In the next chapter we turn our
attention to some of the details of teaching, learning, and assessment in an inter-
nationalized curriculum. We look at some of the ways in which the concepts we
have discussed in this chapter can be used in the process of internationalizing the
curriculum, including in the development of learning outcomes, learning activi-
ties, and assessment tasks.
This page intentionally left blank
Part II

Practical matters
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 6

Learning, teaching and assessment

The ultimate purpose for internationalizing a curriculum is to improve the

learning outcomes of students. This will not be achieved without careful pro-
gram and course design. In this book, we have discussed internationalization of
the curriculum as the incorporation of international, intercultural, and global
dimensions into the content of the curriculum as well as the teaching methods,
learning outcomes, and support services of a program of study. Furthermore, we
have talked about the importance of engaging all students with internationally
informed content and cultural and linguistic diversity and providing them with
opportunities to develop their international and intercultural perspectives across
an entire program of study. In this chapter, we explore how to define and describe
the learning outcomes of an internationalized curriculum, some of the learning
activities that might be used to develop them, and some issues associated with
assessment of learning outcomes in an internationalized curriculum.
Learning, teaching, and assessment are at the heart of internationalization
of the curriculum (Jones & Killick 2007). They can be critical points of deep
engagement for students with the potential to develop their individual and social
agency in a globalized world. Engagement, the extent to which students partici-
pate in purposeful learning activities, is frequently linked to the quality of student
learning outcomes (Coates 2005, p. 27). It is common to hear university leaders
complain that it is difficult to get staff engaged in the internationalization agenda
of the university and teachers complain that it is hard to get students engaged in
activities related to internationalization (including activities such as study abroad
and exchange, cross-cultural group work, international volunteering, etc.). It is
through staff and student engagement in an internationalized curriculum that
the internationalization agenda of universities connects with students. As grad-
uates, today’s students will shape the world of the future as economic beings
(professionals) and as social and human beings. Their actions and decisions in
the workplace, in their local community, and in their lives will have an impact
on others and be influenced by the breadth and depth of their knowledge about
the world, their skills in relating to others, and their values. Engaging students
with an internationalized curriculum now will have an impact on all of these
and hence on their future lives. The increasing interconnectedness of the world
means that there is also the potential for internationalization of the curriculum
72 Learning, teaching and assessment

to have a broader impact on society. International and intercultural interaction

and collaboration has the potential to develop cultural insight and exchange that
is enriching and enabling for individuals and through them for local, national,
and global communities. However, if students are to make meaningful contri-
butions to resolving issues that require “intelligent transnational deliberation
for their resolution” (Nussbaum 2010, p. 26), the big problems of the present
and of the future, we must identify and provide opportunities for all students to
develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to do this. This requires attention to
curriculum design.
In this book I have presented a definition of internationalization of the
curriculum, a conceptual framework, and a process of internationalization of
the curriculum that focus internationalization of the curriculum on all students,
challenge dominant paradigms, and are more open to “other” knowledge tradi-
tions. This amounts to a new paradigm of internationalization of the curriculum
focused on how to internationalize learning outcomes for all students in a planned
and systematic way across a program of study. One of the key concerns of this
paradigm of internationalization of the curriculum is ensuring that all students
graduate with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to make positive, ethical
contributions as citizens and professionals to their global, national, and local com-
munities. The purposeful development of students’ international and intercultural
perspectives requires the incorporation of specific international and intercultural
learning objectives in subjects, courses, or units of a program of study. Learning
needs to be “scaffolded” within the degree structure so that skills and knowledge
are built on progressively and the achievement of high-level international learning
outcomes is supported, assessed, and assured. Thus, it is important that the activi-
ties associated with an internationalized curriculum, and in particular, the core
components of assessment, teaching, and learning that are at its heart, are well
planned and managed, and that students receive constructive feedback on their
progress towards achievement of clearly defined international learning outcomes.
This chapter explores the following components of an internationalized
curriculum:

• intended learning outcomes

• organization of learning activities
• information and communication technologies
• assessment.

Intended learning outcomes

Learning outcomes are statements of what we want students to learn as the result
of the activities they undertake during a course and a program. They are the
critical elements in curriculum design—everything else should flow from them.
 Learning, teaching and assessment 73

They state the objectives of the curriculum in terms of what we want students to
be able to do, under what conditions, and to what level. For example:

At the end of this course, students will be able to recognize and respond
appropriately to the cultural needs of patients in non-critical care situations.

What will they be able to do? How will they demonstrate their learning? They
will be able to recognize and respond.
To what level? They will be able to do this at a level appropriate to the cultural
needs of the patients and the care situation.
Under what conditions? They will be able to do this in non-critical care
situations.
It is important that statements of intended learning outcomes at program and
course/subject/module/unit level are realistic, specific, and measurable and
written in terms that learners will understand.
Describing learning outcomes is the first stage of curriculum design. It is use-
ful to think of intended learning outcomes (or ILOs) rather than “learning out-
comes” to remind everyone involved that there will be much that students will
learn that is “unintended” and that students may not achieve all of the learning
outcomes we describe. They may learn much more at a deeper level than we
intended, or they may learn much less at a more superficial level, or they may
simply not achieve some learning outcomes (Biggs & Tang 2007).
ILOs can be described at university level, program level, and course level.
There should be a cascading effect through the levels; the descriptions of ILOs at
each level being consistent although becoming more specific and more detailed
at each level. Descriptions of institutional graduate capabilities are effectively
university level learning outcomes (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion
of graduate capabilities). Where these specifically address issues associated with
intercultural, international, and global capabilities, they are effectively intended
international learning outcomes (IILOs). At program level, institutional IILOs
should be explained in more detail and in the context of the discipline. ILOs are
a statement of what all graduates of the program should be able to do. IILOs are a
statement of specific intended international learning outcomes for all graduates of
the program. The same applies at course level: the ILOs describing what all grad-
uates of the course should be able to do, the IILOs describing specific intended
international learning outcomes for all graduates of the course. However, not all
courses in a program will necessarily have IILOs even if the program has a num-
ber of these. It is at course level that teachers are specifically involved in the devel-
opment of descriptions of IILOs and the planning and organization of learning
and assessment activities specifically designed to develop the IILOs in students.
Table 6.1 lists some examples of IILOs at university, program, and course level.
Note how they become more specific.
74 Learning, teaching and assessment

Table 6.1 Examples of intended international learning outcomes

Institutional level Program level Course level

Graduates will demonstrate: Graduates will be able to: Students will be able to:

International perspectives Manage a project involving Contribute to the

culturally and linguistically formulation and achievement
diverse team members of shared goals in diverse
teams
Analyze the reasons for Explain the relationship
different approaches to between the identity and
professional practice in status of [insert name of
different parts of the world profession] professionals
in two different social and
cultural contexts
Analyze the cultural Critically reflect on the
foundations of knowledge way in which your personal
in the discipline values have been influenced
by their social, cultural, and
economic contexts

Global citizenship Explain the possible Analyze data related to the

consequences of research international sources and
agendas being dominated by distribution of funding for
those in the world who have research
greatest social and economic
power
Analyze the impacts of local Design a project involving
action on global issues the local immigrant or
refugee community

As discussed in Chapter 5, it is also common to see a broad range of skills and

abilities including communication, problem solving, lifelong learning, teamwork,
ethical practice, and social responsibility listed as capabilities that graduates will
possess. All of these graduate capabilities can be “internationalized.” For example,
if we consider “the ability to communicate,” a common graduate capability, an
internationalized version would be “the ability to communicate across cultures;”
if we consider “the ability to work in teams,” an internationalized version would
be “the ability to work effectively in teams consisting of members from a range
of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.” Intended learning outcomes
associated with these graduate qualities can also be internationalized. Jones and
Killick (2013) describe the way in which intended learning outcomes were inter-
nationalized at Leeds Metropolitan University as part of a project focused on the
adoption of a global outlook as a graduate attribute. Table 6.2 shows how seem-
ingly simple changes can have a dramatic effect on the emphasis of the intended
learning outcome. One of the advantages of such an approach is that it does not
necessarily require large chunks of additional course content, but rather a shift
 Learning, teaching and assessment 75

Table 6.2 Internationalizing learning outcomes (Jones & Killick 2013, p. 9)

Original Learning Modified Learning Comment

Outcome Students will be Outcome Students will be
able to… able to…

Analyse market Analyse market The original outcome

opportunities in the opportunities in two could lead to assumptions
international business contrasting international of homogeneity across
environment. business environments. international business
environments.

Explain financial conduct Explain financial conduct In addition to considering

and regulation issues, such and regulation issues, such transparency and
as conflicts of interest and as conflicts of interest and accessibility of their own
the Financial Services and the Financial Services and communication skills,
Marketing Act, as they arise Marketing Act, as they arise students will have to
in the context of relevant in the context of relevant identify, and think through
transactions. transactions to a client the issues more critically
accustomed to operating by putting themselves in
in a different national the shoes of someone
context. from outside the UK.

Debate the ethical Debate the ethical Making the multicultural

responsibilities of Science responsibilities of Science element explicit means
in Society with reference to with reference to current it will not be overlooked
current issues. issues in a multicultural when devising content/
society. assessment.

List the different List the different components Here, learning outcomes
components of fitness and of fitness and evaluate their address issues equally
evaluate their contribution contribution to functional relevant to multicultural as
to functional capacity. capacity with appropriate to international contexts.
reference to issues of race,
gender and cultural contexts.

Review the role of the Review the role of the The revised outcome
organisation within the organisation within the makes specific the context
changing context of the changing local and global of the wider sector.
wider sector. contexts of the wider sector.

Demonstrate an awareness Demonstrate an Addition of the single word

of the range of professional, awareness of the range ‘global’ can make a real
ethical and legal issues of professional, ethical difference to interpretation.
relevant to the professional and legal issues relevant
environment of their to the global professional
discipline. environment of their
discipline.

in emphasis. What it might require, though, is modification to the way in which

learning is organized—to what students do, whom they interact with, and how
they are assessed—to ensure that teaching and learning activities and assessment
are all consistent. Students must have opportunities to practice and get feedback
76 Learning, teaching and assessment

on their performance before their achievement of the intended learning outcomes

is assessed. Biggs and Tang (2007) call this approach “constructive alignment”—
“program ILOs with graduate capabilities, course ILOs with program ILOs and
teaching/learning activities and assessment tasks with course ILOs” (p. 89). We
will discuss alignment in a little more detail later in this chapter.
The conceptual framework of internationalization of the curriculum described
in Chapter 3 places disciplinary knowledge at the center of the concept in action.
The application of graduate capabilities will be subtly different in different dis-
ciplines and professions. We would expect to see these differences reflected in
variations in learning outcomes related to the same graduate attribute, across dif-
ferent programs of study and in different institutions. Indeed, the term “generic”
skill or “generic” attribute can be misleading as we always apply capabilities in a
professional or social situation and the way we apply them should be sensitive to
that situation. Barrie (2006) found that academic staff members were less likely
to teach and assess a graduate capability if they saw it as being disconnected from
their discipline. It is hardly surprising that a teacher of engineering or science
feels ill-equipped to teach “generic” communication skills but they are likely to
have very clear ideas about how students should communicate as engineers or
scientists and to provide students with feedback if they do not perform to their
expectations in this regard. Hence we see differences in the interpretation of
the meaning of graduate capabilities in different disciplines and professions. For
example, in nursing and physiotherapy programs there is a much stronger focus
on sociocultural understanding than in engineering and information technology
programs. In an engineering program, the emphasis is more likely to be on the
understanding of the global and environmental responsibilities of the professional
engineer, the need for sustainable development, and the way in which the avail-
ability and cost associated with locally available versus imported materials will
have an impact on construction requirements. One only has to walk through
the streets of Hong Kong to see how extensively bamboo is used on construc-
tion sites, whereas in the United States, Australia, and Canada it is more com-
mon to see steel or iron used to construct scaffolding. Practicing IT professionals
may need to understand that there are different legal and political limitations on
Internet usage and access in different parts of the world. And while practicing
physiotherapists, pharmacists, engineers, and IT professionals should all be able
to recognize intercultural issues relevant to their professional practice, and have
a broad understanding of social, cultural, and global issues affecting their profes-
sion, the ways in which they will need to apply their learning, to “do what they
know” will be different in some ways even though they may be similar in others.
Comparable differences exist between the international perspectives we might
want to develop in, for example, accountants, scientists, and teachers.
The disciplinary lens is the primary lens through which academic staff members
view the world. An important and central part of their role is to induct stu-
dents into the discipline. Hence, it is important that graduate capabilities are
 Learning, teaching and assessment 77

communicated, taught, and assessed within the context of the disciplinary

program of study.
Effective communication of intended learning outcomes and their relationship
to the way teaching is organized and learning is assessed in courses is critical at all
levels. Students and teachers need to understand what the ILOs of the program
and the course of study are so that they can focus their activity. Teachers who
are clear about the intended learning outcomes are much more likely to plan
appropriate learning activities and give students the feedback they need to achieve
those outcomes. Students who are aware of the intended learning outcomes and
their relationship to assessment tasks and criteria are more likely to be successful.
Writing intended learning outcomes that provide a good foundation on which
to build your curriculum, are measurable, and are easily understood by students
and staff is not, however, an easy task. Race (2010) points out that intended learn-
ing outcomes at the course level are often badly written and rely too much on the
use of the terms “understand” and “know.” It is common to see statements such
as “at the end of this course students will understand x, y, and z” or “at the end of
this course students will have increased their knowledge of a, b, and c.” He argues
that both terms are surrounded by the same problems—we can’t measure what
students understand or know, only what they show of what they understand and
know. This means we are reliant on the evidence they produce of their learning.
It is important therefore that when we develop learning outcomes we think about
what it is we want them to do to demonstrate their learning. It is also useful to
remember that “education goes beyond knowing to being able to do what one
knows” and this is why it is important that expectations related to demonstrating
and “using learning” are made clear to students (Mentkowski 2006, p. 49). In
an internationalized curriculum this means, for example, making it explicit how
and under what conditions international and intercultural skills, knowledge, and
attitudes will need to be demonstrated. For example, in what international and/
or intercultural situations they will be applied and to what ends.
At program level, intended international learning outcomes are expressed at a
general level while they are taught and assessed within courses. At course level,
learning outcomes must not only be demonstrable and measurable, they must
also of course be realistic and achievable. So, for example, an intended learning
outcome such as “the ability to provide appropriate medical advice to patients
from diverse cultural backgrounds” would clearly not be suited to an under-
graduate medical course at first year level. It is highly unlikely that students at this
level would have had sufficient opportunity to develop the knowledge and skills
required to provide the relevant advice or would have been given opportunities
to develop their cross-cultural communication skills to a sufficient level to be able
to achieve this learning outcome. To ensure that intended learning outcomes
are realistic and achievable requires communication and coordination across a
program of study—a knowledge of the standards and expectations of what has
been required of students earlier and what will be required later. This is just as
78 Learning, teaching and assessment

important for “soft skills,” such as the ability to communicate effectively across
cultures, as it is for technical skills.
As a starting point, at program level, it is useful for the program leader, with
key members of the program team such as course coordinators or course leaders,
to consider the following questions when embarking on the process of writing
intended international learning outcomes for the program:

1 What are the dominant paradigms operating within the discipline and related
professional areas? What alternative paradigms are there?
2 What knowledge, skills, and attitudes will be important for graduates of this
program as professionals and citizens in a globalized world?
3 In which courses/subjects/modules/units will students get opportunities
to develop specific international and intercultural aspects of the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes you identified in 2?
4 How can these be expressed as intended international learning outcomes in
these courses?
5 How will students demonstrate their learning and achievements in
relation to 4?

These questions are also useful in the review of existing curricula.

Organization of learning activities

Learning activities in an internationalized curriculum aligned to the identified
IILOs will provide students with opportunities to develop key understandings
and critical skills, to understand cultural and national forces shaping knowledge in
their discipline, and to challenge and critique the commonly accepted. Of course,
this all occurs within the context of the institution and the program. Knowledge
and skills will develop over the entire learning program and there will need to be a
focus on integrating the development in all students of international and intercul-
tural skills, progressively across the program. Race (2010) reminds us that learn-
ers do the learning and we “can’t do it to them, we can’t do it for them” (p. 3),
they have to do it for themselves. Our role is to create a learning environment
that makes learning easier and more likely. Teaching is, in this regard, concerned
with purposeful activity that creates the opportunities for students to achieve the
desired learning outcomes.
The provision of a variety of carefully planned and integrated learning activities
that give all students the opportunity to develop international and intercultural
skills requires that teaching teams work together to plan and evaluate student
learning. In this way they can, collectively, ensure that key skills and knowledge
learned in one course are reviewed and developed further in another so that at
the end of the program all students have indeed had sufficient opportunities to
achieve their best.
 Learning, teaching and assessment 79

Making students aware of the linguistic and cultural diversity that surrounds
them and providing opportunities for them to engage meaningfully with that
diversity is one way to provide a learning environment that will give students
the opportunities they need to achieve IILOs. One of the challenges of teach-
ing to internationalize the curriculum is to ensure students engage productively
with difference within and beyond the classroom. Increasing student diversity
provides both opportunities and challenges for teachers and students in this
space. Students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds in the domestic
student population and international students are valuable potential sources of
cultural capital. There is a whole body of research conducted over more than a
decade that has consistently shown that the presence of diversity on its own is
not sufficient to internationalize the curriculum. For example, one study quotes
international students as saying they return home after three years of study in the
United Kingdom without having made a single social contact with a U.K. stu-
dent, and only one in three say that they have made any U.K. friends (UKCISA
2004). Others have found that perceived prejudice and racist behavior by univer-
sity professors, classmates, and community members toward some groups of stu-
dents militated against the benefits of diversity (see for example Hanassab 2006).
Such research challenges common assumptions in relation to how diversity might
be harnessed to assist all students to achieve intended international learning out-
comes. Chapter 7 discusses strategies for managing learning and teaching across
cultures in some detail. In this chapter, the discussion is focused on the poten-
tial and the pitfalls of using group work as a means to assist students to achieve
intended international learning outcomes. This is a topic that is often raised in
discussion with academic staff concerning how best to organize learning activities
to achieve international and intercultural learning outcomes.
Fortunately, there is a body of literature that provides valuable guidance on how
to manage groups to do this. Some research has found that students prefer to work
with conational students (Peacock & Harrison 2009; Volet & Ang 1998). Other
research suggests that multinational teams working on authentic tasks for extended
periods of time (14 weeks) overcome cultural barriers and learn to work effectively
together (Rienties et al. 2013). In summary, this and other related literature points
to the need for teachers to engage with the diversity within their classrooms, rec-
ognize its potential value, and structure learning and assessment activities in ways
that ensure meaningful and purposeful engagement with diversity. Importantly,
students must see the connection between any requirement to work in cross-
cultural groups, the intended learning outcomes, and their assessment. Student
complaints concerning group work often result from perceived or real disconnects
between learning tasks and intended learning outcomes—a lack of the alignment
described previously. If, for example, students cannot see how working in a cross-
cultural group with people they do not know will assist them to achieve a specific
learning outcome, they will often express a preference for working in groups with
conationals or established networks of friends. This can result in groups that are
80 Learning, teaching and assessment

culturally and linguistically homogenous. Students may be effectively isolated in

cultural and linguistic silos. This is a lost opportunity to achieve IILOs. If, how-
ever, completion of a task requires diverse perspectives and this is communicated
clearly in the task description and also reflected in assessment criteria and marking
rubrics, students are more likely to make the effort to work in diverse groups; they
may even show a preference for doing so (Chang 2006). In any case, if students
are assigned to groups by teachers for reasons related to the achievement of IILOs,
specific links between the way the groups are organized, intended international
learning outcomes, and assessment criteria should be explained to students.
If you do decide to use groups in this way, it is also important to consider if and
how the work completed by the group will be assessed. A common blocker to the
development of intercultural competence through group work is when one piece
of work is produced by the group and all members of the group are allocated
the same mark. Students see this as unfair (which it is) as it does not recognize
or differentiate between the contribution and level of achievement of individual
students within the group. In this situation all students will be risk averse, and
if given the option are likely to prefer to work with those they already know or
who are “like them.” If they are not given the option to choose, but are assigned
to “diverse groups,” they will more than likely divide up the task, assigning indi-
viduals with set tasks which they will then bring back to be stitched together
at the end into whatever has been required. This completely defeats any inten-
tion the teacher had to ensure communication across cultures through assign-
ing students to diverse groups. Worse, it can actually have a detrimental effect
on cross-cultural relationship building and attitudes towards diversity. Students
from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds may not be seen as capable of
contributing equally to the outcome. Sometimes they will not even be given the
chance to do so by being assigned to menial tasks regardless of their capacity,
while group members from the dominant culture take on the bulk of the work
and then complain that they have had to “carry” other team members in order to
get the task completed on time.
The active management of learning in groups is important if the desired IILOs
are to be achieved. Some ways to avoid the situations described above are to:

• Only assign students to diverse groups when there is a clear purpose for
doing so and this is communicated to students. For example, there is a clear
link between the group work task, a specific intended international learning
outcome, and, if the task is assessed, the assessment criteria/marking rubric.
• Provide all students with some training in working in cross-cultural teams
prior to the group work task. This could be provided by an expert from out-
side of the teaching team.
• Assess each individual’s performance on the task rather than providing the
same mark to all group members. This is especially important if the group
work processes, and in particular communication across cultures within the
group, do not form part of the assessment criteria.
 Learning, teaching and assessment 81

Further advice on managing group work in an internationalized curriculum

is contained in the “Quick Guide to Managing Group Work” (see Appendix 1).
All students require support in the form of feedback on progress. There is
evidence to suggest that the process of becoming interculturally competent as
described in Chapter 5 takes years. Progress may be slow at times. Students will
enter a course/subject/module with differing amounts of knowledge and skill
and different attitudes towards the value or otherwise of IILOs. Some will be
resistant. Race (2010) identifies five factors underpinning successful learning:
wanting to learn, needing to learn, learning by doing, learning through feedback,
and making sense of things. Some observations on how these five factors might
work in an internationalized curriculum are provided below.

Wanting and needing to learn

Wanting to learn is the motivation that comes from within—a hungriness to
learn. This is largely attitudinal and not all students will want to learn what we
want them to learn. A range of factors including previous positive experiences
and curiosity will have an impact on students’ desire to achieve IILOs. However,
while ideally students will take ownership of the need to achieve IILOs, an impor-
tant role of a teacher is to inspire students to learn. Ensuring students understand
the connection between IILOs and their future professional and personal lives
is one way to do this. You might for example bring in an employer to talk spe-
cifically about what they look for in their employees in relation to intercultural
competence and how they assess that in a job application. Alumni who are cur-
rently working in industry or professional roles requiring specific international or
intercultural skills, knowledge, and attitudes are also valuable sources of inspira-
tion for some students. Most compelling of all for many are links to assessment
tasks because assessment results determine progress through the degree and will
ultimately have an impact on their chances of future employment. Ensuring all
teaching staff and students are aware of the alignment between the IILOs, learn-
ing and assessment activities, and assessment criteria and rubrics creates a need
to learn and achieve IILOs in students. Together, wanting and needing to learn
result in a desire to learn.

Learning by doing
Much has been written about active learning, experiential learning, and active
experimentation. There are many possibilities for learning by doing in an interna-
tionalized curriculum. Much of the study abroad literature is based on a funda-
mental belief in the value of learning through experience. However, while study
abroad and exchange can be transformational, the learning can be hard to meas-
ure and may not be what was intended. International and intercultural learn-
ing in the classroom and the community is in many ways easier to manage and
measure than learning through study abroad and exchange but it will likely be
82 Learning, teaching and assessment

more gradual and less obviously transformational in the short term. Nevertheless,
for many students studying abroad for short or long periods of time is simply
not possible, whereas intercultural learning in the community is accessible to all.
Certainly, if we want all students to achieve IILOs we cannot rely on learning by
doing “abroad.” Furthermore, the process of learning a foreign language and/or
engaging in learning activities focused on the achievement of IILOs at home may
stimulate a desire to engage in study abroad.
This points to the need to provide a range of carefully designed active learning
experiences accessible to all students focused on the development of IILOs in an
internationalized curriculum. Sometimes the opportunities afforded by engage-
ment with diversity in the classroom, in the broader university community, and in
the local community are overlooked by students and staff.

Learning through feedback

Feedback on learning can be provided in many different ways by different people,
including but not necessarily only by teachers. Peers can and often do provide
direct and indirect feedback—by the way in which they respond to an action or a
conversation, or by providing specific written or verbal comment on a particular
piece of work. It is important that students recognize when they are being given
feedback and know how to interpret and respond to it. Race (2010) found that
feedback was most effective when it was provided very soon after the actions on
which it was based and that it needed to be “received” rather than rejected as irrel-
evant or misinformed. This can seem like a daunting task. Fortunately feedback
need not only be provided by teachers in writing, or on an individual student’s
performance. Peers and more senior students are also valuable sources of feed-
back. Feedback on the development of intercultural skills can be particularly dif-
ficult to give and receive. It is important to ensure that marking rubrics related to
the development of international and intercultural skills and knowledge are care-
fully designed, perhaps with specialist help from someone in another university
department, and that they are incorporated into cycles of practice and feedback.
Students will often complain that they do not get sufficient feedback on their
learning. Staff members will often say that they provide lots of feedback to stu-
dents but they ignore it and then complain that they have not been given enough
feedback. This situation usually arises because the feedback that has been provided
is not recognized as “feedback.” I have found it useful to tell students quite spe-
cifically when “feedback” is being provided and give them opportunities to reflect
on how they might use it to improve their performance in the future on tasks
related to specific IILOs. I have also found it useful to use the term “feedforward”
with students, as in how they can use feedback provided by different people in dif-
ferent situations to improve their performance in different but similar situations
in the future. Discussions related to students as learners and how to recognize,
interpret, and use feedback are particularly useful in relation to the development
of intercultural competence as part of an internationalized curriculum.
 Learning, teaching and assessment 83

Making sense of things

Race (2010) links “making sense of things” to the other four factors underpin-
ning successful learning. For example, feedback on my performance on a task
related to an IILO can help me to make sense of and better understand a skill or
a concept. Only I can make sense of things though; no one can do it for me. The
best that a teacher can do is to provide the best possible environment for students
to make sense of the international and intercultural aspects of the course or pro-
gram through stimulating a desire to learn.
One way to do this is to provide opportunities for learners to engage in learning
about intercultural learning through a series of reflective meta-conversations
focused on how they and others have learned in intercultural and international
situations. For example, in small groups students can be asked to share stories of
occasions when they behaved inappropriately in a cross-cultural situation. What
happened? How did they know they had behaved inappropriately? What did they
do? What did they learn? How did/would they modify their behavior in the
future? Or they could be asked to share a time when they felt offended by the
actions or words of others. What did they do? What might they have done differ-
ently? What did they learn about themselves and about intercultural communica-
tion from that encounter? If you are not comfortable getting students to share
their own stories you could share some of your own experiences or use some
case studies of intercultural miscommunication. Such conversations, linked to
intercultural learning outcomes, can facilitate the development of students who
are independent intercultural learners who can make sense of past and future
intercultural experiences.
Race’s (2010) five factors underpinning successful learning provide a useful
framework for thinking about how to structure learning opportunities to support
students’ achievement of ILLOs.
An increasing focus on the use of information and communication technolo-
gies (ICTs) and online and blended learning (combining face-to-face teaching
with online teaching and interaction) provides exciting opportunities for the use
of new and different strategies for internationalizing both the content and the
approach to teaching and learning in the curriculum. For example, ICTs can be
used to connect groups of students in different parts of the world to explore cur-
rent international issues and different national perspectives on these. ICTs can be
used in various ways to internationalize the curriculum. For example, it is quite
common and simple to refer students to online international sources such as jour-
nals, conference proceedings, and professional associations or to require students
to locate, discuss, analyze, and evaluate information from a range of online and
offline international sources. You can bring an international perspective into the
classroom by inviting an international guest lecturer to address a specific topic
and answer specific follow-up questions online at appropriate times during the
course. These can be delivered, and the discussion can occur, synchronously or
asynchronously. Similarly, requiring that your students connect with students
84 Learning, teaching and assessment

in a classroom in another part of the world through the use of asynchronous

discussion forums or blogs offers a range of possibilities for focused international
and intercultural discussion and learning. One way to do this is to include group
and individual projects in the curriculum that focus on international issues, case
studies, and/or exemplars, bearing in mind the advice above in relation to the use
of group work in an internationalized curriculum. Given that the skills required
to work online and across cultures may be new to some students, it is important
to prepare students for both. Staff members who don’t feel confident to do this
will often invite specialists in student learning or cross cultural communication
into their classes to run a session, co-teach a session, and/or co-develop some
resources to support students to get the best out of the online intercultural expe-
rience. Such activities can vary from short, simple activities to more complex,
longer-term online engagement. For example, you can organize for students to:

• conduct “online interviews” with students from other cultures and/or

professionals on current issues as part of an assessment task
• participate in a moderated online discussion on the status and role of the
profession in different parts of the world with students and staff from a part-
ner institution in another country
• participate in mixed-culture online tutorial groups which examine ways in
which particular cultural interpretations of social, scientific, or technological
applications of knowledge may include or exclude, advantage, or disadvan-
tage people from different cultural groups.

The cases that follow are examples of ways in which information and com-
munication technologies have been utilized to internationalize the curriculum by
facilitating intercultural communication to enable students to better understand
and be able to live and work in a globalized world. These cases demonstrate
some of the ways in which information and communication technologies can be
used to broaden the options available to all students to engage with diversity in a
structured and planned way. This is very different to the largely unstructured and
unplanned approaches to internationalization of the curriculum focused solely on
student mobility.

Exploring professional practice in another cultural context1

In a Health Sciences course to assist Australian students to explore cultural issues
in professional practice in physiotherapy, students were required to make contact
with and collect information from a physiotherapy educator or student outside of
Australia or New Zealand. Each student was allocated a cardiorespiratory patient
scenario that contained basic information concerning a patient presentation. Three
questions concerning the physiotherapy assessment and management of this patient
were posed. Students were required to contact a School of Physiotherapy outside
 Learning, teaching and assessment 85

of their home country, to present the questions to the international educator

or student in that school and to collect information concerning the assessment
and management of the patient scenario. They were encouraged to contact non-
Western schools and schools in developing countries. The Internet was used to
locate possible schools and email contact was the main medium of communication.
In this way students were given the opportunity to develop their understanding
and appreciation of the way their profession is practiced in a different country and
culture, to appreciate the relation between their field of study locally, and profes-
sional traditions elsewhere.Two simple online tools, the web and email were all that
was needed. Students were required to write a critical review of the international
response including a statement concerning the similarities or differences in ter-
minology, conditions managed, techniques or interpretation of problems between
their own and the other country. This assignment contributed to the final grade for
the theory component of the course. The initial trial of this approach with a group
of 43 students resulted in student contact with nine different countries, including
Thailand, Hong Kong, Ireland, Canada and the USA. Feedback from students and staff
was that this assignment assisted in the development of international perspectives
in students and staff.

Looking at a problem from a different cultural position

In an international studies course a website and a series of online discussion forums
have been used to develop international perspectives in students through assisting
them to see a problem through the eyes of someone from a different culture. A sce-
nario based on a fictional international crisis was described in stages on a website.
In this scenario thirteen countries were called to the table and asked to present
their respective position statements regarding the crisis (and developments, as they
occur), with a view to concluding a draft resolution, based on a majority decision, at
the end of the crisis talks. Each student was allocated to a country/group and each
group was required to research the background to their country’s stance on the
international crisis and prepare a position statement. Within each group students
were advised to assign specific tasks to individuals and select one person to act as
the “head of state”—the individual who would post the country’s position statement
and negotiate on behalf of the team for the final vote. The scenario incorporated
elements of ethnic conflict, nationalism and human rights and involved students in
the challenge of credibly shaping and constructing a country’s perspective, based
on their research. They were also required to actively engage with the simulated
“international community” in negotiation and decision making. Every student was
required to participate actively in the scenario, which was made deeply interactive
through role-play and online discussion. Communication and collaboration within
a country group occurred online via a discussion forum. This allowed students to

(Continued)
86 Learning, teaching and assessment

share documents in draft form and to participate actively and thoughtfully in the
drafting of their country’s position statement. This area was “private” to the coun-
try reps and to the lecturer/ moderator. Discussions between country groups also
took place online. The larger “emergency forum” set up by the “United Nations” to
deal with the crisis took the form of a general online discussion group which was
used as a forum for country representatives to give their views and, potentially, to
negotiate shared positions. The lecturer acted as moderator, could view all discus-
sion groups and could intervene if and when necessary.The immediacy of the online
environment enabled the lecturer to manipulate the simulated international crisis
to challenge or assist students in their learning. Participation in the online discussion
groups and associated tasks and in an interactive online seminar accounted for 25%
of the assessment for the course.
This scenario gave all students both the purpose and the opportunity to research
and interact in an international and intercultural setting, to develop their under-
standing of other cultural and national perspectives and their ability to think globally
and consider issues from a variety of perspectives.

Some common and generic student learning outcomes associated with inter-
nationalization outcomes and a sample of tasks associated with these through the
development of students’ abilities to function in an intercultural and international
environment are listed in Table 6.3.

Assessment
Assessment defines the curriculum, drives student behavior, and can, but will
not necessarily, enhance learning. Students largely study what they perceive the
assessment system to require and for many students assessment practices will
have more impact on learning than teaching (Gibbs 2006). It is important to
clarify the “performances of understanding” (Barrie 2004) that will be required
of students as early as possible in the course.
The foundations for assessment in an internationalized curriculum include:

• program documentation that states the international and intercultural

knowledge, skills, and attributes that graduates will exhibit
• course descriptions that outline how students will develop and demonstrate
these incrementally across the program
• teaching arrangements that provide multiple opportunities for students to
practice the development of intercultural skills in a safe environment and
provide feedback on their performance; this feedback might come from
teachers or peers
 Learning, teaching and assessment 87

Table 6.3 Internationalization outcomes and ICTs

International learning outcome: Online learning tools and activities:

Describe the relationship between Web-based research into professional

their field of study locally, and traditions in other cultures.
professional traditions elsewhere Online interviews with students from other
countries/cultures studying in the same
professional area.
(Linked to related assessment task)

Respond appropriately to intercultural Scenarios from professional practice, with

issues relevant to their professional obvious intercultural issues embedded within
practice them are discussed in an online tutorial group
of mixed cultures. Students are required to
formulate appropriate responses and present
these as a role-play. Assessment task requires
a description of how and why their responses
to the issues were “appropriate.”

Analyze the complex and interacting Students from different cultural groups
factors that contribute to their own interview each other online and post a report
and others’ cultural identities. to a shared website on the factors that have
shaped their own and their partner’s cultural
identities.

• content that presents multiple competing national, cultural, and/or linguis-

tic perspectives and encourages critical engagement with emerging and non-
dominant paradigms.

Where the development of international and global perspectives and intercultural

skills are conceived as an inherent part of scholarly study and/or professional practice
in a specific discipline (e.g. nursing) rather than an optional or vocational nice-to-
have extra, the expectations in relation to performance are easier to define and assess.
Arguably, in disciplines where these connections are less apparent such as mathemat-
ics or computer science, it is even more important to ensure that assessment criteria
specifically related to the development of international and intercultural perspectives
are explicit so that student attention is focused on their achievement and they know
what is required in terms of the level of expected performance.
Here is a checklist of some of the key characteristics of assessment in an inter-
nationalized curriculum. It will

1 be aligned with program and course IILOs;

2 reflect progressive development of intercultural and international skills and
knowledge through the program of study;
3 include assessment tasks and rubrics that make it clear to students what levels
of achievement are expected of them in relation to each IILO;
88 Learning, teaching and assessment

4 focus on students’ demonstrating their abilities to communicate, negotiate

and problem solve effectively in a range of intercultural situations relevant to
the discipline, the program, and related professional practice;
5 test students’ ability to gather and apply knowledge in and across disciplines
in a globalized world;
6 encourage students to consider the global application and impact of course
content and the impact of culture and language on disciplinary knowledge
and professional practice;
7 include reflective written tasks that require students to analyze critically and
reflect on their own assumptions, values, and beliefs.

Conclusion
The nature of learning, teaching, and assessment will be different in an interna-
tionalized curriculum than in a national, provincial curriculum. Teachers will do
different things, students will learn different things, and therefore the assessment
activities and criteria by which student performance is judged will also be differ-
ent. In the end, we cannot internationalize the curriculum without paying atten-
tion to specific aspects of learning, teaching, and assessment.
It is also important to remember that the learning environment extends well
beyond the classroom. This book is focused on the internationalization of the
formal curriculum but there are many opportunities for students to develop inter-
national and intercultural skills, knowledge, and attitudes through engagement
with cultural, national, and linguistic diversity on campus through the informal
curriculum (see Killick 2012; Leask 2009, 2010).

Note
1 These case studies were originally published in Leask, B. (2008) Chapter 8.
‘Internationalisation of the curriculum in an interconnected world’ pp 95–101
in G. Crosling, L. Thomas and M. Heagney (eds) Improving student retention in
higher education - the role of teaching and learning Abingdon: Routledge.
Chapter 7

Using student diversity

Cultural diversity is the norm rather than the exception in many university
classrooms. In general terms, cultural diversity may refer not only to groups
from different world civilizations and societies but also to cultures or subcul-
tures within a society, which could be a result of different ethnicities, religions,
classes, genders, generations, religions, rural/urban settings, and sexual orienta-
tions (Chang 2006). Cultures are most often recognized by shared patterns of
behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective understandings.
These are learned through a process of socialization. However, within different
cultural groups, individuals are unique. In the context of the discussion of inter-
nationalization of the curriculum in this chapter, the focus is on the knowledge,
experience, values, and beliefs that students originating from different world
civilizations and societies bring to the classroom. Domestic student populations
are often culturally diverse due to the migrations of peoples around the world.
Increased student mobility means that students who have traveled from other
countries for the purpose of study further stretch the range of prior experience,
knowledge, approaches to learning, and attitudes and beliefs about teaching and
learning present in the domestic population for the reasons given above. This
diversity provides great potential for all students to develop intercultural aware-
ness, skills, and knowledge through interaction with peers. Louie (2005) says
that the culturally diverse classroom provides “an extraordinary learning oppor-
tunity for both teachers and students” to develop the metacultural awareness
that “comes with understanding at least two cultures well, including one’s own”
(p. 24). Many agree with him, excited by the potential to transform learning
through the creation of an “open, tolerant and cosmopolitan university experi-
ence” (Kalantzis & Cope 2000, p. 31), the “flow of knowledge and cultures
across national boundaries” (Slethaug 2007, p. 5), and the development of “the
cultural bridges and understanding necessary for world peace” (Larkins 2008).
There is an extensive literature on the opportunities and possibilities for dynamic
cross-cultural interactions afforded by diversity in the classroom. Much of this lit-
erature is focused on teaching international or educationally mobile students and
using the diversity that they bring with them as a tool for internationalizing the
90 Using student diversity

curriculum for all students (see for example Arkoudis et al. 2010; Carroll 2015;
Carroll & Ryan 2005; de Vita 2002; Leask 2005).
However, it is also clear from this literature that it requires careful planning and
skillful teaching to use diversity to create dynamic intercultural, global learning
communities as part of an internationalized curriculum. While there is certainly
strong evidence that diversity can be a valuable resource in the achievement of
international learning outcomes, the potential claimed benefits of diversity are
not always achieved and many of the claims made are no more than an ideal
(de Vita 2007, p. 165). Some have argued that they are actually delusional
(Wright & Lander 2003). Certainly, the approach of many university leaders and
teachers is one of “wishing and hoping” that diversity on its own will be enough
to internationalize the learning of all students (Leask & Carroll 2011).
When “wishing and hoping” is the approach taken, diversity can have a negative
impact on the learning outcomes we seek from an internationalized curriculum.
In this regard cultural diversity in the classroom is a “double-edged sword.”
If well managed, it can provide opportunities for active learning and the achieve-
ment of international and intercultural learning outcomes through immersion
in a cross-cultural environment. If poorly managed, cultural diversity can result
in “increased tension, frustration and, at worst, the reinforcement of prejudices
among students” (Ramburuth and Welch 2005, p. 6).
There is much to be learned about how to use diversity in the classroom
to assist all students to achieve the Intended International Learning Outcomes
(IILOs) (see Chapter 6) in an internationalized curriculum. This chapter
explores what teachers can do to utilize cultural diversity to internationalize the
curriculum, and the intersection between good teaching and internationalization
of the curriculum.

More than just “good teaching”

Using diversity as a tool to internationalize all students’ learning requires “good
teaching” but is also more than that. The need to recognize and cater for diversity
is widely recognized as a fundamental principle of good teaching. This is evident
in several guides to teaching in higher education. For example, the American
Association of Higher Education “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Higher
Education” (Chickering & Gamson 1987) highlight the importance of:

• encouraging contact between students and faculty,

• developing reciprocity and cooperation amongst students,
• using active learning techniques,
• giving prompt feedback,
• emphasizing time on task,
• communicating high expectations, and
• respecting diverse talents and ways of learning (Chickering & Gamson 1987,
my emphasis).
 Using student diversity 91

Prosser and Trigwell (1999) argue that teachers need to be aware of:

• their students’ learning situations,

• the contextual dependency of learning and teaching,
• students’ perceptions of teaching technologies,
• diversity in the classroom, and
• the ongoing importance of evaluating teaching to improve learning (p. 170,
my emphasis).

Ramsden (2006) puts forward “Six key principles of effective teaching in higher
education” and how these will be reflected in teachers’ abilities, behavior, and
attitudes:

• Interest and explanation—teachers will be able to give clear explanations of

complex subject matter and make the subject interesting
• Concern and respect for students and student learning—teachers will be
conscious of who students are and versatile and flexible in their teaching in
order to accommodate students’ diverse needs (my emphasis)
• Appropriate assessment and feedback—teachers will set appropriate
assessment tasks and give helpful comments on students’ work
• Clear goals and intellectual challenge—teachers will set consistently high
academic expectations, making the challenge of learning and achieving those
goals interesting rather than dull
• Independence, control, and engagement—teachers will assist students
to take control of their own learning by providing relevant and engaging
learning tasks at the right level and providing opportunities for students to
learn how to inquire
• Learning from students—teachers will be open to change, gather information
on effectiveness of teaching, and modify approaches in the light of evidence.

In different ways, all of these principles of good teaching acknowledge the need
for teachers to acknowledge, respect, and adjust for diversity in the classroom.
However, none of them specifically address issues raised by linguists and cultural
theorists who argue that what constitutes “knowledge” is culture-based (van Dijk
& Kintsch 1983), that learning is mediated by language which has inbuilt assump-
tions and value, and that assessment of knowledge is contingent upon access to
and prior experience with particular culture-specific background knowledge (Luke
et al. 2002, p. 12). These are matters of particular significance for teachers seeking
to use student diversity as a tool to internationalize the curriculum. Language and
culture are critical filters and lenses through which everything is experienced and
learned and cannot be ignored. Each of these principles of good teaching will be
applied by you as teacher through a prism of language and culture, and received
by each student through their own prism of language and culture. The effect of
these prisms is to make good teaching in the culturally diverse classroom both
92 Using student diversity

demanding and interesting, and the task of realizing the asset of cultural diversity
as a tool for internationalizing the curriculum very complex indeed.
In previous chapters we have essentially been focused on discussing vari-
ous aspects of good teaching in an internationalized curriculum, where teach-
ing is defined as Ramsden (2006) defines it—in a broad way, including “the
design of curricula, choice of content and methods, various forms of teacher–
students interaction, and the assessment of students” (p. 85). Drawing from the
literature and my experience over many years in teaching in diverse classrooms and
internationalizing the curriculum, there are some things you can do to ensure that
you are both an effective teacher in a culturally diverse classroom and in so doing
you use the cultural diversity in the classroom as a useful tool to assist all students
to achieve your intended international learning outcomes—see Chapter 6.

Avoid a deficit model

A common approach to diversity in the classroom is to see those who are
culturally different, whether they are international students on short or long stays
or recently arrived migrants, as needing to change, to learn new skills, and catch
up on local knowledge and ways of doing and thinking in order to fit in. While it
is important for teachers to assist students to find their way around the learning
environment—understand what is expected of them and what they need to do
to be successful—it is also important to recognize the immense range of experi-
ence and knowledge students bring, and the value of this as a learning resource
for themselves, for other students, and indeed, for you. A number of studies
describe situations resulting from what I will call a “deficit model,” which locks
students from cultural and linguistic minorities into the status of “outsider” in
the classroom. A deficit model may result in minority groups feeling isolated and
disempowered and even perceptions of prejudice and racist behavior by univer-
sity teachers, classmates, and community members (Chalmers and Volet 1997;
Hanassab 2006; Welikala and Watkins 2008). Negative and stereotypical percep-
tions of students from non-dominant cultural backgrounds, and a lack of rec-
ognition of the value of their knowledge and experience, can prevent the very
cross-cultural interaction we seek in the classroom (Summers & Volet 2008).
Hence while both students and staff see intercultural interaction as an important
component of internationalization (Cooper 2009; Leask 2005), those students
from minority groups who actively seek to share their perspectives and experiences
with those from dominant groups may encounter attitudes and actions which
make this either very difficult or impossible. The result is a self-perpetuating cycle
of frustration and indifference resulting in cultural silos of learning.
Some studies, however, suggest that these cultural silos of learning are a
consequence of the attitudes and behaviors of minority culture groups rather
than the attitudes and actions of dominant culture groups consistent with
a deficit model. For example, Brown (2008) reports that although interna-
tional students expressed great hopes that they would meet and work with
 Using student diversity 93

students from a wide range of different cultures, in the first few days of their
“international” experience, they self-selected to sit with those from the continent
on which they had previously lived. Their work alliances were further fixed by
language and nationality in the first few weeks of semester and remained so for
all but a very small number of students who moved between and within these
cultural silos.
Clearly, there are no simple answers. However, avoiding a counter-productive
deficit model by designing curriculum and organizing learning activities that
construct diversity as an asset rather than an obstacle to learning, a solution
rather than a problem, will assist. In this regard internationalizing the curriculum
can be used as a strategy for effective teaching in a culturally diverse classroom.
The careful design of intended international learning outcomes as described in
Chapter 6 is a critical first step. They create a stimulus for meaningful interaction.
But what’s next?

Demonstrate the value of cultural diversity

The role of the teacher is critical in the realization of diversity as an asset, particularly
when the inevitable “blind spots” and “inaccessible places” are encountered
(Jiang 2011, p. 397). Diversity can be used to develop a learning culture that
intentionally exposes students to multiple, competing perspectives and connects
and challenges (Crichton & Scarino 2007; Zhao, Kuh & Carini 2005). The role
of the teacher is to create bridges between students from different backgrounds,
to stimulate engagement and reflection.
One way to do this is to demonstrate the value of cultural diversity while
recognizing that culturally diverse classrooms can be challenging spaces for both
students and staff. This is not least because for students and staff “cross-cultural
competence is a highly tacit and experientially based set of skills making it difficult
to acquire in a traditional classroom” (Ramburuth & Welch 2005, p. 8). Students
may be reluctant to work in culturally diverse groups or even to interact with
cultural others, fearing that a lack of shared knowledge and experience, or lan-
guage skill differences, will result in a reduced grade for achievement (Harrison &
Peacock 2010). Teachers may be reluctant to openly address cross-cultural issues
in the classroom or in so doing may actually demonstrate the very ethnocentrism
and assumptions of universalism that we seek to discourage. The value of cultural
diversity is not obvious to all. Chang (2006) argues that the role of the teacher
is to establish, from the start, that there is a valuable resource bank of transcul-
tural wisdom in the group. This requires that teachers themselves understand
the cultural diversity of their students. Ramburuth and Welch (2005) argue that
knowledge of the diversity within the classroom is fundamental to the ability of
the teacher to “effectively teach to the diversity and more efficiently maximize
the benefits of the diversity in utilizing it as a resource” (p.14). They developed
a simple tool that they have used in their classes to gather information from stu-
dents that can be used to develop a diversity profile of the class (see Figure 7.1).
The data collected, when aggregated, can be used in several ways, including to
 Student Diversity Questionnaire
Please circle of complete your response
Student cohort Local International
Gender Female Male
Religion (optional)
_________________________________________________

Employment None Part-time Full-time

Home country

_________________________________________________

First language
_________________________________________________

Second language
_________________________________________________

Other languages/dialects spoken

at home
_________________________________________________

Parents’ home countries

_______________________ ______________________
(Mother) (Father)

Countries studied in
_________________________________________________

Countries travelled to
_________________________________________________

Experiences of other Cultures Work Friends

Neighbours Travel
Other
_________________________________________________
(Please specify)

Approaches to Learning (most commonly experienced)

Approaches to Teaching (most commonly experienced)

Source: Ramburuth, P. and Welch, C. (2005 p. 16)

Figure 7.1 Student Diversity Questionnaire

 Using student diversity 95

raise awareness of cultural diversity in the classroom, as the basis for a discussion
of how diversity can be used as a resource for learning in the classroom (in relation
to specific intended learning outcomes), and more generally (in the community
and the workplace).
Another way to demonstrate the value of cultural diversity in the classroom
is to use student-generated cases. Ramburuth and Welch (2005) describe how
they use student-generated case studies to develop cross-cultural competence.
International students devise cases based on their own experiences in their home
countries and their experiences adjusting to life and study in Australia. Domestic
students are invited to construct cases based on experiences they have had living
and working in different cultural contexts. There is much valuable learning for
individual students as they reflect on their cross-cultural experiences at home and
abroad but this could easily be taken a step further if students share, compare, and
conduct a cross-case analysis as part of an assessment task linked to an intended
learning outcome. In this way, student-generated cases can be used to demon-
strate the value of diversity in the classroom through enhancing the learning of
all students.
There are other ways of demonstrating the value of cultural diversity as a
learning resource. For example, learning and assessment task design requiring
collection and/or analysis of data from two or three different cultural perspec-
tives on an issue is another way of demonstrating that diversity in the classroom
is a valuable learning resource and encouraging interaction and the sharing of
cultural information. Mak, de Percy, and Kennedy (2008) propose making the
students from diverse cultural backgrounds the expert sources of information
on their own cultures, arguing that not only does this demonstrate the value of
diverse perspectives, it also has the added benefit of improving the self-esteem
of the culturally diverse students, international and local, and encourages their
active participation. However, it is important to avoid the danger of stereotyping
in asking, for example, one Chinese student what the “Chinese” viewpoint might
be as if there is only one right answer (Dunworth & Briguglio 2011).
In summary, cultural diversity in the classroom can be one of your greatest
resources for developing your own as well as your students’ international/inter-
cultural perspectives. But in order to utilize it, you will need to create learn-
ing and assessment tasks that require critical refection on and discussion of how
personal attitudes and values are shaped by and reflect cultural values; and how
cultural values are reflected in discipline-based knowledge and professional prac-
tices. You will need to encourage students to communicate, explore, explain,
inquire, and negotiate meaning. You will need to give them many opportunities
to interact with each other, sharing knowledge, ideas, and theories from multi-
ple contexts; to explore each others’ and their own culture, conceptual systems,
and values; and to reflect critically on the relationship between culture, knowl-
edge, and action within the discipline. Students can benefit greatly from working
together in culturally mixed small groups but the benefits derived are, to a large
extent, dependent on the nature of the tasks that they are set. Merely placing
96 Using student diversity

students in mixed culture groups to work on unstructured tasks unrelated to the

exploration and sharing of cultural and national perspectives is unlikely to result
in the development of international or intercultural perspectives. However, the
provision of structured and assessed tasks requiring engagement with different
cultural perspectives on a problem or issue, critical reflection on the relationship
between culture, nationality, and social action, or the negotiation of meaning and
action across cultural boundaries is more likely to engage students in meaningful
international/intercultural learning experiences. You can achieve all of this if you
apply the following Good Practice Principles for Teaching Across Cultures.

Apply the Good Practice Principles:Teaching Across

Cultures
Six Good Practice Principles: Teaching Across Cultures were developed as the
result of an initiative of the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations (DEEWR) of the Australian Government (Leask 2014).
The principles capture the findings from 13 funded Australian Learning and
Teaching Council projects and the extant international literature (including the
sets of principles for effective teaching discussed above). They were developed
to assist the design, teaching, and evaluation of curricula and teaching practices
as well as the professional development of academic staff and the provision of
student services. Individually and collectively they provide valuable guidance
to those seeking to use diversity as a tool to internationalize the curriculum.
If they are applied, they will create a classroom culture that values diversity
and ensure that students from diverse backgrounds are able to contribute their
experiences and ideas to the class. The principles are listed in Table 7.1 and
described in more detail below.

Table 7.1 Good Practice Principles: Teaching Across Cultures

Principle 1: Good teaching across cultures will focus on students as learners

Principle 2: Good teaching across cultures will respect and adjust for diversity

Principle 3: Good teaching across cultures will provide context-specific information

and support

Principle 4: Good teaching across cultures will enable meaningful intercultural dialogue
and engagement

Principle 5: Good teaching across cultures will be adaptable, flexible and responsive
to evidence

Principle 6: Good teaching across cultures will prepare students for life in a
globalized world

You can find a detailed description of each Principle at ieaa.org.au/ltac.

 Using student diversity 97

Following Nicol (2007), the Good Practice Principles are specific enough to
guide teachers in their practice and flexible enough to accommodate a variety of
different learning and teaching contexts including large and small group teaching
in traditional face-to-face classrooms and online.
A suite of Quick Guides to good practice in teaching across cultures was also
created. The Quick Guides use the six principles as a framework for identifying
teaching and learning activities that will assist in creating a classroom culture
that recognizes, values, and uses diversity for learning. The topics covered are
curriculum design, teaching, assessment, supporting English language develop-
ment, group work, working with learning and language support professionals,
and professional development for teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse
learners. One of the Quick Guides, “Managing Group Work,” is included in
the Appendix of this book. All guides are available from the International
Education Association of Australia website at ieaa.org.au/research-projects/
LTAC.
The Good Practice Principles and the Quick Guides do not provide a prescriptive
or complete list of best practice. However, they do provide a framework for action
and guidance to teachers and those who work with them to reflect on current
practice and identify alternative ways to approach teaching in culturally diverse
classrooms. As Yorke (2012) notes, “teaching is not a simple matter that can be
expressed in a set of rules applicable to all circumstances … Rather, it has to be
approached in terms of a set of principles to be applied in a manner appropriate
to circumstances” (p. v). Nowhere is this truer than in the complex culturally
diverse classroom. The Good Practice Principles can be used in different ways.
For example, Carroll (2015), who worked with me on the development of the
principles, uses them as curriculum design principles. I have used them below to
focus on what teachers can do to facilitate the sharing of diverse perspectives by
making all students feel welcome and included, and to create a classroom culture
that openly values and respects difference and invites and values the participation
of all. Carroll (2015) describes this as a learning environment where every stu-
dent can say “this is my place too” (p. 52).
The meaning of each principle is explained briefly below. Each explanation is
followed by a list of things you can do to put this principle into practice.

Principle 1: Focus on students as learners

Students who enter tertiary education have been learning for years within dif-
ferently organized systems and using a range of teaching and learning methods.
No learning environment is value-free and moving between systems with dif-
ferent expectations and assumptions will almost inevitably result in feelings of
uncertainty and confusion. This not only happens when students move between
national systems; it can also happen when students move from the school system
into the higher education system. All students, not just some students, need to
adjust to the disciplinary and academic cultures of their universities and their
98 Using student diversity

discipline. Hence, it is important to make your expectations of learners clear

and transparent. Even with help, transition can be difficult and may take some
students longer than others.
Effective teachers in culturally diverse classrooms assume everyone will benefit
from expanding their repertoire of learning behaviors and help them to do so.
For example, some students will prefer to absorb information by listening care-
fully, taking notes, and reviewing lecture content online. Others will prefer to ask
questions, challenge the “facts” that are presented, and engage with the teach-
ers and other students in argument and debate. Transition into a new academic
culture will usually require students to acquire different skills and adopt locally
valued behaviors in order to be effective learners. However, they will never be
able to, and nor should they be encouraged to, completely abandon learning
strategies that they have used effectively in other learning environments. Rather
they need to learn to select the best approach to learning for the task at hand, to
review the effectiveness of different learning strategies, and where necessary, to
expand their repertoire of learning behaviors.
How can you put this principle into practice?

• create frequent opportunities to give your students prompt feedback on the

way in which they have approached tasks, including intercultural tasks, as
well as their performance
• provide opportunities for students to reflect on their experiences in different
intercultural environments, discuss them with their peers, and reflect on their
strengths and areas they could improve on
• do not make assumptions about students’ learning preferences based on their
cultural background or their appearance
• provide examples, models, and suggestions of ways of approaching specific
learning and assessment tasks
• incorporate some self-assessment and peer assessment into the assessment
schedule, guided by detailed assessment rubrics that you explain to students
• support the development of communities of learners through, for example,
peer mentoring and peer assisted study programs.

Principle 2: Respect and adjust for diversity

It is often convenient to categorize students using terms such as “interna-
tional students,” “domestic students,” “Asian students,” “African students,” or
“Eastern European students.” However, such terms mask the diversity within
these groups, which differ markedly in terms of ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
language capability, and age as well as in their prior experience of education,
work, and life. The individuals within them bring different ways of knowing
and other resources for learning but they will not necessarily nor automatically
be recognized as valuable. Students from diverse backgrounds may feel that
they have to “fit in” and indeed are often pressured to do so by those students
 Using student diversity 99

in the dominant group. Teachers definitely have a role to play here in creating
a learning environment in which all students feel at home because diversity is
clearly valued. To do this requires judgment and reflective practice. In particular,
reflection on the effectiveness of any attempt to create a more inclusive teaching
environment for all students is important. Peer review of teaching can be helpful
in achieving this.
Creating a classroom culture that respects and values diversity is simpler in
small classes where it is much easier to get to know students individually than
in a class of hundreds of students. However, it is possible to model a respect
for diversity in large and small groups. The important thing is to demonstrate
a genuine respect for diversity by openly acknowledging that there are dif-
ferent ways of knowing, inviting and including different ways of knowing as
a resource for learning, exposing all students to multiple perspectives, and
providing them with opportunities to explore alternative views of the world
within the classroom.
The following story illustrates what can happen when teachers do not cre-
ate an inclusive environment where students respect and value diversity. I once
interviewed a Swedish international student with exceptional English language
skills in her final year studying a three-year undergraduate degree in Australia.
She told me that in her first few months of study she had always proudly told
her fellow students that she was an international student, but soon realized that
this was not viewed positively by them. Once they knew that she was an inter-
national student they simply didn’t want to work with her and she always found
herself working in groups with other international students. She said she began
“masquerading as a domestic student” and found that the attitudes of her class-
mates changed. She became very good at it and while this meant she could not
initially share her experiences from “home,” it enabled her to feel included in
the group and to learn from and with Australians and this had been one of the
reasons she had chosen to study in Australia. Once she knew them better, and
had “proved herself,” she was able to disclose her true identity. I found this
story disturbing for a number of reasons, including that the exclusion she had
experienced had occurred in more than one class; her fellow students had been
quite open about their reasons for excluding her from their group and none
of her teachers had intervened. The story illustrates that teaching and learning
within a culturally inclusive learning environment requires effort from teachers
and students.
You can adjust for diversity by, for example:

• looking for and acknowledging diversity in the cultural, sociocultural,

academic, and linguistic backgrounds of the local student population by
conducting a diversity audit and discussing the results with the class
• getting to know students’ names early in the study period, encouraging them
to learn each other’s names and to work with people who will bring different
experiences and perspectives to a learning task
100 Using student diversity

• adjusting teaching, learning, and assessment activities to include case studies

and examples from a range of different cultural and national contexts
• requiring that all students investigate case studies from different places rather
than only selecting case studies close to home
• maintaining a sharp eye on equivalence, fairness, and inclusivity through
reflective practice informed by student performance data
• seeking out examples, suggestions, and guidance on effective ways in which
others have made adjustments to their teaching to utilize diversity.

Principle 3: Provide context-specific information and support

Students are more likely to retreat into cultural silos if they feel alienated from
the rest of the class because they don’t understand what is expected of them.
These silos provide an ideal place for students to try to work out the hidden
rules of the game. However, once established, silos formed at the beginning
of the study period when students are most confused, can soon become firmly
established as a comfortable “home away from home” and they will certainly
inhibit the sharing of knowledge, ideas, and perspectives across cultures that we
seek in an internationalized curriculum. To prevent students from retreating into
cultural silos it is very important to provide context-specific information and
support from the very beginning of the program of study.
The context in which learning takes place includes the surroundings (such as
the university campus and its location), the setting (for example, a large lec-
ture theatre, laboratory, or small classroom), and the circumstances (for example,
a “test” under supervision, or an online discussion group in a first-year class).
Based on their previous experiences, students will bring different preconceptions
of how to behave and how to be successful in these different learning contexts.
If they have been successful in the past by speaking up and asking questions they
are likely to continue to do so. If they have been required to work in silence
and follow instructions rather than explore different options and find the best
solution to a problem through interacting with their peers they are likely to find
problem-based learning difficult. Such behaviors are often attributed to “cul-
tural learning styles” when they may in fact be individual learning preferences.
Misunderstandings are common in this situation. Context-specific information
and support makes expectations transparent. What behaviors are required? Why?
Clarity is especially important in relation to assessment expectations. This includes
specifying the criteria by which success will be measured. A second aspect requiring
explicit context-specific information is tertiary academic skills, such as the sections
to include in a report in an engineering class, or how much detail to include in a
laboratory report in chemistry. Many teachers overlook the fact that each academic
skill is defined and expressed within a specific disciplinary context. In fact, all stu-
dents will benefit from being taught particular disciplinary requirements in relation
to learning and assessment tasks and more general skills such as critical thinking,
using sources appropriately, and identifying and reviewing relevant literature.
 Using student diversity 101

You can provide context specific information and support by, for example:

• conducting a context-specific academic skills needs analysis at the beginning

of a course and using the findings to shape provision
• bringing in specialist staff to teach a session focused on the academic skills
required to successfully complete assessment tasks in the course/unit
• seeking advice and assistance from support services staff with specialized
knowledge on embedding the development of academic literacies into
course/unit and assessment design
• organizing Supplemental Instruction/Peer Assisted Study Sessions in which
high achieving senior students provide context-specific advice to more junior
students
• posting answers to frequently asked questions about expectations in relation
to different assessment tasks on the course website
• explaining what different task requirements mean (“evaluate,” “justify,”
“analyze”) and creating opportunities for students to use and critique
exemplars of efforts to meet task requirements
• clarifying what good performance is by providing marking rubrics which
explain each assessment criterion; clarifying expected standards or
performance for specific assessment tasks.

Principle 4: Enable meaningful intercultural dialogue and

engagement
Creating environments conducive to interaction is an important foundation
for meaningful intercultural dialogue and engagement. Recent research high-
lights the importance of teacher intervention focused on enabling meaningful
intercultural dialogue and engagement. Without dialogue and engagement,
it is difficult to imagine how students will discover what diverse perspectives
exist within the classroom. The words of a student who did discover the ben-
efits of engaging with diversity demonstrate the power of engagement—active
involvement in interaction with people from a range of different national and
cultural backgrounds. “The interactions I had with people from various coun-
tries, not just the local Australians … opened my eyes at 18 years of age to
really understanding that there is no right or wrong and no superiority or
inferiority between two cultures, just differences. This was a surprise to me…”
(Nguon 2011, p. 224).
You can facilitate intercultural dialogue and engagement by:

• providing specific preparation and support for all students to develop their
cross-cultural communication skills prior to and during group tasks
• ensuring that there are mechanisms in place for students to seek support if
group processes start to break down
• assessing group work processes as well as outputs
102 Using student diversity

• designing group work tasks that require multiple perspectives for

completion
• planning formal group work across programs so that early experiences of
intercultural learning that are not sufficient on their own are followed up at
different stages of the program and skills are consolidated
• assessing the development of intercultural skills and individual students’
participation in intercultural group work at regular intervals
• talking to other staff teaching on the program about how they enable and
encourage intercultural engagement
• involving specialists in teaching intercultural communication skills in the
preparation of all students for cross-cultural group work
• encouraging self-reflection and self-assessment by students as they engage in
cross-cultural group assignments.

Principle 5: Be adaptable, flexible, and responsive to evidence

Good teaching requires the ability to adapt methods and approaches, including
those for assessment, to different contexts and student groups. Tasks that have
worked well in one culturally diverse setting may not work well in another.
Culturally inclusive teaching requires flexibility in planning and delivery, regular
evaluation of the effectiveness of different approaches, and appropriate action to
address issues as they arise.
There are various sources of evaluation data, some of which is routinely col-
lected by universities. This can be analyzed to determine the responses of differ-
ent groups and individuals to your teaching. In addition, some teachers gather
evidence of their own on a particular initiative or intervention. Analysis of data
by cultural group can provide insights. This is especially important in relation to
assessment. For example, if students from one cultural group seriously under-
perform in comparison with those from another cultural group an investigation
to determine the reasons for this should occur. For example, perhaps the task
relied on “local’” or “culture specific knowledge” which put some groups at a
disadvantage.
Supplementing student evaluation with other data such as peer observation,
feedback from specialists in teaching across cultures, and personal reflections can
suggest adaptations to language, style, and methods of delivery.
You can be flexible and adaptable, by, for example:

• designing assignments that encourage all students, regardless of their

cultural background, to draw on their life experiences as they learn
• seeking regular feedback from colleagues on your effectiveness in upholding
each of these Good Practice Principles for Teaching Across Cultures
• engaging with literature on teaching and learning across cultures
• experimenting with a variety of different approaches to teaching and
monitoring their effectiveness with different groups of learners
 Using student diversity 103

• collecting evidence and advice on your effectiveness as a teacher of diverse

cultural groups from a variety of sources
• seeking out colleagues from diverse backgrounds and discussing approaches
to teaching with them, including course content and assessment task design.

Principle 6: Prepare students for life in a globalized world

Globalization is an ongoing process. It has created a world in which people,
places, and ideas are connected in ways they have never been connected before.
But it is also more divided, in that power and resources are not shared equally.
Ethical action and social responsibility underpinned by understanding of and
respect for other ways of knowing and ways of being are increasingly important.
As graduates, today’s students will take on roles as citizens and professionals in
this interconnected world. Many will become leaders in their field.
Most universities have statements of graduate qualities or attributes related
to global citizenship that connect with other graduate attribute statements
(see Chapter 5). Using these to inform course and program design and review
focuses attention on the development of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to
thrive in the globalized world of the future.
If the curriculum is essentially ethnocentric or monoethnic in focus, it is unlikely
to challenge stereotypes, contribute to greater equality, enhance understanding
and appreciation of other cultures, and prepare students for the international,
intercultural, and global context of their future lives.
You can teach effectively across cultures and prepare students for life in a glo-
balized world by, for example:

• critiquing the implicit assumptions of disciplinary perspectives and ways of

knowing and requiring your students to do the same
• encouraging your students to investigate the ways in which professional prac-
tice is viewed in different parts of the world
• engaging with global problems and global issues and assisting your students
to critique issues of relevance to the profession (including in assessment tasks)
• discussing the progressive development of the skills, knowledge, and attitudes
required of global citizens and professionals across the program informally
with colleagues and as part of formal periodic course and program reviews
• developing your own international contacts in the discipline and the profes-
sion, including interacting with culturally diverse colleagues who may not
share your views.

Conclusion
Meaning is continuously constructed through human interaction and communi-
cation within and across cultural groups. Cultural learning is a dynamic, develop-
mental, and ongoing process for students and teachers and cultural diversity in
the student population has a significant impact on teaching and learning.
104 Using student diversity

In order to provide a relevant educational experience for all students in an

environment that is supportive and inclusive of all students, you will need to be
reflective, prepared to review and interrogate your own culture and values and
to consider how these influence your teaching practice and in particular your
decision-making in relation to the selection of content and teaching, learning,
and assessment tasks. You will simultaneously need to be outward-looking and
internationally and cross-culturally aware; actively pursuing intercultural engage-
ment with your students and within the discipline; and taking every opportunity
to learn about the national and cultural perspectives of others in relation to all
that is taken for granted in the way knowledge in the discipline is constructed,
communicated, and converted into action.
The creation of a dynamic, intercultural, global learning community in the
classroom often requires that teachers and students step out of their comfort
zone. It is important that you overtly signal the value of multiple perspectives and
encourage students to share their different ways of thinking, doing, and being in
the world through carefully managed activities. This can be challenging and while
the responsibility for doing so effectively rests primarily with individual teachers,
it does not rest with them alone. Institutions have a responsibility to provide
teachers with access to specialized support and program and course teams need
to collaborate and design programs where the development of students’ skills as
intercultural learners is shared.
Chapter 8

Blockers, enablers and encouraging

powerful ideas

This book has presented a framework and process for understanding and moving
towards an internationalized curriculum. The framework locates the disciplines as
central to the concept. I have argued that a critical part of the curriculum inter-
nationalization process involves critiquing the dominant paradigms on which the
content and pedagogy of curriculum are based. Internationalizing the curriculum
requires imagining new possibilities. Imagining and innovating has the potential
to transform teaching and learning if dominant paradigms and long-held beliefs
are challenged. However, the process relies on the engagement of academic staff
and in particular, on them taking action to promote and implement change. In
this chapter, we will explore a number of obstacles to staff engagement in inter-
nationalizing the curriculum. When I have worked with academic staff I have
usually called these obstacles “blockers” (Beelen & Leask 2011) because staff
members see them as preventing their engagement. They are often, however,
obstacles that can be overcome. Staff members are always keen to discuss the
blockers to internationalization of the curriculum within their institutions and in
particular the blockers to their engagement in the process of internationalizing
the curriculum. In the last decade, practical work and more formal research have
generated valuable insights into what discourages, hinders, and prevents staff
engagement in internationalizing the curriculum; they have resulted in strategies
to overcome some of the more common obstacles. Once in action, these strate-
gies become enablers.
Blockers and enablers are useful in analysis, understanding the situation, and
planning strategy for internationalizing the curriculum. In the absence of analy-
sis, the combination of factors working for and against change to the curriculum
across the layers of context in the framework (see Chapter 3) can be discourag-
ing. Analysis of blockers and enablers can assist in identifying the factors that are
influencing the situation in your context and either driving movement towards
your curriculum internationalization goal (helping forces) or blocking movement
toward your curriculum internationalization goal (hindering forces). The work
of Lewin (1951) on force field analysis is useful for this task. Force field analysis
has been adapted for use in a vast range of situations to understand resistance
106 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas

and motivate people towards change, strengthen the forces that support change,
manage the forces against change, identify possible actions, and develop strategic
interventions. Internationalizing the curriculum within a program and a univer-
sity is a long-term, cyclical project and it is often not only difficult to identify the
resources needed to overcome setbacks and prompt action but it is also difficult
to keep such a complex project on the move. Periodic analysis of blockers and
enablers and evaluation of the effectiveness of different strategies and interven-
tions is an effective and efficient way to keep the process moving. In the first half
of this chapter I use the literature and my own experience to summarize the most
common blockers to and enablers of internationalization of the curriculum in
universities. The second half of the chapter provides some examples of strategies
that have been used successfully to remove blockers to internationalization of the
curriculum.

What are the blockers?

Blockers to internationalization of the curriculum can be categorized into three
different types: cultural blockers, institutional blockers, and personal blockers.
Cultural blockers derive from the values, beliefs, and dominant ways of think-
ing in the discipline. They become blockers when the prevailing assumptions and
beliefs of the disciplinary community are contrary to those underpinning the writ-
ing of this book. In particular, blockers can arise as a result of the way in which
knowledge is constructed in the disciplines. Knowledge construction grows out
of disciplinary assumptions and principles, from a subject’s history, and from aca-
demics’ dominant values and beliefs. Cultural blockers include skepticism about
the validity of the concept of internationalization of the curriculum, a denial of
the relevance of internationalization to a particular discipline and sanctions against
those who challenge taken for granted ways of doing things in the discipline.
Institutional blockers are those related to the ways in which a university organ-
izes itself as it goes about its business. They include the profile of the staff mem-
bers who work in the university and gaps in knowledge, skills, and experience
amongst staff as well as operational issues including how people are organized
into faculties and work groups, the type of support and development opportuni-
ties provided to them, and matters such as workload formulas and promotion
criteria and processes. Institutional blockers are powerful and can result in a com-
plete lack of engagement with internationalization of the curriculum or commit-
ted champions of internationalization working in isolation on small projects that
have little impact.
Carroll (2015) identifies three types of institutional blocker that make the pro-
cess of designing an international curriculum particularly difficult: lack of processes
supporting a culture of “program design,” “course design,” and “session design”
(103–104). Carroll uses the term “program design” to mean creating careful and
planned connections between specific learning outcomes and specific assessment
 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas 107

tasks, then placing the various designed elements into different courses across a
program. Construed in this way, program design means paying attention to how
courses fit together. The goal is a coherent whole resulting in the ability to track
students’ progress towards intended program learning outcomes and, in many
cases, towards graduate capabilities. In the same way, course/module/unit design
mobilizes the design-and-plan principles at the course level—creating planned
connections between learning outcomes and assessment tasks within individual
courses. Likewise, session design connects activities and arrangements within a
session (a laboratory class, a tutorial, a lecture, an online forum, etc.) with the
achievement of specific learning outcomes. Some disciplines and institutions have
a stronger history of these approaches to design based on “constructive align-
ment” (Biggs 2003) where the teaching methods used and the assessment tasks
are aligned to the learning outcomes. This aligned and planned process supports
learners in constructing meaning through relevant learning activities. Attention
to alignment in design at program, course/module/unit, and session level makes
the task of internationalizing the curriculum more straightforward, whereas the
opposite can make internationalization of the curriculum especially difficult.
University leaders across the world see one of the main blockers to interna-
tionalization as the limited experience and expertise of staff. The International
Association of Universities (IAU) conducted four surveys of internationalization
in universities across the world over a decade. The fourth IAU report, based on
data from 1336 institutions in 131 countries, the largest and most geographi-
cally representative of the four surveys, found that the second highest ranked
obstacle to internationalization was the limited experience and expertise of staff
(Egron-Polak & Hudson 2014). This obstacle has been ranked either first or
second in the four IAU surveys that have been conducted. The report classifies
this obstacle as an “institutional” obstacle but in the context of internationaliza-
tion of the curriculum it is more appropriate to classify limited experience and
expertise of staff as a personal blocker, albeit one that the institution has some
control over.
Knowledge-skill gaps that become institutional blockers include, for example,
gaps in staff understanding of emerging paradigms in the discipline and related
professions, the meaning of the terms “internationalization” and/or “curricu-
lum,” lack of experience in curriculum design, and knowing where to start in
internationalizing the curriculum and who to go to for assistance. These gaps in
knowledge will often result in minor changes and a shallow, checklist approach to
internationalization of the curriculum with very little, if any, impact on student
learning outcomes. For example, given a “requirement” to internationalize the
curriculum, a limited understanding of what internationalization of the curricu-
lum means for program and course/unit/module design, and access to little or
no support to work through the process described in this book, staff members
will often look for ways they can simply add on to what already exists to inter-
nationalize their curriculum. They might, for example, add in a few case studies
108 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas

from different parts of the world or replace a locally produced textbook with one
published in another country (often from the same dominant paradigm as the
one it replaced). These are then often cited as evidence of an internationalized
curriculum and a reason for no further action being required.
Personal blockers are related to the “mindset, skillset and heartset” (Bennett
2008, p. 13) of individuals: the capacity, willingness, and commitment of the key
players in internationalization of the curriculum to get involved, to make changes,
and to tackle the issues. Personal blockers faced by academic staff working “at the
coalface of teaching and learning” (Green & Whitsed 2013, p. 148) may result in
indifference or refusal to be involved. Academic staff members frequently report
feeling under-prepared for the task of internationalization, lacking in confidence,
overwhelmed, and uncertain where to start (Beelen & Leask 2011).

Responding to cultural blockers

A number of authors discuss the cultural blockers to internationalization of the
curriculum. Some use taxonomies of how the different disciplines construct
knowledge, drawing in turn on the work of Becher (1989). Becher classified the
disciplines as hard pure (natural science and math), hard applied (science-based
professions, e.g. engineering), soft pure (humanities and social sciences) and soft
applied (social professions, e.g. education, social work, and law). Using this clas-
sification Clifford (2009) found that staff in the “hard pure” disciplines were
resistant to engaging in the discourse of internationalization, whereas staff in the
“soft pure” and “soft applied” discipline areas recognized the need to consider
the future multicultural work environments of their students and make changes
to curriculum content and design in different contexts. Scientists tended to see
their work as “culturally neutral” and therefore already international. Childress
(2010) also found that some staff members were skeptical or vehemently opposed
to making changes and some blocked changes because they saw international
learning as irrelevant to their academic program.
Addressing cultural blockers requires that we challenge long-held beliefs
about knowledge, pedagogy, and curriculum design and is likely to be a long-
term project. It will require “serious engagement with the intellectual and social
frameworks of reference of these learning communities” (Clifford 2009, p. 140)
and support for those within the disciplines who openly challenge dominant
paradigms.
One way to respond to cultural blockers and turn them into enablers is to
provoke discussion, debate, and critique of deeply entrenched intellectual tra-
ditions during the Imagine stage in the process of internationalization of the
curriculum described in Chapter 4. Such discussions rarely occur during cur-
riculum design and never, in my experience, do so unless they are prompted. If
discussions about underlying assumptions, beliefs, and values linked to knowl-
edge-making occur at all it is usually amongst those of like mind on the edge
 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas 109

of the discipline community who offer “alternative courses” or electives. The

facilitator of the process of internationalization of the curriculum described in
Chapter 4 has an important role to play in assisting staff to identify hitherto
unidentified, invisible cultural blockers. They can critique and provoke debate
and challenge status quo beliefs more safely than members of the discipline
community. Opening the debate can give those on the margins permission
to speak, brings them into the discussion, and opens opportunities for their
colleagues to reply. In this regard, internationalizing the curriculum could be
seen by some as an academically subversive activity. However, critique, debate,
and the discovery of new ideas are at the very heart of academic life and are as
necessary for the review of our own activities and assumptions as they are for
other aspects of academic life. If program design teams can be supported in the
Imagine stage of internationalization (see Chapter 4), then they can explore
the possibilities afforded by new ways of thinking about knowledge, including
whose knowledge counts in this curriculum. In the process of internationali-
zation of the curriculum the Imagine stage is where powerful new ideas are
elicited and nurtured. This stage of the process should not be rushed. The
potential power of this stage is reflected in the experiences of those involved
in one of the projects on which the work in this book is based. It was in the
Imagine stage that they took account of key international debates and con-
cerns in the field as well as the “local context of journalism education within
the University” and

imagined and developed a strategy of “critical de-westernization”—the

embedding of non-western approaches to journalism into the curriculum
and the development of a critical discourse with global reference points
(Breit, Obijiofor & Fitzgerald 2013, p. 129).

To get to this point required that they remained in a state of critiquing their
long-held beliefs for an uncomfortably long period of time, moving beyond a
consideration of what is or must be, to what could be. The result was a clarifica-
tion of the goal of internationalizing the curriculum for that particular discipline
group. Finding answers to the questions, “Why are WE doing this?” and “What
do WE want to achieve?” is a far more powerful enabler than any institutional
rationales or goals for internationalizing the curriculum. While the “Big Picture”
of university policies, mission statements, and institutional goals are an important
part of the context for internationalizing the curriculum in the discipline, reach-
ing consensus on “why?” in this discipline and program is critical to achieving
significant curriculum change.
The result of answering these questions in the journalism example above was
the successful negotiation of a comprehensive plan of action identifying a num-
ber of initiatives to embed and synthesize “critical de-Westernization within the
School's curriculum” (Breit, Obijiofor & Fitzgerald 2013, p. 130).
110 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas

Supporting the Imagine stage

Effective imagining is a shared experience. It is important to involve key
members of the disciplinary community and the program team in discussions
of internationalization of the curriculum, especially if transformational change
is the objective. The actions of isolated individuals, working on individual
courses within a program, on the margins, are not without merit or value.
However, if the objective is to reimagine the curriculum or to ensure that all
students achieve institutional goals associated with internationalization, such as
the achievement of graduate capabilities and the development of intercultural
skills for employment and life as a citizen, a whole-of-program approach will
be required (Clifford 2009; Leask 2013). Where the culture of the discipline
is a blocker to this occurring, it can also be an advantage to encourage inter-
disciplinary conversations and debates. This can be an effective way to stop the
censorship that is often practiced by discipline communities on their colleagues
(Clifford 2009).
Imagining requires good leadership. The role of program and discipline
leaders is critical. Essentially, if they are not on board and prepared to play a
central role in leading the discussions very little, if any, progress will be made.
Another important group of people are the champions and advocates of inter-
nationalization of the curriculum within the discipline community, beyond the
program and discipline leaders. They will help to keep the momentum going and
provide valuable support for the leaders in setting and achieving internationali-
zation goals.
Imagining requires time and “space.” It is very important to address funda-
mental issues concerning when and where and how disciplinary program teams
will meet. If workloads, timetables, and work practices make it impossible or
even difficult for staff to find the time to meet regularly the process is likely to
fail. Formal meetings are important, but so too are informal spaces where minds
can meet, new ideas can collide, and hunches can be shared (Johnson 2010).
Moreover “mental space” is as important as physical space. This can be created
by ensuring that workload allocations include adequate amounts of time for cur-
riculum review and planning. Such seemingly simple institutional blockers can be
frustratingly difficult to resolve and will require careful planning and persistence
if they are to be overcome.
One of the most important things to remember when responding to cultural
blockers is that cultural change takes time and it can be frustrating. To keep
your optimism, you could look for evidence that it has started—for example, the
presence of “subversive” courses on the margins of a program—and then try to
leverage off them. If they don't exist yet, that may be a good place to start. It may
not be possible to do everything at once and it is certainly not necessary to inter-
nationalize every course/module/unit in the program. Academic staff members
are often very relieved to hear that (see Chapter 4).
 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas 111

Responding to institutional blockers

Institutional blockers to internationalization of the curriculum are many and
varied. Childress (2010) describes how institutional blockers work. A lack of
financial resources may, for example, result in academic staff not being able to
research and consult internationally, hindering the development of their own
international perspectives and competencies and creating or exacerbating the
impact of an existing knowledge-skill gap. Tenure and promotion policies that do
not reward involvement in curriculum design or internationalization may deter
staff members from getting involved when there are many other activities that are
rewarded in both the short and the long term. Something as apparently straight-
forward as including a requirement to publish at least one academic paper a year
on a teaching and learning related matter might be sufficient incentive for staff
members to become involved in activities related to internationalization of the
curriculum. Other institutional blockers, collected from the literature and my
own experience, include the following:

• A lack of institutional vision or policy related to internationalization of the

curriculum.
• Leaders who are not committed to or informed about internationalization
of the curriculum.
• Internationalization of the curriculum having a low priority and few resources
to support it.
• Lack of support/resourcing for academic staff to collaborate with or work in
international settings.
• No expectation that academic staff members will work with colleagues within
their own university who bring alternative perspectives to the discipline.
• A discourse of marketization and commercialization of education in relation
to internationalization (meaning that it is therefore not perceived by aca-
demic staff as “academic business”).
• An internationalization strategy that is focused primarily on income
generation.
• Undervaluing of research and publications in the area of assessment, learn-
ing, and teaching.

Changing these blockers into enablers may on the surface appear to be relatively
easy. Most can simply be reversed and made into positive statements. However,
changing the underpinning values, beliefs, and priorities is stubbornly difficult
and an enabler is much more profound and difficult than the absence of a blocker.
This is because it requires getting those involved to think, believe, and imagine
things differently. One of the problems with institutional internationalization of
the curriculum policy that simply asserts goals is that it does not change the hearts
and minds of staff members—it is simply not sufficient.
112 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas

Lewin (1951) argued that modifying the forces which maintain the status
quo may be easier than increasing the forces for change. According to his “force
field analysis” model, change will not occur until the forces acting for change
are stronger than the forces acting against change. However, change will be
easier and longer lasting if the forces against change are reduced, rather than
the forces for change being increased. This suggests that introducing a new
policy or mandating requirements to implement a policy will not be as effective
as reducing the impediments to change, such as providing opportunities for
staff to develop their international networks within and beyond their discipline
communities.
Here, the importance of context in relation to internationalization of the
curriculum as discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and elsewhere in this book
is apparent. Identifying appropriate interventions to overcome institutional
blockers requires an understanding of the blockers in the institutional context.
The blockers may be different in different institutions depending on the way
in which, for example, promotion criteria are described and workload formu-
las are calculated. Strategies to overcome blockers might include incentives,
rewards, and support, the inclusion of international scholarship and service in
tenure and promotion policies as well as in recruitment guidelines, the provi-
sion of small grants as springboards to promote greater involvement in inter-
nationalization, and opportunities for staff members to share their learning
and experiences with others in facilitated workshops (Childress 2009). Other
approaches might include creating physical and virtual interdisciplinary spaces
where academic staff members can come together to discuss matters related to
the ways in which they might work together on a range of projects related to
internationalization of the curriculum and the establishment and maintenance
of disciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and cross-institutional networks of champi-
ons and leaders.
A common oversight related to internationalization policies is the need to
support academic staff members in interpreting and implementing generic
statements and goals at the level of their discipline or department. Generic or
institution-wide statements relating to graduate capabilities such as the devel-
opment of international perspectives, global citizenship, and intercultural com-
petence (see Chapter 5) are insufficient. Such policies need to be interpreted,
explained to students, and assessed within courses and programs because that
is where student learning occurs. Participants in the Internationalization
of the Curriculum in Action Fellowship described in Chapter 1 frequently
expressed their frustration at an apparent lack of support for the interpre-
tation of policy in relation to internationalization of the curriculum within
their specific disciplines. This can be provided in various ways including as
part of the process of internationalization of the curriculum described in
Chapter 4.
 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas 113

Gaps in the knowledge and skills that staff members bring to the task of
internationalization of the curriculum individually and collectively can be signifi-
cant blockers. The most common knowledge-skills gaps encountered are encap-
sulated in these frequently asked questions:

• What are we talking about when we use the term “curriculum?”

• What is internationalization of the curriculum?
• Why is internationalization of the curriculum important?
• How does it apply to my discipline, which is international anyway?
• What is my role?

A common approach to addressing knowledge-skill gaps in universities is to run

workshops for academic staff members from a range of disciplines focused on
definitions and general strategies for internationalizing the curriculum. I have
run many of these workshops over the years. They are often attended by staff
members who are already committed to internationalizing the curriculum and
to making changes rather than those who resist change. Participants frequently
speak of their frustration in convincing others in their program team to make
changes and being forced to work on the margins, offering optional niche
courses/subjects/modules to a few students. Workshops can be effective ways
to provide useful information and discuss internationalization of the curriculum
as a concept and a process, but they are rarely an effective way to address other
than fairly basic knowledge-skills gaps and raise questions for further explora-
tion. They have certainly never resulted in the sort of change resulting from the
engagement of program teams in the process described in this book. Hence it
is worth spending considerable time and resources to bring teams together and
support them through the process of internationalizing the curriculum. Where
teams are not made up of staff members from diverse backgrounds, broader
cultural perspectives may need to be brokered in, perhaps using the resources of
international partner universities. These interventions are sometimes best facili-
tated by an expert advisor or consultant in internationalization of the curricu-
lum (Carroll 2015; de Wit & Beelen 2012).
Given the complex interplay between the various layers of context in the con-
ceptual model described in Chapter 3, there is no one size fits all pattern or fool-
proof recipe for dealing with institutional blockers that hinder the engagement of
academic staff in internationalization of the curriculum. The key is to investigate
and understand the institutional context and the relationship between the insti-
tution, its policies and procedures, the discipline, professional communities, and
individual staff members. Once the nature of the blockers is understood, it is pos-
sible to identify ways to reduce or weaken them and at the same time, to create
effective strategies and interventions to generate the energy and thinking that will
lead to the formulation and achievement of agreed, shared goals.
114 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas

Responding to personal blockers

A significant personal blocker identified in the literature is the level of
commitment of academic staff to internationalization the curriculum (see for
example Bond et al. 2003; Clifford 2009; Sanderson 2008). Ritzen (2013) sug-
gests that “internationalization of the mind will become more and more central
in universities” (p. 59) as students develop international attitudes, intercultural
sensitivity and become more productive local and global citizens. Achievement of
this goal in the future requires that the academic staff members who are designing
and teaching programs now are themselves “international of mind.” Sanderson
(2008) argues that the “internationalization of the academic self” is a “challeng-
ing, long-term undertaking” (p. 298) best approached by universities using the
diversity of their own staff as an organizational resource to foster cosmopolitan
perspectives within the institution. This reinforces the points made above about
the need to make space for and facilitate discussion, debate, and critique of issues
and long-held assumptions and extends it to the need to make specific efforts
to engage staff from diverse cultural backgrounds in this discussion, specifically
inviting their contributions and listening respectfully to their perspectives and
suggestions. In doing so, facilitators are deliberately and strategically bringing
ideas from the periphery into the center.

Developing an effective institutional strategy

An effective institutional strategy for internationalization of the curriculum
will most likely need to address cultural blockers, institutional blockers, and
personal blockers. The Process of internationalizing the curriculum described in
Chapter 4 does this by identifying program leaders who are committed, using
a facilitator to work with the program leader and a small group of staff mem-
bers who teach into the program and creating critical spaces where dynamic
and transformational curriculum internationalization conversations can occur
(Leask 2013; Green & Whitsed 2013). Resources for facilitating this process
such as the “Questionnaire on Internationalization of the Curriculum” are
included in Chapter 9. Four case studies of the process in action, in different
disciplines, are included in Chapter 10.
The blockers to internationalization are complex, overlapping, and often
related. They can reinforce each other and become confused and difficult to
unpack. The possibility that a number of interrelated cultural, institutional, per-
sonal, and knowledge-skill blockers may be operating at any one time suggests that
successfully engaging academic staff in the process of internationalization of the
curriculum will require a range of strategies and perseverance and dedication to
the task over time. A “Blockers and Enablers” survey is included in Chapter 9.
This survey can be used as it is or adapted and modified by different institu-
tions, schools, or faculties to determine what it is that most excites their staff
about internationalizing the curriculum, what the current blockers are to their
 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas 115

involvement in the process of internationalizing the curriculum, which of these

are within their control, and how they might address them. It contains items that
provide insights into all three categories of blockers.
Another useful strategy is to mobilize staff members in the disciplines who
are themselves champions and advocates of internationalization of the curricu-
lum. You may need to look across the university to locate them and when spot-
ted, encourage them to facilitate as well as participate in these program team
discussions.

Leadership
Evaluation of the work conducted for the Fellowship Internationalization of the
Curriculum in Action in nine Australian universities described in Chapter 1 indi-
cated that most change took place when there was sustained activity over time
focused specifically on internationalizing the curriculum. Sustained staff engage-
ment was more likely when:

• Direction in policy was clear and the focus of implementation was on influ-
encing and collaborating with disciplinary communities.
• The leadership value of many different individuals was recognized and many,
rather than a few, were engaged in the leadership activity. As those involved
were often not in traditional leadership roles or identified as “leaders” by the
university, they needed to be nurtured and supported.
• The focus was on interaction between these leaders rather than the actions
of individual leaders. The interactions were focused on problem solving and
mutual inquiry around questions such as “What does internationalization
mean in this particular context?”
• Those in formal leadership positions listened, supported, and negotiated
rather than talking, telling, and delegating. They took an active, ongoing
interest in the outcomes of the process of internationalizing the curriculum
in different disciplines, signaling that this was more than a passing fad.
• Leadership in internationalization of the curriculum was shared between,
across, and within different departments, programs, and schools.

The role of the most senior leader with a responsibility for internationalization,
often the Deputy Vice Chancellor International or the Senior International
Officer, was most effective when they focused on creating the internal condi-
tions where innovation in internationalization of the curriculum in the disciplines
could thrive by, for example:

• setting the general direction and identifying leaders in different schools with
the right set of skills and a commitment to internationalization
• creating time, space, and opportunity for groups to meet, review, reflect,
imagine, and be creative as well as plan
116 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas

• facilitating and supporting interactions within the university and with other
groups in other universities
• clearly signaling their respect for and the value placed on the role of academic
staff in the process of internationalizing the curriculum
• establishing a communication system and processes by which the organiza-
tion could learn and develop from the activity that was occurring through,
for example, regular “all staff” updates
• making it clear that the activity is valued by providing rewards in traditional
“academic” ways, e.g. through supporting research and publication in inter-
nationalization of the curriculum, sponsoring university-wide colloquia, and
instituting staff awards focused on achievements in internationalization of
the curriculum.

The above suggests that distributed leadership (Harris & Spillane 2008) is an
important enabler of internationalization of the curriculum. Reflective practice
is an integral part of distributed leadership. Distributed leadership in interna-
tionalizing the curriculum harnesses the strength of discipline communities
and their capacity to reflect critically on their own practices. Distributed leader-
ship in teaching and learning based on collaboration, trust, and respect for the
expertise of individuals opens up the possibility for radical and sustained change
(Jones, S et al. 2014). In the processes described in this book, the shared and
active engagement of program teams resulted not only in imagining new ways to
internationalize the curriculum, but also in the development of leadership capac-
ity to sustain improvements in teaching and learning in the long term, within and
beyond a single discipline.

Summing up
Internationalizing the curriculum is a dynamic and complex process that is largely
undertaken as a specialist activity on the periphery of other academic work. As
internationalizing the curriculum is concerned with ensuring that all students
are prepared to live and work ethically and responsibly in a globalized world, it
should be mainstream rather than marginal. This book has described approaches
to internationalizing the curriculum focused on challenging dominant paradigms,
considering issues of cognitive justice, and imagining new possibilities. While
there are many immediate challenges and obstacles to internationalization of the
curriculum, there are ways to overcome them. Critically examining dominant
paradigms and imagining and creating new possibilities is at least as rewarding as
it is challenging.
In closing, I suggest three critical requirements for internationalization of the
curriculum as described in this book.
 Blockers, enablers and powerful ideas 117

A strong academic rationale

The interrogation of dominant disciplinary paradigms, individual biases, and
commonly held beliefs associated with internationalization of the curriculum is
serious and important academic work that takes both time and effort. It requires
imagination, problem solving, and creative thinking and without a strong aca-
demic rationale for engaging in the process it will be difficult to both start and
continue the conversations that are required. There are many competing demands
on staff members’ time and they must make difficult choices about how to spend
their own time as well as how to allocate time in the curriculum. Having a strong
academic rationale for internationalizing the curriculum both stimulates and sus-
tains engagement in the process.

Critical conversation, negotiation, and debate

Challenging dominant paradigms is a critical part of the process of international-
izing the curriculum. Curriculum design necessitates a series of choices, including
whose knowledge will be included, what skills and attitudes will be developed,
and how these will be assessed. Such decisions require critical conversation, nego-
tiation, and debate.

Leadership and support

Teaching staff members need informed and strategic leadership and support
within and outside of the discipline to internationalize the curriculum—at uni-
versity and program levels. In universities where leaders at university level and
program level understood the complexity of internationalization of the curricu-
lum and the need to support it in different ways, academic staff members were
more confident, adventurous, and resilient as they worked through the process.
This page intentionally left blank
Part III

Resources and case studies

Supporting the process of
internationalization of the curriculum
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 9

Using key resources

This chapter discusses resources that were developed to support the process of
internationalization of the curriculum (see Figure 9.1). The stages of the process
are described in detail in Chapter 4. Case studies of the process are included in
Chapter 10.
The resources provided here have been used, refined, and modified for use
with different groups of staff. Their design is consistent with the definition of
internationalization used throughout this book.

Review
and
reflect

Evaluate Imagine
The process of
internationalization
of the curriculum
(IoC)

Revise
Act and
plan

Figure 9.1 The process of internationlization of the curriculum (loC)

122 Using key resources

Internationalization of the curriculum is the incorporation of international,

intercultural, and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum as
well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods, and sup-
port services of a program of study.

How the curriculum is internationalized is dependent on a range of contex-

tual factors. In this part of the book, we will explore how some of the resources
developed in the Internationalization of the Curriculum in Action Fellowship
described in Chapter 1 were used in different contexts. The development and
possible ways to use key resources, including two versions of the Questionnaire on
Internationalization of the Curriculum (QIC) and a Blockers and Enablers Survey,
are discussed.

The Questionnaire on Internationalization

of the Curriculum (QIC)
The original QIC was developed at the request of academic staff involved in
the Internationalization of the Curriculum in Action Fellowship described in
Chapter 1 (see also Leask 2012) to support the first stage of the process, the
Review and Reflect Stage (see Figure 9.1). The focus question of this stage is
“To what extent is our curriculum internationalized?”
The QIC was designed to assist program leaders and their teams to clarify
what was already happening in relation to internationalization in their program
in different courses and at different year levels. It is an effective way to stimulate
discussion, and build understanding of the current state of thinking and action in
relation to curriculum internationalization across the program. It has been suc-
cessfully used to do this in different ways.
In the Internationalization of the Curriculum in Action Fellowship some pro-
gram team members were emailed a word version of the QIC and asked to com-
plete it prior to meeting to compare their responses; in others, a modified version
of the QIC was sent to staff using online survey software and the results were col-
lated prior to a meeting in which these were discussed; in others, the team worked
through the answers in one or more sessions, debating and discussing points as
they went. Some staff members were able to compete the questionnaire relatively
quickly and easily; others took much longer and at least one group spent consider-
able time critiquing it as a data collection instrument. The QIC was not designed
to gather data for statistical analysis. Rather it was designed to stimulate reflection
and discussion amongst teams of teaching staff about internationalization of the
curriculum in their program. It is not a performance measurement tool. It is a
useful way to identify what is already happening across a program of study as well
as in individual courses/subjects/units and what actions might be taken to further
internationalize a program of study.
Two versions of the QIC are provided here—the original QIC1 and QIC2.
In an extension to the original Internationalization of the Curriculum in Action
Fellowship, two of the participants involved (Green and Whitsed 2013) devel-
oped QIC2. The original version QIC1 contains many open-ended questions
that invite comments and reflection. QIC2 uses a five-point Likert scale with
 Using key resources 123

little scope for written comments and reflections. QIC1 and QIC2 have been
trialed with a wide range of disciplines. QIC1 was preferred by disciplinary
teams who prefer a more qualitative approach to research, while more quantita-
tively oriented disciplines preferred QIC2. Disciplinary team leaders are advised
to assess which version of the QIC is likely to resonate with their team before
using them for the purpose of reflection and review. Both QIC1 and QIC2 can
be transcribed into online survey formats such as Survey Monkey.
Both versions of the QIC look at the context in which the program is taught,
as well as individual elements of the curriculum such as content, assessment, and
teaching and learning arrangements.
If you are going to use either version of the QIC to start the process of inter-
nationalizing the curriculum, you will need to:

1 Identify the team

This would usually be the group that teaches in the “core” of the program, or
the coordinators of the course constituting the academic major. Staff members
teaching on the program with an interest in internationalization could also be
invited to join the review. You may also want to involve an academic or profes-
sional development lecturer with some expertise in internationalization of the
curriculum in your team at this point.
2 Ensure the team members understand the purpose of the QIC
Team members should be advised that the QIC is a tool to prompt reflection and
discussion and it is expected that answers that individuals provide to questions
will vary considerably. They should also be advised that they may not be able
to answer all of the questions without reference to other members of the team.
They should not be concerned about that, as that will happen during a follow-up
program team meeting. You should also be aware that while it is desirable that
all participants involved in the follow-up team meeting have completed the ques-
tionnaire it is rarely the case that they have.
3 Make time for the team to discuss the responses
The team should come together soon after having completed the question-
naire to share their responses and discuss the rationales for their answers and
any similarities and differences between them. If you are using QIC1 there are
some follow-up discussion questions embedded within the questionnaire. The
responses to questions in both QIC1 and QIC2 provide many starting points for
discussion and debate. It is useful to keep a summary of the key points of these
debates—you may want to record the discussion or nominate a note-taker.
4 Use the QIC to work out what to do next
Reflecting on the answers provided by team and the issues they raised, indi-
vidually and collectively, is an important stage in the development of an action
plan focused on who needs to do what, by when. The plan should identify
concrete actions and dates, including when the plan itself will be reviewed and
evaluated.
124 Using key resources

Prior to staff completing the QIC it is important to make it clear that it is

rarely, if ever, desirable or appropriate for all aspects of all courses in a program
to be located at the same place on the continuum. If, for example, the focus of a
particular course/unit/module is on rules, regulations, or required procedures in
a particular jurisdiction, it may not be at all relevant to move beyond the “local.”
One of the purposes of the follow-up discussion is to “map” where this is the case
as well as where existing approaches are aligned with the definition of an interna-
tionalized curriculum presented. This facilitates the identification of future goals
in relation to internationalization of the curriculum for the program and a plan to
achieve them, given what is already happening in different parts of the program.
Some of the questions in the QIC were designed to challenge common myths
and misconceptions associated with internationalization of the curriculum dis-
cussed in Chapter 1 and elsewhere in this book. For example, the myth that
opportunities to participate in study abroad or exchange are sufficient to inter-
nationalize the curriculum, or the myth that in a culturally diverse classroom
students who are required to work in groups will automatically develop their
international perspectives and intercultural skills. The QIC was also designed to
prompt people to think about the program holistically, as well as to consider
how individual course/units/modules for which they are responsible within the
program might contribute to internationalizing the curriculum. In discussions
based on the responses of team members to the QIC, it was common to find that
individual staff members had limited knowledge of what was occurring beyond
their course/unit/module in relation to internationalization as well as other ele-
ments of the curriculum. In this regard, completion of the questionnaire by all
team members and the follow-up discussions had value beyond international-
izing the curriculum. Awareness was raised and resources and perspectives were
shared on other matters such as assessment, content, and teaching and learning
arrangements.

The Questionnaire on Internationalization of the

Curriculum Version 1 (QIC1)
A stimulus for reflection and discussion
The purpose of this questionnaire is to stimulate reflection and discussion
amongst teams of teaching staff about internationalization of the curriculum in
their PROGRAM1. It is intended as an aid to identifying what is already happen-
ing and, where appropriate, what action might be taken to further international-
ize the PROGRAM.
Internationalization of the curriculum is “the incorporation of an inter-
national and intercultural dimension into the content of the curriculum
as well as the TEACHING AND LEARNING [ARRANGEMENTS] and
support services of a program of study”2. This definition implies that an
internationalized curriculum will:
 Using key resources 125

• Engage students with internationally informed research and cultural and

linguistic diversity,
• Purposefully develop students’ international and intercultural perspec-
tives—the knowledge, skills, and self awareness they need to participate
effectively as citizens and professionals in a global society characterized by
rapid change and increasing diversity,
• Move beyond traditional boundaries and dominant paradigms and prepare
students to deal with uncertainty by opening their minds and developing
their ability to think both creatively and critically,
• Be supported by services focused on the development of intercultural
competence and international perspectives

The questionnaire looks at the context in which the PROGRAM is taught, as

well as individual elements of the curriculum such as content, assessment and
TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS. Respondents are asked to
locate different aspects of their PROGRAM on a continuum, like the one below,
using the descriptors provided as a guide. At the end of the questionnaire
respondents are asked to locate the PROGRAM as a whole on the continuum.

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

NOTE: It is not necessarily desirable or appropriate for all aspects of all

COURSES in a PROGRAM to be located at the same place on this con-
tinuum. One of the purposes of the follow-up discussion is to identify future
goals in relation to internationalization of the curriculum for the PROGRAM
and develop a plan to achieve them, given what is already happening in indi-
vidual COURSES across the PROGRAM.

Instructions to respondents

The questionnaire should take you between 30 minutes and one hour to com-
plete, depending on the amount of detail you choose to include in your answers.
Answers need only be recorded in note form, to jog your memory when you
come to discuss the answers with your colleagues.
In answering the questions, consider which is the most appropriate response
for your COURSE3 or PROGRAM, as far as you know, at this time. If you think
that your COURSE or PROGRAM best fits somewhere between two numbers
indicate that on the scale. There is a space below each continuum for com-
ments. In some instances specific questions are asked in relation to your rating
of an item. The comments and answers to any specific questions will be impor-
tant when you have the discussion with your colleagues in Step 3.

Continued
126 Using key resources

Continued

Note that on the continuum, 4 indicates a higher level of internationalization

than 1.
Before you start the questionnaire please take a few minutes to record your
thinking in relation to the following question:
How important is internationalization of the curriculum in this PROGRAM?
Why?

1 2 3 4

Not important at all Essential

Rationale
1. How clearly is the rationale for internationalization of the cur-
riculum in this PROGRAM understood by members of the
PROGRAM team?
1.1. Reasons for internationalization of the curriculum in this PROGRAM
are never discussed
1.2. Reasons for internationalization of the curriculum in this PROGRAM
are sometimes discussed but we never seem to reach agreement and so
nothing happens
1.3. The rationale for internationalization of the curriculum in this
PROGRAM is frequently discussed and debated by members of the
PROGRAM team
1.4. The reasons for internationalization of the curriculum in this
PROGRAM are understood and agreed by the PROGRAM team

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

What, for you, is the most compelling reason to internationalize the curriculum in this
PROGRAM?

Learning outcomes
2. In the COURSE for which you are responsible, how clearly defined
and articulated are any international/intercultural learning goals,
aims and outcomes?
2.1. No COURSE specific international/intercultural goals, aims and learn-
ing outcomes are defined
2.2. There are some desirable and intended international/intercultural goals,
aims and learning outcomes but they are not explicitly described in the
COURSE information.
 Using key resources 127

2.3. The COURSE has clearly defined and articulated learning outcomes
related to the development of international/intercultural perspectives
and these are communicated to students and staff
2.4. The COURSE has clearly defined and articulated learning outcomes
related to the development of international/intercultural perspectives
within the context of the discipline and these are systematically devel-
oped and assessed

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

If you located your COURSE at or between point 3 or point 4 on the continuum,

describe the relevant outcomes.

Follow-up discussion question:

• How do the international/intercultural learning goals, aims and outcomes of this

COURSE relate to those of other COURSES in the PROGRAM?

TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS

3. In the COURSE for which you are responsible, to what extent
do the TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS support
students to work effectively in cross-cultural groups and teams?
3.1. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS do not support
students to work in cross-cultural groups
3.2. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS encourage stu-
dents to work in cross-cultural groups
3.3. Students are taught how to work in cross-cultural groups and how to
reflect on and learn from their experiences in more than one COURSE
in this PROGRAM
3.4. Students are given extensive training and support so that by the time
they graduate they will be able to work effectively in a variety of
cross-cultural group work situations

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Continued
128 Using key resources

Continued

Follow-up discussion question:

• To what extent do the TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS across

the PROGRAM support students to work effectively in cross-cultural groups
and teams?

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Is this appropriate? Why? Why not?

4. In the COURSE for which you are responsible, to what extent do

the TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS encourage
intercultural interaction?
4.1. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS do not encour-
age intercultural interaction
4.2. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS provide oppor-
tunities for students to participate in intercultural interaction but it is
up to them whether they do or they don’t take these up
4.3. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS actively encour-
age all students to participate in intercultural interaction
4.4. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS actively encour-
age and reward student engagement in intercultural interaction

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Comments:

Follow-up discussion question:

• To what extent do the TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS across

the PROGRAM encourage student engagement in intercultural interaction and
international experience?

Is this appropriate? Why? Why not?

5. In the COURSE for which you are responsible, to what extent

do the TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS assist
all students to develop international and intercultural skills and
knowledge?
5.1. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS do not include
any activities designed to assist students to develop international or
intercultural skills and knowledge
 Using key resources 129

5.2. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS include some

activities designed to assist students to develop international or inter-
cultural skills and knowledge but no constructive feedback is provided
5.3. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS include a
range of activities designed to assist students to develop international
and/or intercultural skills and knowledge and constructive feedback is
provided
5.4. The TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS include a range
of activities designed to assist students to develop international and
intercultural skills and knowledge, these are integrated into the COURSE
and constructive feedback is provided on their development

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Follow-up discussion question:

• To what extent do the TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS across

the PROGRAM assist all students to develop international and intercultural
skills and knowledge?

Is this appropriate? Why? Why not?

Assessment tasks
6. In the COURSE for which you are responsible, to what extent do
assessment tasks require students to consider issues from a vari-
ety of cultural perspectives?
6.1. Students in this COURSE are never required to consider issues from
more than one cultural perspective in an assessment task
6.2. Sometimes students in this COURSE are given the option to consider
issues from more than one cultural perspective in an assessment task
6.3. Students in this COURSE are sometimes required to consider issues
from more than one cultural perspective in an assessment task
6.4. Students in this COURSE are always required to consider issues from
more than one cultural perspective in an assessment task

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

If you located your COURSE at point 4 on the continuum, explain how you do this or
give an example.

Continued
130 Using key resources

Continued

Follow-up discussion question:

• To what extent do assessment tasks across the PROGRAM require students

to consider issues from a variety of cultural perspectives?

Is this appropriate? Why? Why not?

7. In the COURSE for which you are responsible, to what extent

do assessment tasks require students to recognize intercultural
issues relevant to their discipline and/or professional practice?
7.1. Students in this COURSE are never assessed on their ability to recog-
nize or discuss intercultural issues relevant to their discipline and/or
professional practice
7.2. Sometimes students in this COURSE are given the option to discuss
intercultural issues relevant to their discipline and/or professional
practice as part of an assessment task
7.3. Students in this COURSE are sometimes required to discuss intercul-
tural issues relevant to their discipline and/or professional practice as
part of an assessment task
7.4. Students in this COURSE are always required to discuss and analyze
intercultural issues relevant to their discipline and/or professional
practice as part of an assessment task

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

If you located your COURSE at point 4 on the continuum, explain how you do
this or give an example.

Follow-up discussion question:

• To what extent do assessment tasks across the PROGRAM require students

to recognize intercultural issues relevant to their discipline and/or professional
practice?

Is this appropriate? Why? Why not?

8. In the COURSE for which you are responsible, to what extent are
assessment tasks culturally sensitive?
8.1. Patterns of assessment task completions and results are never ana-
lyzed for signs of any difficulties for particular groups of students
8.2. Patterns of assessment task completions and results are rarely ana-
lyzed for signs of any difficulties for particular groups of students
 Using key resources 131

8.3. Patterns of assessment task completions and results are sometimes

analyzed by some staff for signs of any difficulties for particular groups
of students
8.4. Patterns of assessment task completions and results are systematically
analyzed for signs of any difficulties for particular groups of students

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

If you located your COURSE at point 4 on the continuum, explain how you
do this.

Follow-up discussion question:

• To what extent are assessment tasks across the PROGRAM culturally

inclusive?

Is this appropriate? Why? Why not?

PROGRAM learning outcomes

9. How clearly defined and articulated are the international/inter-
cultural learning goals, aims and outcomes of this PROGRAM?
9.1. No PROGRAM specific international/intercultural goals, aims
and learning outcomes or graduate attributes are defined for this
PROGRAM
9.2. There are PROGRAM specific international/intercultural goals, aims
and learning outcomes and/or graduate attributes but no COURSES
specifically focus on their development and assessment
9.3. The PROGRAM has clearly defined and articulated learning outcomes
and/or graduate attributes related to the development of interna-
tional/intercultural perspectives within the context of the discipline
and these are communicated to students and staff
9.4. The PROGRAM has clearly defined and articulated learning outcomes
and/or graduate attributes related to the development of interna-
tional/intercultural perspectives within the context of the discipline
and these are systematically developed and assessed across the PROGRAM

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Continued
132 Using key resources

Continued

Follow-up discussion questions:

• What international, intercultural or global perspectives do graduates of this

PROGRAM need? Why?
• What are the 2–3 most important international/intercultural learning outcomes
for graduates of this PROGRAM?

PROGRAM level - curriculum

10. To what extent is the content of this PROGRAM international-
ized?
NOTE: When considering “content” you should think not only about the nature of
the subjects or topics covered in text books and readings but also about the substan-
tive information contained in your lecture slides and notes, PROGRAM and COURSE
information booklets etc.
10.1. The content of the PROGRAM is only informed by research and
practice from within the national or regional context, and only dominant
viewpoints and commonly accepted ways of thinking in the disci-
pline are presented, invited and rewarded
10.2. The content of the PROGRAM is predominantly informed by research
and practice from an international context, and only dominant view-
points and commonly accepted ways of thinking in the discipline are
presented, invited and rewarded
10.3. The content of the PROGRAM is predominantly informed by
research and practice from an international context, and dominant
viewpoints and ways of thinking in the discipline are the main focus,
but the presence of non-dominant viewpoints is acknowledged
10.4. The content of the PROGRAM is predominantly informed by
research and practice from an international context, and a broad
range of dominant and non-dominant viewpoints and ways of thinking in
the discipline are presented, invited and analyzed

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Follow-up discussion question:

• What are the main blockers to internationalization of the content in this

PROGRAM?

11. To what extent are students required to apply knowledge and

skills in different national and cultural contexts?
11.1. The PROGRAM focuses only on the application of knowledge and skills
within local contexts in ways that do not require engagement with the
perspectives of those from other national and/or cultural backgrounds
 Using key resources 133

11.2. The PROGRAM focuses mainly on the application of knowledge

and skills within local contexts, but some COURSES within the
PROGRAM give students the option to engage with the perspectives
of those from other national and/or cultural backgrounds
11.3. The PROGRAM focuses mainly on the application of knowledge
and skills within local contexts, but some COURSES within the
PROGRAM require students to engage with the perspectives of those
from other national and/or cultural backgrounds
11.4. The PROGRAM focuses on the application of knowledge and skills
within a range of different national and cultural contexts and requires
students to engage with multiple perspectives and points of view

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Follow-up discussion question:

• What is the appropriate balance in this PROGRAM between the application of

knowledge and skills within different national and cultural contexts? Why?

PROGRAM Level – Teaching Team

12. To what extent do COURSE COORDINATORS understand the
cultural foundations of knowledge and practice in the discipline
and related professions?
12.1. COURSE COORDINATORS are not required or encouraged under-
stand the cultural foundations of knowledge and practice in the dis-
cipline and related professions
12.2. COURSE COORDINATORS are encouraged to develop their
understanding of the cultural foundations of knowledge and practice
in the discipline and related professions
12.3. COURSE COORDINATORS are expected to have a good under-
standing of the cultural foundations of knowledge and practice in
the discipline and related professions
12.4. COURSE COORDINATORS are expected to have a good understand-
ing the cultural foundations of knowledge and practice in the discipline
and related professions and to ensure this is reflected in the course in
some way

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Continued
134 Using key resources

Continued

Follow up discussion question:

• What mechanisms would you expect to see in place in a PROGRAM at point 4

on the continuum?

13. To what extent are teaching staff in this PROGRAM expected to

understand the international context of the discipline and related
professions?
13.1. Teaching staff are not encouraged or required to have a good under-
standing of the discipline and related professions internationally
13.2. Some teaching staff are encouraged to have a good understanding of
the discipline and related professions internationally
13.3. Some teaching staff are supported to develop their understanding of
the discipline and related professions internationally
13.4. All teaching staff are encouraged and required to continually develop
their understanding of the discipline and related professions
internationally

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Follow-up discussion questions:

• What types of support and assistance are most effective in developing the
understanding of teaching staff of the international context of the discipline and
related professions?
• How should/are teaching staff rewarded for continually developing their under-
standing of the international context of the discipline and related professions?

14. To what extent are teaching staff in this PROGRAM expected to

employ teaching strategies that engage students from diverse
cultural backgrounds?
14.1. Teaching staff are not encouraged or assisted in or rewarded for
employing teaching strategies that will engage students from diverse
cultural backgrounds
14.2. Teaching staff are encouraged to develop teaching strategies that will
engage students from diverse cultural backgrounds
14.3. Teaching staff are assisted and/or supported to develop teaching strat-
egies that will engage students from diverse cultural backgrounds
14.4. Teaching staff are encouraged, assisted and supported in the employ-
ment of teaching strategies that engage students from diverse cul-
tural backgrounds
 Using key resources 135

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Follow-up discussion questions:

• What types of support are most likely to be effective in assisting teaching staff
to develop strategies that engage students from diverse cultural backgrounds?
• What types of reward and recognition are (or could be) provided to teaching
staff who do this effectively?
Overall Rating for this PROGRAM
15. Considering the above, overall where would you locate the cur-
riculum of your PROGRAM on this scale?

1 2 3 4

A localized curriculum An internationalized curriculum

Other related questions and issues

Are there any other questions, issues, considerations or discussion topics

related to internationalization of the curriculum that you would like to raise?

Glossary of terms used in the QIC

PROGRAM: a course of study leading to a qualification offered by the university,

e.g. Bachelor of Nursing. In some universities the terminology used is “course.”

COURSE: the components of a PROGRAM, e.g. Nursing 1, Anatomy and

Physiology 1. In some universities the terminology used is “subject” or “unit.”

COURSE COORDINATOR: the academic position with administrative and

academic leadership of the COURSE, often the lecturer

GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES: formal statement of generic competencies of

a university graduate, usually associated with a formal process of ensuring
the PROGRAM curriculum contributes towards the development of these
competencies

SCHOOL: the second level of subdivision of the academic function of the uni-
versity, e.g. Faculty of Business, School of Management

Continued
136 Using key resources

Continued

TEACHING AND LEARNING ARRANGEMENTS: the combination of

face-to-face and online delivery of content and development of skills including
for example use of lectures and tutorials and opportunities within those for
group work and discussion; the use of online tools such as discussion groups
and simulations; opportunities for practical experience.

ACADEMIC MAJOR: the primary focus of a degree; the sequence of COURSES

embodying that focus

Questionnaire on Internationalizing the Curriculum Version 2

(QIC2)
A stimulus for reflection and discussion about incorporating
intercultural and global perspectives and skills across a program
of study

Preamble

The purpose of this questionnaire is to help stimulate reflection and discussion

among teams of academics teaching a program of study (Degree Program or
Major within a Degree Program), about the incorporation of intercultural and
global perspectives, understandings, and skills into their curriculum. The ques-
tions are intended to help these teams to identify how well their program devel-
ops intercultural and global understandings and skills as a basis for informed
discussion about what action(s) might be taken to further address the intercul-
tural and global dimensions considered important to their discipline/profession.
A Program or Major designed to prepare graduates to live and work effec-
tively and ethically in a global society, characterized by rapid change and increas-
ing diversity adequately will:

• Engage students with internationally informed research and cultural and

linguistic diversity
• Be supported by services focused on the development of intercultural
competence and international perspectives
• Purposefully develop students’:
• critical awareness of local and global issues of professional, political,
environmental, and social significance
• capabilities and confidence in communicating respectfully and effectively
with people from cultural and linguistic backgrounds other than their own
• abilities to move beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries, question
dominant paradigms, and think creatively and critically
What is meant by “intercultural competency?”

There has been considerable research and debate about how to define
and how to build the capacity for intercultural communication. Many
 Using key resources 137

definitions have been proposed for terms such as “intercultural com-

petency,” “intercultural capability” and “intercultural effectiveness.”
Intercultural competency, as the most commonly used term across several
disciplines, has been defined in many ways, and some disciplines have their
own well-established understandings of the term. Deardorff (2006, p. 247)
identified common elements in the definitions of intercultural competence
across several disciplines. Based on a review of the literature and data col-
lected from a panel of intercultural scholars and international education
administrators, based predominantly in the U.S., her study found consen-
sus amongst this group about the meaning of intercultural competence. She
found:
The top three common elements [of cultural competency] were the
awareness, valuing, and understanding of cultural differences; experiencing
other cultures; and self-awareness of one’s own culture. These common
elements stress the underlying importance of cultural awareness, both of
one’s own as well as others’ cultures4.

How to use this questionnaire

This questionnaire is expressly designed to support a critical, reflexive review
of the content and teaching and learning approaches to ascertain how well the
intercultural and global dimensions are developed in the Degree/Major.

The questions in the QIC invite you to thoughtfully and critically consider the
context in which the Major/Program and its individual units are taught, as well
as individual elements of the curriculum such as content, assessment, learning
spaces, and teaching styles.

It is important that all program team members complete the questionnaire

individually and that they are then involved in a collegial discussion about the
responses. The primary purpose of the follow-up discussion is to develop
shared understandings of current practice, identify current strengths, and if rel-
evant, key areas for improvement, and a plan of action in relation to internation-
alization of the curriculum for the Program/Major.

In trialing this process in many disciplines, it was found that this process is
most productive if a skilled facilitator, who is not a member of the Program/
Major team, facilitates the team discussion after individual team members have
completed the QIC.

The time required to complete the questionnaire: approximately 30 minutes.

Continued
138 Using key resources

Continued

Glossary of terms used in this questionnaire

PROGRAM: a course of study leading to a qualification offered by the university,

e.g. Bachelor of Nursing. In some universities the terminology used is “course.”

UNIT: the components of a PROGRAM, e.g. Nursing 101, Anatomy 105. In

some universities the terminology used is “subject” or “course.”

MAJOR: the primary focus of a degree; the sequence of UNITS or COURSES

within a discipline or field of study which must be taken to complete a degree;e.g.,a
History major within a Bachelor of Arts, or a Marketing major within a Bachelor
of Business

PROGRAM or MAJOR COORDINATOR: the academic position with adminis-

trative and academic leadership responsibilities for the PROGRAM or MAJOR

UNIT COORDINATOR: the academic position with administrative and aca-

demic leadership of the UNIT (or COURSE), often the lecturer

GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES: formal statement of generic competencies of a

university graduate, usually associated with a formal process of ensuring
the PROGRAM curriculum contributes towards the development of these
competencies.

Preliminary details
Name of the Major/Program

Names and codes of the Units you teach

How many Units do you generally teach in the Degree/Major?

Please select your role from the list below

(for example, Program/Major Coordinator )

Major/Program Level Learning Outcomes:

List any Major/Program level Learning Outcomes related to intercultural and
global perspectives and skills as you understand them to be:
1.
2.
3.
 Using key resources 139

Section 1.The meaning of intercultural and global

dimensions of teaching and learning
Before commencing the questionnaire, take a few moments to reflect on your
understanding of “intercultural” and “global perspectives and understandings.”
Please use the space provided to record you answers.

1. What do you understand by “intercultural” as it relates teaching and learning?

2. What do you understand by “global perspectives, understandings, and skills,” to

teaching and learning?

3. The following attributes have been shown to be core components of intercul-

tural competency. Please check any attributes which students are encouraged to
develop within the Major/Program (Check as many boxes as you think apply)5.

a. Non-judgmental ® h. Relationship ® o. Self-management ®

interest

b. Inquisitiveness ® i. Emotional ® p. Optimism ®

sensitivity

c. Tolerance of ® j. Self-awareness ® q. Self-confidence ®

ambiguity

d. Cosmopolitanism ® k. Social flexibility ® r. Self-efficacy ®

e. Resilience ® l. Sense of ® s. Emotional ®
adventure intelligence

f. Stress ® m. Interpersonal ® t. Interest flexibility ®

management engagement

g. Broadmindedness ® n. See commonali- ® u. Tolerate & engage ®

ties in people with different
people

4. Which of the above skills/attributes do you see as being the three

most important for your graduates from your Major? Use the
letters in the list above and rank in order of importance. 1 2 3
Moderate

Very high
Not sure
Little

High
Low

5. How important is the development the attributes 1 2 3 4 5 ?

listed above within the University context?

Continued
140 Using key resources

Continued

Section 2.Thinking about your Units (Courses or Subjects)

This section asks you reflect on your individual understanding of the value of
teaching and learning that is directed at developing graduate attributes and
skills that fall within the social interaction and intercultural communication
and relationship domains, and those associated with the development of
global perspectives. Throughout this section, the term “unit” will be used to
refer to individual subjects, courses, or units of study that collectively make
up a Degree Program or Major.

1. Your approach to teaching

Moderate

Not sure
Using the scale, circle the response that most accurately

Great
Little
reflects your understanding.

High
Low
How important is it to develop students’:

6. capacity/ability for social interaction across different 1 2 3 4 5 ?

cultural groups?

7. understanding of the interdependence of global life? 1 2 3 4 5 ?

8. appreciation of cultural diversity? 1 2 3 4 5 ?

9. capacity/ability to relate to and collaborate with 1 2 3 4 5 ?

others?

10. knowledge of other cultures? 1 2 3 4 5 ?

Very poorly

Adequately

Very well
Not sure

How well do the units you coordinate support the

Poorly

development of students’:
Well

11. capacity/ability for social interaction across different 1 2 3 4 5 ?

cultural groups?

12. capacity/ability to relate to and collaborate with 1 2 3 4 5 ?

others?

13. appreciation of cultural diversity? 1 2 3 4 5 ?

14. understanding of the interdependence of global life? 1 2 3 4 5 ?

15. knowledge of other cultures? 1 2 3 4 5 ?

 Using key resources 141

Considerable extent
Moderate amount

Great extent
Very little
Not at all

Not sure
In the units you coordinate, to what extent do you:

16. include a broad range of knowledge, experiences, 1 2 3 4 5 ?

and processes?

17. encourage critical evaluation of the cultural 1 2 3 4 5 ?

foundations of knowledge in your discipline?

18. consider how your cultural background influences 1 2 3 4 5 ?

your approach to teaching?

19. consider how your students’ cultural backgrounds 1 2 3 4 5 ?

influence their approaches to learning?

20. adapt your teaching to take account of student 1 2 3 4 5 ?

diversity in your classes?

21. adapt your assessment of learning to take account of 1 2 3 4 5 ?

student diversity in your classes?

2. Aims, goals, and learning outcomes

This section concerns the aims, goals, learning opportunities, and outcomes
related to the development of global perspectives and intercultural compe-
tency in the units you teach.
Very poorly

Adequately

Very well
Not sure

Using the scale, circle the response that most accurately

Poorly

reflects your understanding.

Well

In the units you coordinate, how clearly articulated are

any:

22. intercultural perspectives aims, goals, and outcomes? 1 2 3 4 5 ?

23. global perspectives, understandings aims, goals, and 1 2 3 4 5 ?

outcomes?

Continued
142 Using key resources

Continued

Very poorly

Adequately

Very well
Not sure
Poorly

Well
In the units you coordinate, how well do:

24. the stated intercultural learning outcomes of the 1 2 3 4 5 ?

Unit relate to those in the other units across the
Major/Degree Program?

25. the stated learning outcomes of the Unit regarding 1 2 3 4 5 ?

global perspectives relate to those in the other
Units across the Major/Degree Program?

26. the Unit materials explicitly define and articulate 1 2 3 4 5 ?

how the intercultural and global learning outcomes
of the Unit relate to those of the Major/Degree
Program?

3. Learning activities
This section concerns your learning and teaching activities that support the
development of global perspectives and intercultural capability and confidence.
Considerable extent
Moderate amount

Great extent

Using the scale, circle the response that most accurately

reflects your understanding.
Very little
Not at all

Not sure

In the unit(s) you coordinate, to what extent:

27. are the learning activities focused on group learning? 1 2 3 4 5 ?

28. are students organized to work in culturally mixed 1 2 3 4 5 ?

groups and teams?

29. are students provided with structured learning 1 2 3 4 5 ?

opportunities for international experiences?

30. is the content of the Unit(s) informed by research 1 2 3 4 5 ?

and practice from international, non-Western
contexts?

31. is a broad range of non-dominant disciplinary 1 2 3 4 5 ?

viewpoints and ways of thinking in the discipline
presented, invited, debated, and rewarded?
 Using key resources 143

32. are the learning experiences intentionally designed 1 2 3 4 5 ?

to encourage, foster and develop students’ global
perspectives, understandings, and skills?

33. are the teaching and learning activities and modes 1 2 3 4 5 ?

of instruction supportive of the development of
students’ interpersonal and relational understandings
and skills?

34. are students supported to learn together in 1 2 3 4 5 ?

culturally mixed groups and teams?

35. are the learning experiences intentionally designed 1 2 3 4 5 ?

to encourage, foster, and develop students’
intercultural interaction skills and knowledge?

36. is the unit(s) content culturally mindful and 1 2 3 4 5 ?

respectful?

37. are the modes of instruction and learning activities 1 2 3 4 5 ?

culturally mindful and respectful?

4. Assessment tasks
This section concerns the assessment activities (formative and summative) you
employ in your Unit to measure/evaluate the development of global perspec-
tives and intercultural competency.
Considerable extent
Moderate amount

Great extent

Using the scale, circle the response that most accurately

reflects your Unit.
Very little
Not at all

Not sure

To what extent do assessment tasks in the unit(s) you

coordinate:

38. require students to consider issues from a variety of 1 2 3 4 5 ?

cultural perspectives?

39. require students to consider issues from a variety of 1 2 3 4 5 ?

global/international perspectives?

40. require students to recognize the influence of their 1 2 3 4 5 ?

own sociocultural perspectives in the context their
discipline (and professional practice if relevant)?

Continued
144 Using key resources

Continued

41. undergo systematic analysis of answers and grades 1 2 3 4 5 ?

for signs of any difficulties across particular student
cohorts?

42. draw on and use as a resource the student cohort as 1 2 3 4 5 ?

a culturally mixed group in assessment design?

5. Graduate attributes
This section asks you reflect on the nature of the graduate attributes you aim
to develop in your students.

Moderate

Not sure
Using the scale, circle the response that most accurately

Great
Little
reflects you understanding.

High
Low
How important is it to develop students’ ability to:

43. explain how specific aspects of (professional) 1 2 3 4 5 ?

practice impact upon the lives of people locally and
in diverse global contexts?

44. critically review current Australian professional 1 2 3 4 5 ?

practice through reference to practice in other
countries?

45. present an analysis of subjects/topics/issues 1 2 3 4 5 ?

appropriately for an audience of diverse cultures
and first languages?

46. make a significant positive contribution as a member 1 2 3 4 5 ?

of a multicultural/international team work project?

47. develop effective solutions to problems that 1 2 3 4 5 ?

demonstrate consideration of other cultural
contexts?

48. critique the themes presented in this Major/ 1 2 3 4 5 ?

profession from alternative international
perspectives?

49. understand the cultural underpinning of ethical 1 2 3 4 5 ?

practice in the Major/profession?

50. present a critically reasoned and respectful argument 1 2 3 4 5 ?

in favor of one specific socio-cultural response to a
debate in your discipline?

51. critique cultural bias, in published material and 1 2 3 4 5 ?

media?
 Using key resources 145

Moderate

Not sure
Using the scale, circle the response that most accurately

Great
Little
reflects your teaching practice.

High
Low
To what extent are:

52. your University’s graduate attributes related to 1 2 3 4 5 ?

intercultural understandings and skills which are
explicitly communicated to students and staff?

53. your University’s graduate attributes related to 1 2 3 4 5 ?

intercultural understandings and skills which are
systematically developed, sequenced, and assessed
across the Major?

54. students enabled to share their international 1 2 3 4 5 ?

experiences as a valuable learning resource for the
development of graduate attributes in your Unit?

55. the informal curriculum, or co-curricular activities, 1 2 3 4 5 ?

viewed as a resource to facilitate intercultural
learning experiences?

Section 3.Thinking about the Major

This section concerns how well the Program/Major supports the development
of global perspectives and intercultural capability and confidence.
Considerable

Great extent

Using the scale, circle the response that most accu-

Moderate
Very little
Not at all

Not sure

rately reflects your understanding of the Program/

amount

extent

Major.

To what extent, across the Program/Major:

56. is the content and subject matter informed 1 2 3 4 5 ?

by research and practice from a non-Anglo/
Western European context?

57. do the knowledge and skills draw from a range 1 2 3 4 5 ?

of different national and cultural contexts?

58. are students required to demonstrate 1 2 3 4 5 ?

knowledge of professional practices and
understandings outside their own cultural?

Continued
146 Using key resources

Continued

In this Major/Program how:

59. important is the incorporation of intercultural 1 2 3 4 5 ?

dimensions of teaching and learning?

60. clearly understood by students is the rationale 1 2 3 4 5 ?

for the incorporation of intercultural
dimensions of teaching and learning?

61. important is the development of students’ 1 2 3 4 5 ?

global perspectives and understandings?

62. clearly does the Major/Program articulate 1 2 3 4 5 ?

the rationale for the development of global
perspectives and understandings?

Considerable

Great extent
Moderate
Very little
Not at all

Not sure
amount

extent

To what extent in the Program/Major:

63. are students provided with opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 ?

for workplace learning and community
engagement that support the development
of intercultural and global perspectives,
understandings, and skills?

64. are you supported by your School to develop 1 2 3 4 5 ?

teaching strategies and learning activities that
foster, support, and nurture the development
of your students’ intercultural and global
perspectives and skills?

65. are you rewarded for curriculum innovation 1 2 3 4 5 ?

and design for internationalization?

66. do you consider internationalization of 1 2 3 4 5 ?

the curriculum to be an important aspect
of curriculum design and development
as communicated through University
correspondence, communications, and
activities?
 Using key resources 147

Section 4.Thinking about how well your teaching team

functions to support the development of
intercultural and global attributes
This section asks you to reflect and think about the teaching team and their
level of shared understandings concerning the social interaction, intercultural
communication and relationship dimensions, and global perspective graduate
attributes.

Considerable

Great extent
Moderate
Very little
Not at all

Not sure
amount

extent
To what degree does the teaching team in the
Major/Program have a shared understanding of:

67. the influence the cultural foundations of 1 2 3 4 5 ?

knowledge and practice in the discipline?

68. the rationale for the incorporation of 1 2 3 4 5 ?

intercultural dimensions of teaching and
learning in this Major?

69. the support services and activities that focus 1 2 3 4 5 ?

on intercultural competence and international
perspectives?

To what degree does the teaching team:

70. ensure their shared understanding is reflected 1 2 3 4 5 ?

in the curriculum design?

71. discuss and share approaches to incorporating 1 2 3 4 5 ?

the intercultural and global dimensions in their
teaching?

72. discuss and share strategies to engage students 1 2 3 4 5 ?

from diverse cultural backgrounds?

The following questions are intended to provide you with an opportunity to

reflect and record your rationale for addressing the intercultural and global
domains in your teaching practice and comment on what impedes or supports
you in this endeavor.

Continued
148 Using key resources

Continued

73. What, for you, is the most compelling reason to incorporate intercultural and
global perspectives, understandings, and skills into this Major/Program?

74. What are the main obstacles to incorporating intercultural and global perspec-
tives, understandings, and skills across the Major/Program?

75. What types of support would you like to see provided to teaching staff to
assist the development of strategies that engage students from diverse cultural
backgrounds?

76. Are there any other questions, issues, considerations, or discussion topics
related to internationalization of the curriculum that you would like to raise?

77. Reflecting on all of the above, what would you like to see changed or devel-
oped within the Major?

The End
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

“Blockers and Enablers” Survey

In Chapter 8 we discussed how useful it is to identify the blockers and enablers
to internationalization of the curriculum within an institution and a program of
study. What stops staff from getting involved? How can we support them to do
so? We concluded that periodic analysis of blockers to and enablers of interna-
tionalization of the curriculum and evaluation of the effectiveness of different
strategies and interventions is an effective and efficient way to keep the process
moving. In the absence of analysis, the combination of factors working for and
against change to the curriculum across the layers of context in the conceptual
framework for internationalization of the curriculum (see Chapter 3) can be dis-
couraging. The Blockers and Enablers Survey was designed to assist in identify-
ing the factors that are acting as forces for curriculum internationalization goal
(helping forces) or blocking movement toward your curriculum internationaliza-
tion goal (hindering forces). The survey may be adapted and administered at an
institutional level or a program level. When used at the program level it is par-
ticularly useful in the Revise and Plan stage of the process of internationalization
of the curriculum represented in Figure 9.1 and described in detail in Chapter 4
of this book.
 Using key resources 149

Blockers and Enablers Survey

This survey has 12 questions. In total it should take you no more than 15 min-
utes to complete.
Definitions
Internationalization
Please note that for the purposes of this questionnaire:
Internationalization of the curriculum is the incorporation of international,
intercultural, and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum
as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods, and
support services of a program of study.
(Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the Curriculum. Routledge: Abingdon)

Internationalization of the curriculum incorporates a broad range of activities

including, for example, virtual teamwork projects that bring together students
from different countries and cultures; better preparing students for intercultural
group work; and aligning the curriculum with the objective of preparing gradu-
ates to live and work in an increasingly globalized world. Internationalization of
the curriculum is not solely, or even principally, concerned with the recruitment
of international students, although meeting the needs of international students
may be an element of it.
An internationalized curriculum will engage students with internation-
ally informed research and cultural and linguistic diversity. It will purposefully
develop their international and intercultural perspectives as global profession-
als and citizens.

Enablers and blockers

Enablers are any factors in your institutional environment that support you
in developing and providing an internationalized curriculum to your students.
These factors could relate to, for example, official policy; management practices,
human resource procedures, professional development, or reward structures;
leadership; organizational culture; or provision of training and other opportuni-
ties for self-development.
Blockers are any such factors that inhibit you in developing and providing
an internationalized curriculum.
1. According to the definition of internationalization of the curriculum in the box
below, which of the following statements best describes the extent of interna-
tionalization in the courses, subjects, units, or modules which you teach?

Continued
150 Using key resources

Continued

Internationalization of the curriculum is the incorporation of an

international and intercultural dimension into the content of the curricu-
lum as well as the teaching and learning processes and support services of
a program of study.

• The courses, subjects, units, or modules that I teach have only limited scope
for internationalization of the curriculum (e.g. because of accreditation
requirements).
• The courses, subjects, units, or modules that I teach are currently
internationalized to a limited extent, but I can see scope for further
internationalization.
• The courses, subjects, units, or modules that I teach are currently inter-
nationalized to a significant degree, but I can still see scope for further
internationalization.
• The courses, subjects, units, or modules that I teach are already interna-
tionalized to a high degree, and I can see only limited scope for further
internationalization.
• Other. Please specify.

2. Select the enablers that apply to you

The extent to which the courses, subjects, units, or modules that you teach
have an internationalized curriculum has been enabled by:
• Well-designed, communicated, managed, and supported institutional pol-
icy around internationalization and what it means
• Recognition and reward for effort such as inclusion of engagement in
internationalization as part of the promotion process.
• Appropriate workload allocation for curriculum review and renewal
• Academic staff are encouraged, supported, and rewarded to attend
international conferences, including those operating outside of the
dominant disciplinary paradigm.
• Approaches to professional development that incorporate school or
faculty based support for the practicalities of internationalizing the cur-
riculum within the discipline.
• Just-in-time assistance with practical issues such as how others have
approached issues associated with internationalization of the curriculum,
e.g. assessment.
• “Local,” school-based experts and enthusiasts who know what
internationalization of the curriculum means in my discipline and for my
teaching and can assist in practical ways.
• Active links/collaboration with international employers and profes-
sional associations, e.g. through international accreditation processes.
 Using key resources 151

• Support and resourcing for academic staff to maintain contact with or

work in international industry settings, including those with contras-
tive cultural stances.
• A strong and culturally diverse course/program team and the
opportunity for that team to work together to review and renovate
curricula.
• Leaders who are committed to and informed about internationalization
of the curriculum at institutional, school, and degree program level.
• My own international experience and personal commitment to and
understanding of what internationalization of the curriculum means.
• A balanced discourse around internationalization within the senior
management group and in policy documents, that acknowledges different
rationales and does not over-accentuate or privilege the economic rationale.
• A balanced and comprehensive international strategy in both pol-
icy and practice.
• Any others? Please specify:
___________________________________________________________

3. Now rank the enablers you have chosen (1 = most important enabler, etc.)

4. Select the blockers that apply to you

The extent to which the courses, subjects, units, or modules that you teach
have an internationalized curriculum has been blocked by:
• Lack of (or poor communication of) institutional vision and policy link-
ing internationalization of the university with internationalization of the
formal and informal curriculum.
• Lack of a strategy to ensure that policies are enacted in such a way as to
have an impact on the student experience and on student learning.
• Internationalization of the curriculum is a low priority in my institution.
• The feeling that devoting time to internationalization of the curriculum is
actually jeopardizing my career because it is not considered important
in my discipline.
• Workload formulae that do not include allocation of time for degree
program team meetings and engagement in scholarly activity related to
teaching and learning, including curriculum design and internationalization
of the curriculum.
• Insufficient funding and support provided to enable staff to attend
international conferences, visit international colleagues, or participate
in other international experiences related to their work.
• Lack of support for the practical issues of internationalization of the cur-
riculum at the degree program level.
• Lack of support/resourcing for academic staff to collaborate with or work
in international industry settings.

Continued
152 Using key resources

Continued

• Lack of support for academic staff to work with peers who have different
cultural perspectives.
• Leaders who are not committed to or informed about internationaliza-
tion of the curriculum at institutional, school, and degree program level.
• I don’t really know what internationalization of the curriculum means in
practice.
• Internationalization of the curriculum is a low priority for me personally.
• A discourse of marketization and commercialization of education in
my institution and the perception that internationalization is mainly, only,
or most importantly about the sale of educational products and services.
• An internationalization strategy that in practice is focused primarily on
income generation, even though there may be other aspects described in
policy.
• Disciplinary “mindsets”—disciplines are themselves culturally con-
structed, bound and constricted. We operate within our own cultural
framework which feels normal and natural to us.
• I am not sure why we need to do this (e.g. my discipline is already
international).
• Any others? Please specify:
___________________________________________________________

5. Now rank the blockers you have chosen (1 = biggest blocker, etc.).

6. According to the definition of internationalization of the curriculum in the box,

how would you classify yourself within your discipline?

Internationalization of the curriculum is the incorporation of an

international and intercultural dimension into the content of the curricu-
lum as well as the teaching and learning processes and support services of
a program of study.

• A champion of internationalization of the curriculum. Champions

have extensive knowledge of international issues in their areas of expertise
and strong cross-cultural communication skills. As such, they are likely to
be committed to participating in the process of internationalization of the
curriculum.
• An advocate of internationalization of the curriculum. Advocates
are generally passionate about a particular aspect of internationalization.
This enthusiasm is often buttressed by their international experiences and
foreign language proficiencies. Thus, advocates are people whom interna-
tionalization leaders and committees can call upon for support in order to
operationalize the internationalization of the curriculum.
 Using key resources 153

• A latent champion or advocate of internationalization of the

curriculum. Although at present these faculty members’ eyes may glaze
over when internationalization is mentioned, they are aware at a back-
ground level of the main issues. Given a persuasive rationale and the right
combination of training, support, and incentives, they have the potential to
be transformed from latency into advocacy of internationalization of the
curriculum.
• A skeptic of internationalization of the curriculum. Skeptics are
those who are doubtful of the relevance of international issues to their
disciplines. Thus, they are often hesitant to participate in the process of
curriculum internationalization.
• An opponent of internationalization of the curriculum. Opponents
openly disagree with and make efforts to obstruct the implementation of
internationalization of the curriculum.
Adapted from: Childress, L. (2010). The twenty-first century university: Developing faculty
engagement in internationalization. New York: Peter Lang.

7. Do you have any other comments you would like to make?

8. Would you be happy to participate in a follow-up interview?

Yes/no
If yes, please give your contact details below.
name: _______________________________________________________
email: ________________________________________________________

Notes
1 Throughout the QIC, expressions in upper case refer to common higher educa-
tion concepts that often have different names in different universities. Please refer
to the glossary at the end of the QIC for clarification.
2 Leask, B. (2009). “Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions
between home and international students.” Journal of Studies in International
Education, 13(2), 205–221.
3 It is important to use terminology in the QIC that staff recognize easily. For
example, if the term “module” is used instead of “course” or “subject,” that is
what should be used.
4 See Deardorff, D. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural com-
petence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 10(3), 241–266.
5 Adapted from: Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M.J., & Oddou, G. 2010.
Defining the content domain of intercultural competence for global leaders.
Journal of Managerial Psychology. 25.8 pp. 810–828.
Chapter 10

Case studies

The case studies in this chapter are organized around the different stages in
the process of internationalization of the curriculum (see Figure 9.1) and
described in Chapter 4. They illustrate the way in which different groups used
and responded to these resources and are useful in understanding the way the
process works in context. You might also find individual case studies particularly
interesting for different reasons. For example, Case Studies 1 and 2 illustrate how
the Questionnaire on Internationalization of the Curriculum (QIC) discussed in
Chapter 9 was used to identif y gaps in current practice and informed the result-
ant actions taken. Case Study 3 describes an approach to the process focused on
using graduate attributes as a tool to internationalize the curriculum and Case
Study 4 describes how industry was engaged in the process of internationalizing
the curriculum.
The case studies can be used in different ways. For example, they could be
used to assist staff to understand the concept of internationalization of the
curriculum prior to commencing the first “Review and Reflect” stage of the
process described in Chapter 4 within disciplinary or multi-disciplinary groups.
They could also be used to illustrate the way in which the process has worked
in different contexts during the Imagine or Revise and Plan stages. In combina-
tion with the conceptual framework (see Figure 3.1) and the process of interna-
tionalization of the curriculum (see Figure 9.1), they can be useful prompts for
academic staff to reflect on and discuss what internationalizing the curriculum
means in different contexts. They also provide useful points of discussion with
administrative staff whose role it is to support the process.
I have found it useful to get people to think about the following questions as
they read through these case studies.

1 What are the enabling factors within the institutional context?

2 What does the case study tell you about the process of internationalizing the
curriculum?
3 What does it tell you about the product, an internationalized curriculum?
4 What questions does it raise for you?
 Case studies 155

Case Study 1: Challenging the dominant disciplinary

paradigm
Institutional context
The university is a large research-intensive university whose approach to
internationalization is embedded in its policies and mission. University policy
documents describe a comprehensive approach to internationalization of the
curriculum (Hudzik 2011).
Recognition and reward for staff engagement in internationalization are specif-
ically addressed in documentation, primary responsibility for which rests with the
senior international officer, the Deputy Vice Chancellor International (DVCI).
The DVCI emphasizes the University’s commitment to internationalizing the
curriculum for all students. The University demonstrates this commitment in
various ways, including by promoting and supporting opportunities for students
to acquire international experience and develop inclusive perspectives.
University documentation describes a multilevel approach to internationaliza-
tion, encompassing elements such as joint degrees involving collaboration with
international partner institutions; recognizing and rewarding student endeavors
in internationalization; finding ways to facilitate quality interaction between inter-
national and domestic students in both academic and non-academic settings; as
well as committing to an ongoing process of internationalizing the curriculum to
produce graduates with the skills, knowledge, and experience necessary for living
and working in a globalizing society.
The university offers students the opportunity to study a foreign language
concurrently with their degree program and a Diploma in Global Issues, which
can be taken concurrently with any degree program.

Disciplinary context
The program is an undergraduate Journalism program.
Journalism and Communication programs are owned by schools within
a Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences. The school manages programs at
undergraduate and post-graduate levels in the fields of journalism, public relations
(strategic communication), and communication. The School had identified its
research and teaching as “empowering global communicators.” The undergradu-
ate student cohort was largely domestic (dominated by the privately schooled),
while the postgraduate cohort was largely international (and overwhelmingly
Asian). There were no offshore campuses. Furthermore, the academic staff
profile was culturally diverse, with scholars from India, China, Africa, Europe,
and Australia.
Despite this cultural diversity, there was considerable opacity and lack of clarity
around the meaning of internationalization of the curriculum.
156 Case studies

Reviewing and reflecting

At the commencement of this case study the team reported that much of the
curriculum content already drew upon international examples, much of the theo-
retical basis was drawn from international thought, and much of their research
was published in international journals. Involvement in this cycle of internation-
alization of the curriculum prompted the teaching team to reassess what the term
meant in the context of the school and the program at that point in time. This
resulted in the identification of new directions for the internationalization of the
school’s programs.
Four members of the teaching team (including the Program Director and
Deputy Head of School, who also held the position Chair of Teaching and
Learning) met with two external facilitators to discuss the QIC. They con-
cluded that, despite the assumption that the curriculum was already signifi-
cantly internationalized, their curriculum was quite narrowly focused in places.
They found themselves asking where non-Western practice was recognized,
and where the non-Western examples were in the curriculum. Furthermore,
they started to question the balance within the curriculum between global and
local perspectives.
Prompted by questions in the Questionnaire on Internationalization of the
Curriculum Version 1 (QIC1), the team undertook an informal audit of what the
curriculum offered in terms of internationalization. They already had two courses
that were fully focused on international and intercultural content: International
Journalism and Mass Communication and Identity, Culture and Communication.
They also noted that there were a number of areas within the curriculum that
drew upon non-Western practice, theories, and assessment. The QIC helped
to highlight gaps in the curriculum. While at a program level internationaliza-
tion was at an early stage of the internationalization of the curriculum process,
individual courses and activities were distributed all around the cycle. Therefore,
it was decided significant benefit could be gained from building connections
between different courses, as well as exploiting and developing knowledge or
skills developed in earlier courses later in the program. Building these connec-
tions was identified as a priority for further work. Thus Internationalization of
Curriculum focused on course or subject level alignment. This involved extensive
negotiations between academic course coordinators.
In particular, the two courses International Journalism and Mass
Communication and Identity, Culture and Communication, had so far been left
to function as freestanding courses. The skills students were learning in these
courses were not incorporated into other courses, despite the huge potential
they provided. Identity, Culture and Communication, for example, focused on
multicultural group work: these skills could be drawn on for very practical rea-
sons in other courses. Another advantage of having an overview of the various
internationalization activities in the curriculum was that this enabled the shar-
ing of such activities across the teaching team: novel approaches to assessment
 Case studies 157

were discovered and their potential for incorporation into other courses was
identified. Knowledge about how to implement diverse assessment practices was
shared across the team.
The teaching team also acknowledged that while they had worked hard to
interpret the graduate attributes in terms of professional content, in the end they
may still not have gone far enough in thinking about what each one actually
meant. Being global, ethical, accountable, and responsive to change are all wor-
thy objectives, but what does it actually mean to be global, or ethical?
Finally, the teaching team realized the need to approach the global through
the local. They recognized that some of their programs were quite parochial in
focus. This situation had developed because graduates were mostly employed
locally. However, it was acknowledged that even graduates working locally
needed to be able to understand their work in an international and even global
context. An awareness of Indigenous issues also needed to be embedded in a
similar way.
The team began to imagine what de-Westernization might mean for what they
taught, how they taught it, how they supported learning, and how they assessed
learning. This prompted them to revisit, and in some cases read for the first
time, scholarly literature from within and beyond the discipline. They concluded
that critical de-Westernization means challenging the normative model by which
they judge and assess, and understanding local environments within global per-
spectives. This means not treating other journalisms as marginal and not locat-
ing them in an isolated and optional course on how things are done in other
countries. It also means being aware as teachers and professionals of the cultural
construction of knowledge in the discipline that has resulted in the dominance
of Western paradigms, which assume certain norms, and that are not as universal
as they claim to be.

Imagining
The team decided to define internationalization of the curriculum in the context
of their program as “critical de-Westernization.” This approach was supported
by the school’s research and teaching priorities and the scholarly literature. For
example, a South African study had found that non-Western journalism academics
often find themselves confronted with the unacceptable choice of either remaining
relevant to the local conditions of journalism practice, or completely abandoning
this in favor of the dominant paradigm, which is largely unconnected to their
situation (Wasserman & de Beer, 2009).
Another reason for the focus on de-Westernization was identified as the U.S.
dominance of the International Communication Association, the key interna-
tional professional body, in terms of practice, theories, and ways of being. This
dominance of Western thought and the English language tended to produce a
homogeneous perspective, from which non-Western experience was excluded.
This dominance is perpetuated by Western journals that are ranked highly in
158 Case studies

terms of research impact, Western associations, and the Western theories being
applied to all forms of journalism and communication.
What has been taken for granted in journalism (and communication) curric-
ulum is, however, increasingly being challenged by the processes of globaliza-
tion, changes in the way technology is employed, and increasingly diverse ways
of “being a journalist.” From this point on, critical de-Westernization (which
captures local and global perspectives) was used as the lens through which to
understand and enact internationalization of the curriculum.
While these issues were being discussed in the program team, they were also
raised beyond the core group involved in teaching the program, in various groups
and committees, including the School’s Teaching and Learning Committee. This
resulted in raising awareness of issues associated with internationalizing the cur-
riculum in the disciplines more broadly across the School.

Revising and planning

A number of possible changes to the way in which graduate attributes were
described in the context of the disciplines of journalism and communication were
discussed. These graduate attributes aim to develop reflective practitioners who
are mindful of diversity and changing sociocultural settings and can work within
global and local contexts. With this in mind, changes to courses were proposed.
In the International Journalism and Mass Communication course, one assess-
ment item was introduced to encourage students to step back from a purely
Anglo-Saxon view of foreign news reporting and appreciate it from the point of
view of other cultures. This involved students analyzing the reporting of an event
in three Australian and three overseas newspapers (Western and non-Western).
In the course Identity, Culture and Communication, students were required to
write reflectively on a cultural event that they attended during the semester from
the point of view of non-members of that particular culture.
A number of changes to the content and assessment of other courses were also
planned. These included inviting international higher degree research students
from various cultural backgrounds to present in courses, as well as enabling inter-
national students to present case studies in class from their own cultures.
Opportunities for students to undertake practical or service learning in over-
seas organizations (such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations [FAO] and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization [UNESCO]), or on international issues with Australian develop-
ment organizations will also be introduced in the longer term.
The process to this point took around 12 months. Responsibility for interna-
tionalizing the curriculum has expanded beyond program leaders. One of the
keys to success of the process has been getting high-level support for the initia-
tive. Internationalizing the curriculum remains a process of constant negotiation
with all stakeholders including the university, the faculty, the student cohort, the
scholarly community, and future employers.
 Case studies 159

Case Study 2: Using an online version of the QIC to

engage all staff
Institutional context
The university’s approach to internationalization is embedded in its policies and
mission. University policy documents describe a comprehensive approach to
internationalization of the curriculum.
Recognition and reward for staff engagement in internationalization is specifi-
cally addressed in documentation, primary responsibility for which is borne by
the Deputy Vice Chancellor International (DVCI). The DVCI emphasizes the
University’s commitment to internationalizing the curriculum for all students.
The University demonstrates this commitment in various ways, including pro-
moting and supporting opportunities for students to acquire international experi-
ences and develop inclusive perspectives.
University documentation describes a multilevel approach to internationaliza-
tion, encompassing elements such as joint degrees involving collaboration with
international partner institutions; recognizing and rewarding student endeavors
in internationalization; finding ways to facilitate quality interaction between
international and domestic students in both academic and non-academic settings;
as well as committing to an ongoing process of internationalizing the curriculum
to produce graduates with the skills, knowledge, and experience necessary for
living and working in a globalizing society.
The university offers students the opportunity to study a foreign language con-
currently with their degree program and a Diploma in Global Issues, which can
be taken concurrently with any degree program.

Disciplinary context
The programs involved in this case study were undergraduate Nursing and
Midwifery.
The Nursing and Midwifery team involved in the initial stage of the interna-
tionalization of the curriculum process consisted of three program leaders. The
undergraduate Nursing program is highly practical and students go into a clinical
placement in their first semester. The majority of the clinical teaching is done
on placement, so teaching staff members are quite dispersed. There is a strong
focus on the health-care consumers, the clients. In many ways the clients are the
starting point, and the analysis of client needs provides the impetus for deciding
what the students need, and from there what the teaching staff members need to
do with the students. The Nursing and Midwifery teaching teams are very much
focused on approaching global aspects of the curriculum through the local in
the first instance, and very aware that health-care consumers are highly culturally
diverse, and increasingly so.
The main drivers for internationalization of the nursing and midwifery
curriculum include the need to prepare graduates for work in multicultural
160 Case studies

workplace settings in Australia, but also possibly abroad. Another important driver
is the broad cultural diversity reflected in both the staff and student cohorts.

Reviewing and reflecting

At the beginning of the process the program leaders were concerned that there
was no shared understanding of what was meant by internationalization of the
curriculum in the context of their programs or the university. They knew that
some staff were resistant to internationalizing the curriculum because they
believed it would occur at the expense of important local content. Some teach-
ers had even commented that the “typical white Aussie” no longer seemed to be
present in the curriculum.
It was noted that international and intercultural aspects already had an important
place in the nursing curriculum. The curriculum used Problem Based Learning
(PBL) methodology. All cases contained an intercultural element, and raising aware-
ness of the range of intercultural issues that students would face in professional
practice was considered an important aim of the curriculum. Hence in the cases
presented to students, the names and cultural backgrounds of patients were often
changed and the clinical staff members who facilitated discussion of the cases pre-
sented were instructed to discuss what this might mean for the nursing practitioner.
Team members also noted that all students were encouraged to participate in
international or intercultural experiences as part of their study, up to and includ-
ing the option of working with Indigenous communities in Australia and in
Cambodia. Team members commented on the “transformational” nature of
these international and intercultural experiences for those staff and students who
were involved. However, only a very small minority of staff and students were
actually able to participate in these experiences.
At this point it was concluded by the team that in many ways the nursing
and midwifery programs could already be considered to be significantly inter-
nationalized. The program leaders wondered, however, if current internation-
alized elements of the curriculum could be made more explicit and overt to
both staff and students, as could the professional and academic rationales for
internationalization—including the intercultural demands of professional practice
locally. They also wondered if the curriculum might also benefit from a more stra-
tegic overall approach to internationalization of the curriculum. They saw inter-
nationalization as an ongoing process and believed that room for improvement
always exists but they were concerned that the approach taken be evidence-based.
They were keen to approach the internationalization process as a piece of
action research and to write articles for publication based on their experiences.
They chose as their research question: “How can we internationalize the curricu-
lum in this discipline in this particular institutional context and ensure that as a
result we improve the learning outcomes for all students?”
The QIC was put into Qualtrics (an online survey software platform) and
administered to all teaching staff. In this way, the team leaders sought to establish
 Case studies 161

what different understandings of internationalization of the curriculum were

held by members of the teaching team. One of the particular challenges faced was
that the significant proportion of the staff members who were casually employed
clinical practitioners, whose primary identity was related to their role as clinicians,
rather than their role as teachers. Therefore, they did not necessarily identify
strongly with the nursing school or the university. Because of this the decision
was taken to embed the internationalization process in already established, peri-
odic meetings in the school, rather than trying to engage staff members sepa-
rately. The response rate to the online version of the QIC was 60 percent.
An initial overview of the results of the QIC showed that a great deal was already
happening in the realm of internationalization across the program. Nevertheless,
focus groups were run to ensure this impression was justified, and to uncover the
gaps that might exist. The group established that while the PBL cases selected
appropriately represented the multicultural community the students would be
working in when they graduated, many of the teachers and clinical facilitators felt
poorly prepared to work with students on the “international and intercultural”
aspects of the PBL cases that were used in the curriculum materials. Some said
they avoided discussing them all together. This surprised the program leaders and
highlighted the need to do more professional development with staff in this area
if they wanted to truly internationalize the curriculum.
Overall, the team drew the conclusion that while much was being done
across the programs to internationalize the curriculum, the rationale for includ-
ing some of the PBL cases needed to be more clearly communicated. A more
explicit narrative of internationalization in the programs was created to assist
teaching staff to build on and interconnect the many separate pockets of practice
and thus deliver a more coherent and connected international curriculum for all
students. Professional development activities and specific guidelines on how to
approach discussion of PBL cases focused on intercultural issues were planned.

Imagining
The team began to imagine what their program might look like if they better uti-
lized the multicultural backgrounds of existing staff. They began to discuss ways
of using this diversity of experience in a more productive way.
They started to imagine how they might use the learning of those staff and stu-
dents who went on clinical placement to Cambodia each year. While only a small
number of students took part in these placements, they began to imagine ways
to use this very rich learning of a few students and staff as a resource to enrich
the learning of all students. A growing study abroad program was identified as
another activity with similar potential.
Discussions continued around the meaning of internationalization of the cur-
riculum in the particular context of the nursing and midwifery programs. The
initial response was that it needed to be about skills, specifically intercultural
communication skills. In analyzing the meaning of intercultural competence,
162 Case studies

however, the team was confronted by the question of whether to focus only on
skills, the “doing” domain, or whether they should also focus on conceptual
aspects, the “knowing” aspects of intercultural competence as well as the identity
of nurses and midwives as global professionals.
This deeper discussion about professional identity in a globalized world and
the meaning of intercultural competence for nurses and midwives in the local
environment focused the energies of the team for a considerable amount of time.
The process to this point took around 12 months.

Case Study 3: Using graduate attributes as a driver

Institutional context
A well-established research focused university ranked in the top two percent of
universities worldwide with an enrollment of 29,000 domestic and international
students. A key pillar of the University’s mission is to prepare graduates for life
and careers in the globalized society of the twenty-first century.
A three-year internationalization plan had been introduced at the university
two years prior to the commencement of data collection for this case study and
a draft internationalization policy and plan was in circulation at the time the
case study data were collected. A particular driver for the development of the
plan was an upcoming quality review of the University to be conducted by the
Australian Government. The internationalization plan included a curriculum
internationalization project supported by two dedicated staff members. The
aims of the project were to develop a community of practice within the uni-
versity through organizing workshops and building networks of interested and
committed people.
Neither the university’s strategic plan nor its teaching and learning plan specifi-
cally mentioned internationalization; however, one of the five graduate attributes
of the University related specifically to the development of global perspectives in
graduates. This global perspective was linked to awareness of the discipline in a
global as well as local context, and being able to function in a multicultural, glo-
balized context. Internationalization was widely interpreted by academic staff as
being primarily concerned with attracting international students and encouraging
outbound student mobility.

Disciplinary context
The Business faculty had recently reviewed the extent to which graduate attributes
had been embedded in its courses and programs, including the graduate attribute
most obviously related to internationalization—global perspectives. Stakeholder
consultation (with students, staff, and most importantly, industry) indicated that
the attributes and skills that students should have been graduating with were not
always clearly demonstrable. It appeared that summaries of graduate attributes
had been attached to course outlines, but in most cases, little consideration had
 Case studies 163

been given to how the graduate attributes were actually developed and assessed.
The focus of the review of the implementation of graduate attributes was that
any claims needed to be supported by evidence. That is, it was not enough to list
graduate attributes in course outlines; there needed to be evidence that they were
being appropriately developed and assessed. It had been quite difficult to get
academic staff to participate in the review process. They often complained that
they felt overburdened by administration and they viewed this review process as
just another management fad that would eventually pass.

Reviewing and reflecting

A desk audit of the embedding of all graduate attributes within all programs
across the Business faculty was undertaken and obvious gaps were identified.
Next a checklist of how the graduate attributes could be embedded in the various
courses and programs was developed. The checklist was based on the following
principles:

• a cumulative program-wide approach to embedding the development of

graduate attributes was preferable to only addressing and assessing them in a
final year capstone course
• graduate attribute statements should be closely aligned with the require-
ments of professional accreditation bodies.

The next stage involved engaging academic staff in the review process. Each
academic discipline took the checklist and adapted it to the discipline and related
professions. Academic staff members across all discipline groups in the faculty
of Business were then invited to comment on the checklists. Subsequently, one-
on-one meetings were arranged with course coordinators and teaching staff to
go through each course in detail. Specific assessment criteria were aligned with
each graduate attribute statement, to ensure that all skills and all attributes were
actually being assessed. Every course was not required to cover all of the gradu-
ate attributes, but in each year of the program all graduate attributes and skills
needed to be cumulatively developed and assessed.
The documentation of the embedding of all graduate attributes enabled map-
ping of the development and assessment of graduate attributes over whole pro-
grams. Every major was mapped, gaps in provision and courses where these might
be addressed were nominated, and changes to curriculum and assessment were
negotiated with the course coordinators.
In this initial review of the development of graduate attributes, internation-
alization was not emphasized or prioritized. It was considered only within the
“global perspectives” attribute and mostly addressed by requiring students to
work in multicultural groups and the inclusion of course and subject aims related
to the development of intercultural competence. There was, however, little evi-
dence of the assessment of intercultural competence in programs.
164 Case studies

Imagining
In the Imagine stage, the focus of internationalization of the curriculum was
broadened to include all graduate attributes rather than focusing only on the
“global perspectives” attribute as the driver of internationalization of the curricu-
lum. For example, how could the attribute related to “communication skills” and
the attribute related to “problem solving skills” be internationalized?
It was also decided to try to link internationalization of the formal curriculum
with internationalization of the informal curriculum. As students tended to come
onto campus for classes and then leave immediately, despite having a culturally
diverse student population, the opportunities for students to interact across cul-
tures informally were very limited.

Revising and planning

A second iteration of the mapping and gap analysis was undertaken, linking
internationalization with all of the graduate attributes. For example, “operating
on a body of knowledge” can be extended to include an international as well as
Australian context and examples; communication can be defined to specifically
encompass culturally and linguistically diverse groups; problem solving can be
specified to include research in an international context; and ethical behavior can
be interpreted within a broader context of considering the impact of decisions on
culturally diverse people in different countries.
A professional development program to support course leaders and teach-
ing staff in making changes to curriculum design, teaching, and assessment was
implemented as some staff members had indicated they did not feel comfort-
able with the pedagogical aspects of internationalization, especially their skills to
develop the intercultural competence of students. The latter was identified as a
particular priority.
Developments in the informal curriculum were planned to assist the develop-
ment of a campus culture that openly valued and supported students to interact
across cultures as part of their everyday campus experience.
The process to this point took around 12 months.

Case Study 4: Engaging with employers

Institutional context
The university in which this case study is located is a research-intensive univer-
sity of 18,000 students, including around 2,000 international students. The
university offers a number of programs offshore, predominantly in Asia. It has
recently established a broad-ranging internationalization policy. This policy
emphasizes that internationalization is for all staff and students, recognizing
that the university itself functions in a complex local, international, and global
environment, and that all graduates are being prepared to live and work in
 Case studies 165

a globalizing world. The policy makes reference to nurturing a “culture of

internationalization” as well as promoting, supporting, and recognizing efforts
to internationalize the curriculum. The policy also recognizes the highly dis-
cipline-specific nature of internationalization of the curriculum. Although the
policy aims to encourage and facilitate formal and informal student engage-
ment in the classroom context, it is less concrete on what this involves, i.e. the
valuing of alternative points of view, and the building of this into assessment
tasks that still achieve academic goals. The policy is also not specific about
how staff will be rewarded for actively seeking to further the internationaliza-
tion of their courses and indeed their own understandings of their discipline
and their professional selves. Finally, the policy contains provisions for quality
assurance monitoring of its internationalization policy through surveys and
external benchmarking audits that include measures of internationalization at
the informal and formal curriculum level. The nominated performance indi-
cators focus on measures of student and staff exchange, and the retention of
international students.
The university has a set of nine graduate attributes that are further broken
down into sub-attributes. Individual schools interpret these sub-attributes to
show what they mean in particular disciplines and professions. The nine attributes
include one called global perspectives and the sub-attributes of this and other
attributes include social and civic responsibility, the ability to collaborate and
negotiate and to work in teams, knowledge of other cultures, and awareness of
the interconnectedness of life and work in a globalized world. The website states
that students should have the chance to develop the attributes no matter which
course of study they complete.

Disciplinary context
The program being reviewed was a Public Relations program.
The core team of three staff members involved in the project had previously
engaged in internationalization of the curriculum, but had focused mainly on
adapting the curriculum to suit the needs of international students. At the begin-
ning of the process, they felt that their program was highly internationalized.
A paper co-authored by a senior lecturer in 2006 had mapped out the issues as
they were perceived at that time, as well as the responses to them by the teaching
team. Issues raised in the paper included how teaching academics grapple with
the implications of globalization, both from a professional point of view (aiming
to be “globally competent” academics), as well as from the perspective of dealing
with the practical implications of the student mix in courses taught in Australia
and offshore. In a course discussed in the 2006 paper, over half the students
were international students, including a significant number enrolled as offshore
students. The paper discussed the challenge of engaging in a meaningful way with
students from such diverse backgrounds, some of whom they knew very little
about, despite the best of intentions.
166 Case studies

Reviewing and reflecting

In the 2006 paper, the authors had expressed their concern that they were in some
way complicit in Western cultural imperialism through their transnational teach-
ing in particular. They saw a mismatch between the implicit assumptions on which
their curriculum was built and the context in which their transnational students
would be working. This was exemplified in the use of case studies from so-called
“traditional Western settings.” They had attempted to use the students themselves
to provide specific cultural context, as well as providing assessment options that
allowed international students to write about non-Western examples of public rela-
tions practice. At the beginning of the “Review and reflect” stage, the program
team acknowledged that they were still grappling with this issue and what it might
mean for their curriculum and their teaching. On the positive side, team members
noted that involvement in transnational teaching had broadened their intellectual
horizons, stimulated research, and enriched the onshore curriculum. In particular,
it had heightened awareness of the need for ensuring that all students are engaged
in an internationalized curriculum, as typically envisaged by statements of graduate
attributes. Above all, internationalization of the curriculum was seen as an ongoing
process of self-development for staff and students.
At the beginning of the process in 2010, it was clear that core members of the
teaching team felt that they had already taken large strides towards internation-
alization in their courses and teaching, and were wondering what else they could
do. Many also felt constrained by lack of time and the awareness that other team
members felt similarly constrained. Some observed that a great deal of work had
been devoted to the topic in the past, with very little to show for it. Nevertheless,
the team, and in particular the team leader, were open to new ideas and new ways
to improve existing approaches to internationalization of the curriculum. At the
first meeting in November 2010, the teaching team used the QIC as a way of
obtaining an overview of the depth of internationalization across the program,
and as a means of stimulating discussion, encouraging understanding, and clari-
fying the concepts involved, as well as generating ideas for specific initiatives to
further the internationalization of the program curriculum.
They identified a number of opportunities in the current institutional envi-
ronment. Firstly, internationalization of the curriculum resonated with the
University’s “global citizenship” graduate attribute. Secondly, a project had
started to measure course quality across a number of measures; internationaliza-
tion of the curriculum could possibly be incorporated into this process. Thirdly,
the team recognized that the experience gained from their involvement in trans-
national teaching, coupled with their commitment to the continuous improve-
ment in the quality of teaching and learning, provided a wealth of resources for
further work in internationalization of the curriculum.
In relation to the development of graduate attributes, they commented that
they had worked with the generic graduate attributes of global perspectives
and social justice. They were not sure how to assess these things but wanted to
 Case studies 167

“embed intercultural competence as a specific learning outcome in the public

relations degree” (testimony of a public relations academic, 2011).
A number of possibilities for further internationalization initiatives in the PR
Program were identified:

1 More detailed and thorough interpretation of the global citizenship graduate

attribute in a specific Public Relations discipline context and exploration of
what that might mean for the taught curriculum.
2 While it was acknowledged that intercultural and cross-cultural competences
were being developed in a number of courses in the program, it was also
recognized that this was mainly implicit and not implemented in a strategic
way across the program. Taking a program level view and making the devel-
opment of these competences explicit in course documentation and imple-
mentation (bearing in mind that it need not be every course that is affected)
was identified as another possibility.
3 From QIC ratings, it emerged that all team members gave a low rating to
“students are encouraged/supported to work in cross-cultural groups.” This
was identified as one possible area for improvement.
4 The team noted that public relations professionals would be expected to deal
with cultural issues at an interpersonal level when working with clients, but
that little was known about how to assess students’ ability to do this effec-
tively. It was felt that this needed to be explored.

Imagine
Key members of the team came together again the day after going through the
QIC process. Reflecting on the discussion of the previous day, the team realized
they had identified an information gap. What they needed was a clear statement
from industry of what intercultural skills, knowledge, and attitudes they expected
in Public Relations graduates. Confronted with a dearth of literature on that spe-
cific topic, the team decided to instigate a small research project, to obtain data
related to this question and of specific relevance to their graduates. A research
project was designed with the aim of interviewing key Public Relations industry
representatives. The key questions to be investigated would be:

1 What intercultural skills, knowledge, and attitudes are employers of PR

graduates in the Australasian region looking for in their employees?
2 How can we develop and assure these in our program, i.e. what are the
implications for our curriculum?

The term “Australasian region” was chosen to reflect the likely geographic
range of graduates’ employment opportunities, and was refined to two key loca-
tions, one onshore and one offshore, for the purposes of the study. With the
168 Case studies

program team as the steering group, funding sources both within and outside
the institution were sought and obtained, and the research project commenced.
The aim of the research project was to gain input into curriculum interna-
tionalization from employers of graduates of the public relations program, both
domestically and overseas. Employers were asked to formulate what intercultural
competence and international awareness meant for them when seeking new staff.
The study aimed to fill a gap in the literature, which quite often cites such skills,
knowledge, and attitudes as contributing to employability, but rarely provides
concrete support for this, especially not in discipline-specific contexts.
Among the generic qualities identified by the industry representatives
as sought-after was something identified variously as “openness,” “open-
mindedness,” “innate curiosity,” or the ability to question things. This quality
is potentially a key deliverable of curriculum internationalization, which above
all seeks to instill an understanding of the paradigmatic and culturally centric
nature of discipline knowledge, as well as to foster a sense that the exchange of
information and views between cultural “others” has inherent value.
For overseas placements, industry stakeholders also clearly identified an under-
standing of local culture and the local political situation as essential to the effec-
tive practice of public relations. For all graduates, knowledge of international
affairs and how the local situation fits into it was seen as valuable.
Communication skills were, unsurprisingly, a key attribute sought in graduates.
While speech writing and copy drafting remain invaluable skills, communication
was rather couched in more generic terms as the ability to consult and engage.
In this respect, intercultural competence was seen as a key asset. This was under-
stood as including both a general sense for avoiding cross-cultural pitfalls, but
also the ability to provide detailed guidelines on social or business protocols, in
particular with respect to Chinese business people or bureaucrats. However, the
full implications of the intercultural for professional practice are perhaps best
summarized by one of the respondents:

Really you could not possibly manage or be a corporate affairs team member
on that project unless you had the capacity to move a lot of your thinking
that’s based on living and working in Australia into the head space of that
community and that culture with that interesting and complex history.

With respect to intercultural competence, a universal deficit was observed

among graduates in relation to communicating with Indigenous people (whether
in Australia or abroad).
One area where views diverged was the usefulness of other languages. For some
industry representatives this was of generic value, as it tended to be associated
with greater cultural awareness, or even better English writing skills; for others
(particularly overseas companies), knowledge of another language was a consid-
eration from the point of view of “language coverage” across the public relations
team, depending on the location of major international clients.
 Case studies 169

Finally, the interviewees were encouraged to suggest activities that could lead
to the provision of a more internationalized curriculum of specific benefit for
public relations graduates. Suggestions included the introduction of new sub-
jects/units such as a comparative unit studying professional practice in other
countries including Singapore, Japan, China, the United States, and Australia;
a unit on community (in particular Indigenous) consultation; and a unit on
equity and human rights in public relations related to the global citizenship
capability.

Revise and plan

After reflection, a number of key outcomes of the research were identified. The
first reflected the need for the Public Relations curriculum to move from being
primarily nationally focused to becoming more regionally focused and including
the development of sophisticated understanding of intercultural competence and
the ability to work interculturally as well as internationally.
Another key outcome of the research was the need for graduates to be familiar
with “procedural knowledge” for two specific cultural areas: Chinese culture and
Indigenous cultures.
The team also had to acknowledge that certain aspects of the Western para-
digm of Public Relations are valued more universally than those with a sensitiv-
ity for educational cultural imperialism might have thought. These include the
willingness to put forward one’s own opinion, and being prepared to challenge
authority.

Act
Despite being initially resistant to the idea of a unit specifically addressing global
perspectives, and still preferring to embed these across the degree in every unit,
the value of focusing on one unit was acknowledged. A unit exploring the impact
of globalization and the concept of public relations as a cultural construct was
introduced. This unit was infused with recent scholarship on the impact of
globalization on the practice of public relations, as well as critical studies in the
field. It included specific cultural knowledge necessary for working in China and
working with Indigenous communities in a business context. The other outcome
of the research project was a commitment to formalize international work-
integrated learning opportunities into an existing professional placement program
ensuring that students were prepared and briefed appropriately, supported during
the field trip, and provided with a debriefing and structured opportunities for
reflection on their experience when they returned.
Two papers, one co-written by teaching team members, the other by an indi-
vidual member, were written investigating the disciplinary implications of the
research undertaken, as well as the curriculum implications.
This process took around 12 months.
Appendix: A quick guide to managing
group work1

Introduction
This guide is intended for teachers who use group work to assess their students’
learning and for course and program designers who include this activity in their
plans.

Cultural diversity in the student population is now the norm rather than the
exception in Australian universities. Culture is not only defined by nationality
or ethnicity. The term culture is a very broad concept that encompasses the life-
style, traditions, knowledge, skills, beliefs, norms and values shared by a group of
people. Cultures are most often recognised by shared patterns of behaviours and
interactions, cognitive constructs and affective understandings. These are learned
through a process of socialization. However, within different cultural groups,
individuals are unique. Meaning is continuously constructed through human
interaction and communication within and across cultural groups. Cultural learn-
ing is a dynamic, developmental and ongoing process for students and teachers.
Cultural diversity in the student population has a significant impact on teaching
and learning.

This guide draws on current literature on learning and teaching across cul-
tures, on findings from relevant projects funded by the Australian Government
Office for Learning and Teaching and the Australian Learning and Teaching
Council from 2006–2012. You can find full summaries of these projects in the
Good Practice Report Learning and Teaching Across Cultures available at olt.gov
.au/resource-good-practicereport-learning-and-teaching-across-cultures-2011.

This guide is one of a suite of Quick Guides on topics relevant to learning and
teaching across cultures. Other guides are available from ieaa.org.au/ltac.
 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work 171

The good practice principles:Teaching across cultures

This guide is organised around six principles of good practice for teaching across
cultures. This guide interprets good practice principles as they apply to managing
group work.

Principle 1: Good teaching across cultures will focus on students as learners

Principle 2: Good teaching across cultures will respect and adjust for diversity
Principle 3: Good teaching across cultures will provide context-specific informa-
tion and support
Principle 4: Good teaching across cultures will enable meaningful intercultural
dialogue and engagement
Principle 5: Good teaching across cultures will be adaptable, flexible and respon-
sive to evidence
Principle 6: Good teaching across cultures will prepare students for life in a glo-
balised world

You can find a detailed description of each Principle at ieaa.org.au/ltac.

The focus here is on catering for cultural and linguistic diversity in university
classrooms. This guide may be used to evaluate current activities, identify areas
for improvement and find examples of best practice.

Principle 1: Focus on students as learners

Group work is a prominent feature of many courses and programs in Australian
universities. All students will need to develop their skills to work interculturally in
academic, professional and social groups. There is much in the literature pointing
to the need to appropriately prepare and support students as learners in culturally
diverse groups. There are many ways that teachers can assist all students to learn
to work effectively in culturally diverse groups.

What to look for

The program as a whole has been It is not assumed that students will
planned to support students’ skills commence the program with the ability to
development work effectively in culturally diverse groups.

Across the program, there are structured

opportunities for teaching, practise and
feedback on students’ use of intercultural
skills in groups.

(continued)
172 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work

Teachers discuss the importance of being

able to work in culturally diverse groups
with students and some of the challenges
and opportunities this provides in different
learning and professional contexts.

Students have adequate opportunities to

demonstrate their learning individually as
well as in groups. One way to do this is to
use fewer, longer and better-designed group
work assignments across a program.

Graduate attributes or program outcomes

specify discipline and program specific
intercultural and collaborative skills that are
developed in groups.

Intercultural group work skills are Teachers seek expert guidance on teaching
taught and assessed of the intercultural skills needed to work
collaboratively in diverse groups.
“When students’ projects
(which are assessed) depend
There is time for safe practice in working
on the knowledge and
collaboratively before students are assessed
insights their peers can pro-
on a group task or product.
vide, they quickly start to see
the benefits of peer learning
and they start to see each Students are supported and encouraged in
other in a different light” the processes of peer learning.
(Academic, CG8-725, p. 11).*
Overall responsibility for teaching group
Group work skills are assessed as work skills is managed at the program
a learning outcome level. Individual course teachers check and
reinforce skills teaching. Effective group work
skills include communication in English with
others who are still developing their capability.
Students learn to check that they are under-
stood. Where staff are unsure how to teach
this, they seek guidance from language profes-
sionals. The ability of individual students to
work in culturally diverse groups is assessed
only after students have been instructed in
how to work effectively in such groups.

Teachers require students to When teachers are calculating how much

reflect on their intercultural time they can expect students to need for
learning as part of the group task completing the group task, they factor in
time for reflection too. Students are given a
structured way to make sense of their expe-
riences. Focus is on awareness of current
strengths and gaps for future learning. This
can be done through reflective journaling or
focus group discussion.
 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work 173

Assessment of group work includes peer

assessment as well as self-assessment and
reflection.
“When students are asked to think
about what they are learning in
the group process, they start to
look at the world from a non-
self perspective. They start to be
more open-minded and they learn
intercultural interaction skills
and interact with students from
different backgrounds that way”
(Academic, CG8-725, p. 18).*

When designing group tasks, The task brief takes account of the
teachers attend to the workload assumed demands (time, travel, research,
on students organising shared work, etc.) for
completing the task.

Contemporaneous demands on students

are considered when setting a group
task. Teachers protect students’ other
commitments from being threatened by an
over-demanding group task.

Principle 2: Respecting and adjusting for diversity

Group work can be a rich site for intercultural learning and for discovering
diverse ways to address issues and solve problems. The risk is that dominant
paradigms and dominant voices are the only ones heard, leaving others feeling
marginalised and disregarded. Teachers and task designers can play a critical
role in encouraging students to use and value each others’ skills and knowl-
edge. This means they may have to adjust their teaching approach and encour-
age students to adjust their behaviours when working in culturally diverse
groups.

What to look for

Assessed tasks are truly Task design does not encourage students to
collaborative divide up the task, allocate subunits to be
completed independently then recombine
for submission. To require collaboration, the
task might be to:
• ‘collect and compare’
• ‘catalogue and evaluate’

(continued)
174 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work

• ‘analyse in terms of each member’s

context then create a theoretical
framework for …’
• ‘document the process used in problem
solving then rank the effectiveness
of …’.

Some teachers design tasks with a ‘jigsaw’

approach, meaning each student is provided
with only part of the information to
complete a task. This ‘gap’ requires the
student to work with others to complete
the task. In this way, successful task
completion evidences successful group work.
Students can be set a task which is too
difficult for any one member to complete
alone, along with a rationale for the task
being constructed in this way. Assessment
criteria need to make the seemingly
‘impossible’ feel safer. Assessors might judge
the group’s progress or their approach; a
mark could reflect an individual’s learning
gain rather than a judgment of the ‘perfect’
product.

Students can nominate or be assigned

roles and responsibilities, then be required
to record and reflect on each individuals’
role achievement. Where this includes peer
evaluation, students must be trained and
supported to do so in ways that are sensitive
to cultural diversity.

Tasks use and value students’ Tasks are designed to value how the
cultural, social and personal students complete the task, as well as the
knowledge end product.
“Harness the potential
Tasks require students to use past
of shared knowledge”
experiences or share ideas on how things
(CG8-725).*
can be done. This allows scope for a range of
approaches rather than assuming those from
the numerically or linguistically dominant
students will prevail.

Assigned roles can be allocated so as

to play to strengths or, alternatively, to
develop less favoured areas. Knowing
students well enough to assign roles
assumes prior efforts to audit and reflect
on a students’ skill sets.
 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work 175

Teachers take care when Students select their own groups where
establishing group membership tasks are short-lived and/or where only
the product or result of the work is being
“I felt trepidation about being assessed. Since students tend to select those
interventionist, about mixing they feel comfortable working with, student
up the groups but I found if selected groups are more likely to just
you don’t do it at the start focus on outcome. Student selection may
in a structured sort of way, be preferable where the cohort does not
it’s not going to happen” know each other well. It is inappropriate to
(Academic, CG8-725, p. 13).* allow students to select their own groups
if encouraging broader interaction is one of
the reasons for using groups.

For teacher selected groups, membership

criteria are stated.

When teachers are designing group work,

they include mechanisms for students to
react to and perhaps challenge membership
decisions. Requests at the onset of group
work are treated carefully and are not
normally agreed to if there is a pedagogical
reason for allocating membership. Later,
requests are managed in ways that are
specified in the task brief.

Teachers are aware of potential clashes

between students. Their ideas on cultural
‘clashes’ are current and regularly
interrogated for potential stereotyping
or over-generalisations. Teachers avoid
combinations of students which might
make collaboration too demanding or even
impossible for some students.

Teachers offer choice and Where there is no negotiation, teachers

negotiation in group work where explain why this must be so.
possible

Teachers consider language issues Teachers seek guidance from professionals/

specialists on language issues. Guidance
could include strategies for using tasks to
enhance students’ language development
and/or ways of mitigating potential difficulties
(See Quick Guide to Developing
English Language Skills).

Tasks are modified as appropriate to

down-play the impact of language on

(continued)
176 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work

assessed outcomes. For example, teachers

might ask for a recorded presentation rather
than a ‘live’ one.The recording could then
be followed up by a face-to-face question
and answer session to check if the group has
met the learning outcome. In this example,
students who doubted their language skills
and/or felt compromised by a public error
could rehearse and correct, yet all students
must demonstrate they have learned and
understood the task. In another example, the
group report could be done as a mind map
rather than a full text. If so, then students’
ideas and how their ideas inter-relate are
prominent and language fluency takes a back
seat on this occasion.

Assessment criteria make clear the

relative importance of language and
content then, importantly, markers apply
the stated balance. Where balance is not
explicit, students often assume a much
larger significance for language in their
overall grade (See A Quick Guide to
Assessment).

Principle 3: Provide context specific information

and support
What to look for

Task requirements are clearly The group work assignment states

communicated to and understood what students must do, plus any
by students requirements as to how they do it and
over what time frame. This enables planning
for those who typically require longer to
complete a task.

Task briefs include what is and is not

acceptable in relation to help and support.
Examples might include proofreading and
additional tutoring.

Teachers check regularly with students and

peers as to whether their perception of the
clarity of materials matches others’ views.
Materials are accessible to speakers of
English as an additional language.
 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work 177

Assessment criteria are clear Assessment criteria balance the importance

of how students do the work (the process)
“The way in which with what the group produces (the
assessment is designed and product). Consideration is given to the
written and the way lecturers fact that diverse groups often take time
convey their expectations to negotiate group processes before they
about how the assessment can start to work effectively together. This
will be undertaken is crucial is taken into account by those managing
to how students from group work.
various countries, including
Australia, perform in that
Students have a chance to discuss and
assessment” (PPS-43, p. 6).*
explore what the assessment criteria
mean, including checking differences
with their previous experiences of
assessment.

Assessment criteria take account of the

challenges, potential synergies and benefits
of working in diverse groups. By using
criteria sensitively, teachers can guide
students towards regarding intercultural
communication as integral to what is being
valued rather than a threat to achieving a
quality outcome.

Students are clear on how to seek Before students start group work, teachers
help and/or teacher intervention, discuss common blocks to effective
should they need it group functioning. These include failing
to get to know others, too little time
spent agreeing on the process, jumping
to conclusions about what someone else
means if the other person communicates
in an unfamiliar or unexpected way and
so on.

Teachers monitor group activity through,

for example, requiring minutes of meetings,
an on-line log or interim reporting, by
intermittently observing the group in
action or by asking groups to showcase
work in progress. Teachers could provide a
suggested meeting schedule or an indica-
tion of the number of meetings required/
expected. Teachers state when, how and
in what circumstances students can seek
support and once problems have been
identified, what action or intervention
might occur.
178 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work

Principle 4: Good teaching across cultures will enable

meaningful intercultural dialogue and engagement
What to look for

The program creates a climate of When programs market their courses, they
interaction from Day One state that interactive intercultural learning is
expected and valued.

Students encounter and interact with

each other regularly, on and off campus,
throughout the program and in many
classrooms. Program documents make clear
that students are expected to enter into
dialogue with those they perceive as different
from themselves as a resource for learning.

Teachers support and Previous interaction organised at the

choreograph interactions program level (see under Principle 1 above)
between students, both in and means that students can start group tasks
out of classrooms with some knowledge of each other’s past
experiences, strengths and approaches to
learning.

In class and online teachers guide students

on how and when to interact and tell them
the rationale for doing so.
“We had to work within the same
group for the whole semester, so
we start (sic) to feel more com-
fortable and then we work really
well together and become like
friends” (Student, CG8-725, p. 11).*

Where a group task is required, ‘Ice breaking’ activities are incorporated into
the teacher has ensured prior face-to-face and online teaching early in each
social interaction teaching period.

‘Getting-to-know’ each other is encouraged

to continue once groups form. The group
size supports and encourages interaction.
Ideally the group should be between 4 and 6
members.

Activities are designed to raise awareness of

fellow students’ skills and experiences.

Student-student interaction is a Group work is not used as a strategy to

specific aim of group work manage large class numbers and/or to
reduce marking time and cost.
 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work 179

Group work tasks last many weeks and

ideally, up to several months. This allows
time for students to use, review and
develop their intercultural skills as well
as time to ensure they can create a high
quality product.
When “groups are formed at
course commencement and
continued through the course,
interaction becomes a core
component of the curriculum”
(Academic, CG8-725, p. 11).*

Teachers support interaction The range could include: face to face, on-line,
using a range of media learning management systems and social
media.

Principle 5: Be adaptable, flexible and responsive

to evidence
What to look for

Teachers seek students’ reactions Feedback on teaching is collected from

and feedback different groups’ and individuals’ points of
view. Data can come from teachers, students,
“We are actually pretty from academic language and learning
interesting as long as we have specialists and even from external observers
opportunity to show you such as peers, quality assurance officers or
western people” (Student, external examiners.
CG7-453, p. 30).*
Feedback is appropriately analysed and
attended to by teaching staff and their
managers. Key issues are identified and acted
upon. Students are informed of the actions
that have been taken.

Changes are evidence based and care is

taken to avoid over reaction to isolated
negative comments. Approaches which
repeatedly cause issues are modified.

Group work is reviewed across the

program, looking for patterns in terms of
workloads, frequency, and the type of tasks
required.

(continued)
180 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work

Teachers develop theoretical Teachers and course designers are familiar

frameworks to explain and justify with the literature on managing learning in
their decisions on managing culturally diverse groups.
and assessing culturally diverse
groups’ work

Staff development needs are Teaching staff are regularly consulted on

identified and met their professional development needs in
relation to managing culturally diverse
groups.

Good practice in managing intercultural

group work is included in the induction of
new staff.

Opportunities are provided for ongoing

professional development for staff in
responding to feedback from students on
intercultural group work.

Principle 6: Preparing students for life in a

globalised world
What to look for

Students are assisted to deal Negative experiences can reinforce rather

with negative interactions and than challenge stereotypes and assumptions
experiences in intercultural about fellow students who are perceived as
groups ‘other’.

Opportunities for reflection and discussion

of negative as well as positive experiences
are included in group work assessment items
across the program.

Reflection on the significance of Students are prompted to make explicit

learning in diverse groups and of links between their experiences in
intercultural work is built into culturally and linguistically diverse
tasks study groups and their likely post university
life. These could be recorded in a personal
Making reflection on experiences log and/or other summative reflective
over the program a part of the process.
program design
Teachers guide students on how
to use intercultural group work as
evidence of intercultural skills in CVs,
personal development plans and job
applications.
 Appendix: A quick guide to managing group work 181

Related OLT Projects

CG8-725, Finding common ground: enhancing interaction between domestic and
international students, <olt.gov.au/project-enhancing-domestic-international-
melbourne-2008>.

CG7-453, Addressing the ongoing English language growth of international students,

<olt.gov.au/project-addressing-ongoing-english-monash-2007>.

PPS-43, Assessing students unfamiliar with assessment practices in Australian

universities, <olt.gov.au/project-assessing-students-unfamiliar-rmit-2005>.

Key References
Cruickshank, K, Chen, H & Warren, S 2012, ‘Increasing international and domestic
student interaction through group work: a case study from the humanities’,
Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 797–810.
DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.669748

De Vita, G 2005, ‘Fostering intercultural learning through multicultural group

work’, in JAR Carroll (ed), Teaching international students: enhancing learning
for all students, Routledge, London, pp. 75–83.

Edmead, C 2013, ‘Increasing international and domestic student interaction

through group work: a case study from the humanities’ in J Ryan (ed),
Cross-cultural teaching and learning for home and international students:
internationalisation of pedagogy and curriculum in higher education, Routledge,
Oxon, UK, pp. x–y.

Hibbins, R & Barker, M 2011, ‘Group work with students of diverse backgrounds’,
in J Fowler, A Gudmundsson & J Whicker (eds), Groups work: a guide for working
in groups, 2nd ed, Palmer Higgs Books Online, pp. 63–68.

Volet SE & Ang G 2012, ‘Culturally mixed groups on international campuses:

an opportunity for intercultural learning’, Higher Education Research &
Development, vol. 31, no.1, pp. 21–37. DOI:10.1080/07294360.2012.642838

Woods, P, Barker, M, & Hibbins, R 2011, ‘Tapping the benefits of multicultural

group-work: an exploratory study of postgraduate management students’,
International Journal of Management Education, vol. 9, pp. 59–70. DOI:
10.3794/ijme.92.317

Note
1 Leask, B. and Carroll, J. 2013. A Quick Guide to Managing Group Work Melbourne:
International Education Association of Australia. ieaa.org.au/documents/item/129.
Used with permission.
References

Albrow, M. 1990, “Introduction,” in M. Albrow & E. King (eds.), Globalization,

Knowledge and Society, Sage Publications, London, pp. 3–13.
Appadurai, A. 1990, “Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy,” in
Featherstone, M. (ed.), Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity,
Sage Publications, London, pp. 295–310.
Archer, C. 2009, “Internationalisation of the marketing curriculum: Desired in theory
but what about in practice?”, in ANZMAC, Melbourne.
Arkoudis, S., Yu, X., Baik, C., Borland, H., Chang, S., Lang, I., Lang, J., Pearce,
A. & Watty, K. 2010, Finding common ground: Enhancing interaction between
domestic and international students, Australian Learning and Teaching Council,
Strawberry Hills.
Ashwill, M. 2011, Higher ed as a weapon, viewed 25 August 2014, www
.insidehighered.com/views/2011/04/12/ashwill_international_higher_
education_used_for_political_purposes.
AUCC 2009, Internationalization of the curriculum: A practical guide to support
Canadian universities’ efforts, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Barnett, R. 2000, Realising the University in an Age of Supercomplexity, The Society
for Higher Education and OUP, Ballmoor, Bucks.
Barnett, R. 2013, Imagining the University, Routledge, London.
Barnett, R. & Coate, K. 2005, Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education,
McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, UK.
Barrie, S. 2004, “A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy,”
Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 262–275.
Barrie, S. 2006, “Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of gradu-
ates,” Higher Education, Vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 215–241.
Bartell, M. 2003, “Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based
framework,” Higher Education, Vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 43–70.
Bates, R. 2012, “Is global citizenship possible, and can international schools provide
it?”, Journal of Research in International Education, Vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 262–274.
Becher, T. 1989, Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures
of Disciplines, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK; Bristol, PA, USA.
Becher, T. 1994, “The significance of disciplinary differences,” Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 151–161.
 References 183

Becher, T. & Trowler, P. 2001, Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry
and the Cultures of the Disciplines, 2nd ed., Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
Beelen, J. & Leask, B. 2011, “Internationalisation at home on the move,” in Raabe
Handbook “Internationalization of European Higher Education,” Raabe Academic
Publishers, Berlin.
Bennett, J. 2008, “On becoming a global soul: A path to engagement dur-
ing study abroad,” in V. Savicki (ed.), Developing Intercultural Competence and
Transformation, Sylus Publishing, Sterling, VA.
Bennett, J. & Bennett, M. 2004, “Developing intercultural sensitivity: An inte-
grative approach to global and domestic diversity,” in D. Landis, J. Bennett &
M. Bennett (eds.), Handbook of Intercultural Training, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bernstein, B. 1971, “On the classification and framing of educational knowledge,” in
M. Young (ed.), Knowledge and Control, Collier-Macmillan, London.
Biggs, J. 2003, Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does,
2nd ed., Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. 2007, Teaching for Quality Learning in Higher Education, Open
University Press, Berkshire.
Bloom, B. (ed.) 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, Longmans, Green and Co.,
London: New York: Toronto.
Bond, S., Qian, J. & Huang, J. 2003, The role of faculty in internationalizing the
undergraduate curriculum and classroom experience, CBIE Research Millennium
Series, Canadian Bureau for International Education, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Bourn, D. 2010, “Students as global citizens,” in E. Jones (ed.), Internationalisation
and the Student Voice, London, Routledge, pp. 18–30.
Bowden, J., Hart, G., King, B., Trigwell, K. & Watts, O. 2002, Generic capabilities
of ATN university graduates, viewed April 17 2007, www.clt.uts.edu.au/ATN.grad
.cap.project.index.html.
Breit, R. 2011, Professional Communication: Legal and Ethical Issues, 2nd ed., Lexis
Nexis, Chatswood.
Breit, R., Obijiofor, L. & Fitzgerald, R. 2013, “Internationalization as de-westernization
of the curriculum: The case of journalism at an Australian university,” Journal of Studies
in International Education, Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 119–135.
Brown, P. 2008, “The adjustment journey of international postgraduate students at an
English university,” Journal of Research in International Education, Vol. 7, no. 2,
pp. 232–249.
Byram, M. 1997, Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence,
Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Carroll, J. 2015, Tools for Teaching in an Educationally Mobile World, Routledge,
Abingdon.
Carroll, J. & Ryan, J. 2005, “Canaries in the coalmine: International students in
Western universities,” in J. Carroll & J. Ryan (eds.), Teaching international
Students: Improving Learning for All, Routledge, London.
184 References

Carter, L. 2008, “Globalization and science education: The implications of science

in the new economy,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 45, no. 5,
pp. 617–633.
Chalmers, D. & Volet, S. 1997, “Common misconceptions about students from
SouthEast Asia studying in Australia,” Higher Education Research and Development,
Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 87–98.
Chang, J. 2006, “A transcultural wisdom bank in the classroom: Making cultural
diversity a key resource in teaching and learning,” Journal of Studies in International
Education, Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 369–377.
Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. 1987, “Seven principles for good practice in under-
graduate education,” American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, March.
Childress, L. 2009, “Internationalization plans for higher education institutions,”
Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 289–309.
Childress, L. 2010, The Twenty-first Century University: Developing Faculty Engage-
ment in Internationalization, Peter Lang, New York.
Clifford, V. 2009, “Engaging the disciplines in internationalizing the curriculum,”
International Journal for Academic Development, Vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 133–143.
Coates, H. 2005, “The value of student engagement for higher education quality
assurance,” Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 25–36.
Cobbin, P. & Lee, R. 2002, “A micro-journal approach to internationalising the
accounting curriculum,” Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 59–77.
Cooper, V. 2009, “Inter-cultural student interaction in post-graduate business and
information technology programs: the potentialities of global study tours,” Higher
Education Research & Development, Vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 557–570.
Crichton, J. & Scarino, A. 2007, “How are we to understand the ‘intercultural
dimension’? An examination of the intercultural dimension of internationalisation
in the context of higher education in Australia,” The Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 04.01–04.21.
Cross, M., Mhlanga, E. & Ojo, E. 2011, “Emerging concept of internationalisation
in South African Higher Education: Conversations on Local and Global Exposure
at the University of Witwatersand (Wits),” Journal of Studies in International
Education, Vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 75–92.
Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H. & Wächter, B. 2001,
Internationalization at home: A position paper, EAIE, Amsterdam.
de Vita, G. 2002, “Does assessed multi–cultural group work really pull UK students’
average down“?, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 27, no. 2,
pp. 153–161.
de Vita, G. 2007, “Taking stock: An appraisal of the literature on internationalizing
HE learning,”in E. Jones & S. Brown (eds.), Internationalising Higher Education,
Routledge, London, pp. 154–167.
de Wit, H. & Beelen, J. 2012, “Socrates in the low countries: Designing, imple-
menting and facilitating internationalisation of the curriculum at the Amsterdam
University of Applied Sciences (HvA),” in J. Ryan (ed.), Cross-cultural Teaching
and Learning for Home and International Students: Internationalisation of
Pedagogy and Curriculum in Higher Education, Routledge, London, pp. 156–167.
 References 185

Deardorff, D. 2006, “Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as

a student outcome of internationalization,” Journal of Studies in International
Education, Vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 241–266.
Deardorff, D. & Jones, E. 2012, “Intercultural competence: An emerging focus in
international higher education,” in D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl & T. Adams
(eds.), The SAGE Handbook of International Education SAGE, CA, pp. 283–303.
Dunworth, K. & Briguglio, C. 2011, Teaching students who have English as an addi-
tional language: A handbook for academic staff in higher education, HERDSA,
Milperra, NSW.
Egan, K. 1992, Imagination in Teaching and Learning: The Middle School Years,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Egron-Polak, E. & Hudson, R. 2010, IAU 3rd Global Survey Report:
Internationalization of Higher Education: Global Trends, Regional Perspectives,
International Association of Universities, Paris.
Egron-Polak, E. & Hudson, R. 2014, Internationalization of Higher Education:
Growing Expectations, Fundamental Values, IAU, Paris.
Escrigas, C., Sanchez, J., Hall, B. & Tandon, R. 2014, “Editors’ introduction:
Knowledge, engagement and higher education: Contributing to social change,”
in Higher Education in the World 5: Knowledge, Engagement and Higher
Education: Contributing to Social Change, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke,
pp. xxxi–xxxix.
Evans, E., Tindale, J., Cable, D. & Hamil Mead, S. 2009, “Collaborative teaching
in a linguistically and culturally diverse higher education setting: A case study of a
postgraduate accounting program,” Higher Education Research & Development,
Vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 597–613.
Fallows, S. & Steven, C. (eds.) 2000, Integrating Key Skills in Higher Education:
Employability, Transferable Skills and Learning for Life, Kogan Page, London.
Freeman, M., Treleaven, L., Simpson, L., Ridings, S., Ramburuth, P., Leask, B.,
Caulfield, N. & Sykes, C. 2009, Embedding the development of intercultural com-
petence in business education, Final Report, Australian Learning and Teaching
Council: Surry Hills, Sydney.
Gazzola, A. & Didriksson, A. (eds.) 2008, Trends in Higher Education in Latin
America and the Caribbean, IESALC–UNESCO, Caracas.
Gibbs, G. 2006, “How assessment frames student learning,” in C. Bryan & K. Clegg
(eds.), Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, Routledge, Abingdon.
Giddens, A. 1999, LSE. The director’s lectures: Politics are socialism, viewed 30 May 2003,
www.lse.ac.uk/Giddens/lectures.htm.
Goodman, J. 1984, “Reflection and teacher education: A case study and theoreti-
cal analysis,” Interchange, Trends in higher education in Latin America and the
Caribbean 26 Vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 9.
Goodson, I. 1995, The Making of Curriculum: Collected Essays, 2nd ed., Falmer,
London.
Green, W. & Whitsed, C. 2013, “Reflections on an alternative approach to continuing
professional learning for internationalization of the curriculum across disciplines,”
Journal of Studies in International Education, Trends in higher education in Latin
America and the Caribbean 164 Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 148.
186 References

Hanassab, S. 2006, “Diversity, international students, and perceived discrimination:

Implications for educators and counselors,” Journal of Studies in International
Education, Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 157–172.
Harari, M. 1992, “The internationalization of the curriculum,” in C. Klasek (ed.),
Bridges to the Future: Strategies for Internationalizing Higher Education, Association
of International Education Administrators, Carbondale, IL, pp. 52–79.
Harris, A. & Spillane, J. 2008, “Distributed leadership through the looking glass,”
Management in Education, Vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 31–34.
Harrison, N. & Peacock, N. 2010, “Interactions in the international classroom: The
UK perspective,” in E. Jones (ed.), Internationalization and the Student Voice:
Higher Education Perspectives, Routledge, London.
Heyward, M. 2002, “From international to intercultural: Redefining the international
school for a globalized world,” Journal of Research in International Education,
Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–32.
Hough, J. 1991, “The university and the common good,” in D. Griffin & J. Hough
(eds.), Theology and the University, State University of New York Press, New York,
pp. 97–124.
Hudzik, J. 2004, Why internationalize NASULGC institutions? Challenge and
opportunity, Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, Washington, DC,
viewed 12 January 2012, www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=38.
Hudzik, J. 2011, Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action, NAFSA:
Association of International Educators, Washington DC.
IAU 2012, Affirming academic values in internationalization of Higher Education:
A call for action, International Association of Universities, Paris.
Jiang, X. 2011, “Why interculturisation? A neo-Marxist approach to accommodate
cultural diversity in higher education,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 43,
no. 4, pp. 387–399.
Johnson, S. 2010, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation,
Riverhead Books, New York.
Jones, E. & Killick, D. 2007, “Internationalization of the curriculum,” in E. Jones &
S. Brown (eds.), Internationalizing higher education, Routledge, Abingdon,
pp. 109–119.
Jones, E. & Killick, D. 2013, “Graduate attributes and the internationalized curricu-
lum: Embedding a global outlook in disciplinary learning outcomes,” Journal of
Studies in International Education, Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 165–182.
Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G. & Ryland, K. 2014, “Synthesising theory and
practice: Distributed leadership in higher education,” Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, Vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 603–619.
Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. 2000, “Towards an inclusive and international higher
education,” in R. King, D. Hill & B. Hemmings (eds.), University and Diversity:
Changing Perspectives, Policies and Practices in Australia, Keon Publications,
Wagga Wagga, NSW, pp. 30–53.
Kemmis, S. & Fitzclarence, L. 1991, Curriculum Theorising: Beyond Reproduction
Theory, Deakin University, Victoria.
 References 187

Killick, D. 2012, “Seeing-ourselves-in-the-world: Developing global citizenship

through international mobility and campus community,” Journal of Studies in
International Education, Vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 372–389.
Killick, D. 2013, “Global citizenship and campus community: Lessons from learning
theory and the live-experience of mobile students,” in J. Ryan (ed.), Cross-cultural
Teaching and Learning for Home and International Students, Routledge, London,
pp. 182–195.
Killick, D. 2015, Developing the Global Student: Higher Education in an Era of
Globalization, Routledge, Abingdon.
Klein, J. 1993, “Blurring, cracking, and crossing: Permeation and the fracturing of
discipline,” in E. Messer-Davidow, D. Sylvan & D. Shumway (eds.), Knowledges:
Historical and Critical Studies of Disciplinarity, University of Virginia Press,
Charlottesville, VA, pp. 185–211.
Knight, J. 2004, “Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and ration-
ales,” Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 5–31.
Knight, J. 2006a, “Crossborder education: An analytical framework for program and
provider mobility,” in J Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and
Research, Vol. 21, pp. 345–395.
Knight, J. 2006b, Internationalization of Higher Education: New Directions,
New Challenges 2005 IAU Global Survey Report, International Association of
Universities, Paris.
Kramsch, C. 2002, “In search of the intercultural,” Journal of Sociolinguistics, Vol. 6,
no. 2, pp. 275–285.
Kubow, P., Grossman, D. & Ninomiya, S. 2000, “Multidimensional citizenship:
Educational policy for the 21st Century,” in J. Cogan & R. Derricott (eds.),
Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education, Kogan
Page, London, pp. 131–150.
Kuhn, T. 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Larkins, R. 2008, “A battle we must not lose,” The Australian, 23 April, Higher
Education Supplement, p. 25.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Leask, B. 2001, “Bridging the gap: Internationalizing university curricula,” Journal of
Studies in International Education, Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 100–115.
Leask, B. 2003, “Venturing into the unknown: A framework and strategies to assist
international and Australian students to learn from each other,” in C. Bond &
P. Bright (eds.), Research and development in higher education: Learning for an
unknown future, Vol. 26, Higher Education Research and Development Society of
Australasia Inc., Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 380–387.
Leask, B. 2005, “Internationalisation of the curriculum: Teaching and learning,” in
J. Carroll & J. Ryan (eds.), Teaching international students: Improving learning for
all, Routledge, London, pp. 119–129.
Leask, B. 2008, “Internationalisation of the curriculum in an interconnected world,” in
G. Crosling, L. Thomas & M. Heagney (eds.), Improving Student Retention in Higher
Education: The Role of Teaching and Learning, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 95–101.
188 References

Leask, B. 2009, “Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between
home and international students,” Journal of Studies in International Education,
Vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 205–221.
Leask, B. 2010, “Beside me is an empty chair: The student experience of internation-
alization,” in E. Jones (ed.), Internationalization and the Student Voice: Higher
Education Perspectives, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 3–17.
Leask, B. 2011, “Assessment, learning, teaching and internationalization: Engaging
for the future,” Assessment, Teaching and Learning Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 5–20.
Leask, B. 2012, Internationalisation of the Curriculum in Action, Office for Learning
and Teaching DEEWR, Sydney.
Leask, B. 2013, “Internationalising the curriculum in the disciplines: Imagining
new possibilities,” Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 17, no. 2,
pp. 103–118.
Leask, B. 2014, Learning and teaching across cultures project report, Office for
Learning and Teaching DEEWR, Sydney.
Leask, B. & Beelen, J. 2009, “Enhancing the engagement of academic staff in
international education,” paper presented at Proceedings of a joint IEAA-EAIE
Symposium: Advancing Australia–Europe Engagement, University of New South
Wales, Sydney.
Leask, B., Beelen, J. & Kaunda, L. 2013, “Internationalisation of the curriculum:
international approaches and perspectives,” in de Wit, H., F. Hunter, L. Johnson
and H-G van Liempd, Possible futures the next 25 years of the internationalisation of
higher education. Amsterdam: EAIE., pp. 187–205.
Leask, B. & Carroll, J. 2011, “Moving beyond ‘wishing and hoping’: internationali-
zation and student experiences of inclusion and engagement,” Higher Education
Research & Development, Vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 647–659.
Lee, C. & Bisman, J. 2006, “Curricula in introductory accounting: An international
student focus,” in 3rd International Conference on Contemporary Business, Leura,
New South Wales.
Lewin, K. 1951, Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York.
Lewin, K. 1952, “Group decision and social change,” in G. Swanson, T. Newcomb &
E. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology, Henry Holt, New York,
pp. 197–211.
Lewin, R. 2009, “Introduction: The quest for global citizenship through study
abroad,” in R. Lewin (ed.), The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad:
Higher Education and the Quest for Global Citizenship Routledge, New York,
pp. xiii–xxiii.
Lilley, K., Barker, M. & Harris, N. Forthcoming, “Exploring the process of global
citizen learning and the student mindset,” Journal of Studies in International
Education.
Louie, K. 2005, “Gathering cultural knowledge,” in J. Carroll & J. Ryan (eds.),
Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All, Routledge, Abingdon,
pp. 17–25.
Luke, A., Woods, A., Land, R., Bahr, M. & McFarland, M. 2002, Accountability:
Inclusive Assessment, Monitoring and Reporting, Research Report prepared for the
Queensland Indigenous Education Consultative Body, The University of Queensland.
 References 189

Mak, A., de Percy, M. & Kennedy, M. 2008, “Experiential learning in multicultural

classes for internationalising the student experience,” in 11th International
Conference on Experiential Learning, University of Canberra, Canberra, pp. 8–12.
Marginson, S. 1999, “After globalization: Emerging politics of education,” Journal of
Educational Policy, Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19–31.
Marginson, S. 2003, “Markets in higher education: National and global competition,”
paper presented at ANZARE/AARE Joint Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Maringe, F. 2010, “The meanings of globalization and internationalization in HE:
Findings from a world survey,” in F. Maringe & N. Foskett (eds.), Globalization and
Internationization in Higher Education – Theoretical, Strategic and Management
Perspectives Continuum International Publishing, New York, pp. 17–34.
McArthur, J. 2013, Rethinking Knowledge within Higher Education: Adorno and
Social Justice, Bloomsbury, London.
McDermott, P. 1998, “Internationalizing the core curriculum,” Women’s Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 26, no. 3/4, pp. 88–98.
Mentkowski, M. 2006, “Accessible and adaptable elements of Alverno student
assessment-as-learning: Strategies and challenges for peer review,” in C. Bryan &
K. Clegg (eds.), Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, Taylor and Francis,
London, pp. 48–63.
Mestenhauser, J. 1998, “Portraits of an international curriculum: An uncommon mul-
tidimensional perspective,” in J. Mestenhauser & B. Ellingboe (eds.), Reforming
the Higher Education Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus, Oryx Press,
Phoenix, AZ, pp. 3–38.
Mestenhauser, J. 2011, Reflections on the Past, Present and Future of Internationalizing
Higher Education: Discovering Opportunities to Meet the Challenges, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Mok, K. 2007, “Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: Critical
reflections,” Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11, no. 3/4,
pp. 433–454.
Mthembu, T. 2004, “Creating a niche in internationalization for (South) African
higher education institutions,” Journal of Studies in International Education,
Vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 282–296.
Nguon, P. 2011, “Student perspectives,” in D. Davis & B. Mackintosh (eds.), Making
a Difference: Australian International Education, UNSW Press, Sydney.
Nicol, D. 2007, “Principles of good assessment and feedback: Theory and practice,” in
REAP International Online Conference on Assessment Design for Learner Responsiblity.
Norman, R. 2000, “Cultivating imagination in adult education,” in Proceedings of the
41st Annual Adult Education Research Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada.
Nussbaum, M. 2010, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
OECD/CERI. 1995, Education in a new international setting: Internationalization
of higher education, OECD/Center for Educational Research and Innovation, The
Hague.
Ogude, N. 2007, “Internationalizing the curriculum,” in N. Jooste & M. Neale-
Shutte (eds.), Volume 2: Internationalizing the Curriculum, Nelson Mandela
University, Port Elizabeth.
190 References

Paige, M. 1993, “On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural

education,” in M. Paige (ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience,
Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME.
Paige, R., Jorstad, J., Siaya, L., Klein, F. & Colby, J. 2003, “Culture learning in
language education: A review of the literature,” in D. Lange & R. Paige (eds.),
Culture as the Core: Integrating Culture into the Language Education, Information
Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 173–236.
Papoutsaki, E. 2007, “De-colonizing journalism curricula: A research & ‘development’
perspective,” in AMIC Conference, Singapore.
Peacock, N. & Harrison, N. 2009, “It’s so much easier to go with what’s easy:
‘mindfulness’ and the discourse between home and international students in the
United Kingdom,” Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 13, no. 4,
pp. 487–508.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. 1999, Understanding Teaching and Learning: The
Experience in Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher Education/
Open University Press, Buckingham.
Race, P. 2010, Making Learning Happen: A Guide for Post-Compulsory Education,
2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.
Ramburuth, P. & Welch, C. 2005, “Educating the global manager,” Journal of
Teaching in International Business, Vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 5–27.
Ramsden, P. 2006, Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd ed., Routledge,
London.
Reason, R. 1998, “Three approaches to participative inquiry,” in N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (eds.), Strategies of Qualitative Research, Sage, London, UK, pp. 261–291.
Rhoads, R. & Szelényi, K. 2011, Global citizenship and the University: Advancing
Social Life and Relations in an Interdependent World, Stanford University Press,
Stanford.
Rienties, B., Hernandez Nanclares, N., Jindal-Snape, D. & Alcott, P. 2013, “The role
of cultural background and team divisions in developing social learning relations
in the classroom,” Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 17, no. 4,
pp. 322–353.
Ritzen, J. 2013, “From the new world,” in H. de Wit, F. Hunter, L. Johnson &
H. van Liempd (eds.), Possible futures: The next 25 years of the internationalisation
of higher education EAIE, Amsterdam.
Rizvi, F. 2007, “Postcolonialism and globalization in education,” Cultural Studies ↔
Critical Methodologies, Vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 256–263.
Rizvi, F. 2009, “Towards cosmopolitan learning,” Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, Vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 253–268.
Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. 2010, Globalizing Education Policy, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
Rouhani, S. & Kichun, R. 2004, “Introduction: Internationalization of higher educa-
tion in (South) Africa,” Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 8, no. 3,
pp. 235–243.
Sanderson, G. 2008, “A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self,”
Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 276–307.
Schattle, H. 2009, “Global citizenship in theory and practice,” in R. Lewin (ed.),
The Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad: Higher Education and the
Quest for Global Citizenship, Routledge, New York, pp. 3–30.
 References 191

Seidel, G. 1981, “Cross-cultural training procedures: Their theoretical framework and

evaluation,” in S. Bochner (ed.), The Mediating Person: Bridge Between Cultures,
Schenkman, Cambridge, MA.
Shiel, C. & Takeda, S. (eds.) 2008, Education for Sustainable Development: Graduates
as Global Citizens: Proceedings of an International Conference, Bournemouth,
September 2007, Bournemouth University, Poole.
Sinlarat, P. 2005, “Changing the culture of education in Thai universities,” Higher
Education Policy, Vol. 18, pp. 265–269.
Slethaug, G. 2007, Teaching Abroad: International Education and the Cross-Cultural
Classroom, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong.
Soudien, C. 2005, “Inside but below: The puzzle of education in the global order,”
in J. Zajda (ed.), International handbook on Globalization, Education and Policy
Research, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 501–516.
Stohl, M. 2007, “We have met the enemy and he is us: The role of the faculty in the
internationlization of higher education in the coming decade,” Journal of Studies
in International Education, Vol. 11, no. 3/4, pp. 359–372.
Summers, M. & Volet, S. 2008, “Students’ attitudes to culturally mixed groups on
international campuses: The impact of participation in diverse and non-diverse
groups,” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 357–370.
Taylor, M. 2001, “Internationalizing the public relations curriculum,” Public
Relations Review, Vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 73–88.
Teichler, U. 2004, “The changing debate on internationalisation of higher educa-
tion,” Higher Education, Vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 5–26.
Turner, Y. & Robson, S. 2008, Internationalizing the University: An Introduction for
Univeristy Teachers and managers, Continuum, London.
UKCISA 2004, Broadening our horizons: International students in UK universities,
viewed 7 January 2010, www.ukcisa.org.uk/files/pdf/BOHreport.pdf.
Van der Wende, M. 1997, “Missing Links,” in T. Kalvemark & M. van der Wende
(eds.), National Policies for the Internatialisation of Higher Education in Europe,
National Agency for Higher Education, Stockholm.
Van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. 1983, Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, Academic
Press, New York.
Volet, S. & Ang, G. 1998, “Culturally mixed groups on international campuses:
An opportunity for inter-cultural learning,” Higher Education Research and
Development, Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 5–23.
Wasserman, H. & de Beer, A. 2009, “Towards de-Westernizing journalism stud-
ies,” in K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (eds.), Handbook of Journalism Studies,
Routledge, Hoboken, NJ.
Webb, G. 2005, “Internationalisation of curriculum: An institutional approach,” in
J. Carroll & J. Ryan (eds.), Teaching International Students: Improving Learning
for All, Routledge, London, pp. 109–118.
Weber-Bosley, G. 2010, “Beyond immersion: Global engagement and transformation
through intervention via student reflection in long-term study abroad,” in E. Jones
(ed.), Internationalisation and the Student Voice, Routledge, New York.
Welikala, T. & Watkins, C. 2008, Improving Intercultural Learning Experiences
in Higher Education: Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning, Institute of
Education, London.
192 References

Wright, S. & Lander, D. 2003, “Collaborative group interactions of students from

two ethnic backgrounds,” Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 22,
no. 3, pp. 237–252.
Yorke, M. 2012, “Foreword,” in L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (eds.), University Teaching
in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach, Routledge, Oxon, UK.
Zeleza, P. 2012, “Internationalisation in Higher Education: Opportunities and
Challenges for the Knowledge Project in the Global South,” paper presented at
SARUA Vice Chancellors Leadership Dialogue on Internationalisation in Higher
Education: Implications for the Knowledge Project in the Global South, Maputo,
Mozambique, June 22–23.
Zhao, C., Kuh, G. & Carini, R. 2005, “A comparison of international and American
engagement in effective educational practices,” The Journal of Higher Education,
Vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 209–231.
Index

academic developer, role of 6 autonomy 65

academic rationale 117 awareness 64–66
academic staff: blockers and 105;
expertise of 107; as institutional Barker, M. 60
blockers 107, 111; internationalization Barnett, R. 17
of the curriculum and 43; knowledge- Barrie, S. 31, 54, 76, 86
skills gaps in 107–08, 111, 113; as Bartell, M. 28, 31, 41
research subjects 6; role of 13, 93; Bates, R. 59
socialization of 29; support for 112, Becher, T. 28, 108
117; see also teachers Bennett, J. 24, 60
accounting discipline 33–35 Biggs, J. 107
accreditation requirements 31 blockers 49, 105–17; cultural 106,
action research 41 108–10, 114; institutional 106–08,
action stage 50 110, 111–13, 114; personal 108, 114
adaptability, of teachers 102–03 Blockers and Enablers Survey 148–53
Africa 21 boundary work 28
Albrow, M. 16 Bourn, D. 17
ambiguity 43 Bowden, J. 31, 53
American Association of Higher brain drain 18
Education 90 Brown, P. 92–93
Appadurai, A. 17 business education 64
assessment: expectations regarding Byram, M. 62
100–101; internationalization of the
curriculum and 71–72, 86–88; of campus culture 10
student learning 30 campus internationalization 13
Association of Universities and Colleges Caribbean 22
of Canada 58 Carroll, J. 97, 106
attitudes, intercultural competence and case studies 6, 26, 154–69; accounting
64–65 33–35; challenging dominant
Australia 58; internationalization of paradigm 155–58; engaging with
the curriculum in 20; recruitment of employers 164–69; journalism 35–37;
international students in 19–20 public relations 37–39; using graduate
Australian Learning and Teaching attributes as driver 162–64; using
Council National Teaching Fellowship ICT 84–86; using QIC for staff
4–7, 25, 115 engagement 159–62
194 Index

Chang, J. 80, 89, 93 curriculum; internationalized 9–10,

Childress, L. 49, 108, 111, 112 14; learning outcomes and 72–78;
citizenship: global 13, 20, 31, 37, localized 44; review 26
58–62, 74, 103; national 59; curriculum review cycles 42
requirements of 30
Clifford, V. 49, 108 de Beer, A. 36
collaboration 19, 72 de Percy, M. 95
colonialism 21, 22, 59 de Vita, G. 90
commercial research 61–62 Deardorff, D. 63
common good 54 deficit model 92–93
communication skills 54, 76, 78 Department of Education, Employment
comprehensive internationalization and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) 96
12, 20 developing countries 21, 22
conational students 79 disciplinarity 28, 76–77
conceptual framework 26–40, 76 disciplinary context 155, 159–60,
context: disciplinary 155, 159–60, 162–63, 165
162–63, 165; global 32–33, 38; disciplinary knowledge 76
institutional 31, 112, 113, 155, 159, discipline communities 22
162, 164–65; learning 100–101; disciplines 14, 27, 28, 105; accounting
local 31; national 32; regional 32 33–35; dominant paradigms in
context specific information 100–101 29–30; journalism 35–37; public
contextualization 12 relations 37–39; types of 108
Cope, B. 89 distributed leadership 116
course, defined 10 diversity 13, 19, 54, 79–80, 89–104
creative uncertainty 42 domestic students 11
critical reflection 41, 65 dominant paradigms 29–30, 105, 116,
Cross, M. 32 117, 155–58
cross-border delivery 11–12, 17–18
cross-cultural competence 93 education: cross-border delivery of
crowded curriculum 41–42 11–12, 17–18; transnational 11–12,
Crowther, P. 19 18; Western 12, 21, 22, 29, 32
cultural blockers 106, 108–10, 114 Egron-Polak, E. 49
cultural capital 79 emerging paradigms 29–30
cultural diversity 54, 79–80, 89–104; employability 54
demonstrating value of 93–96; respect enablers 49, 105–06
and adjustment for 98–100; teaching engagement 71
principles for 96–103 Escrigas, C. 61
cultural learning styles 100 ethical issues 22, 54
cultural silos 100 ethnocentrism 93
culture: campus 10; working across 13 Eurocentrism 18
curriculum: accounting 33–35; crowded Europe, Internationalization at
41–42; defined 7–8; design 28–30, Home (IaH) in 18–19
41–52, 106–07, 117; formal 8–10, evaluation stage 50
15, 30; generic 12–13, 76; globalized
12–13; hidden 8–9, 15; informal 8–9, facilitator, role of 6
10, 13, 15, 30; internationalization Fallows, S. 54, 55
of. see internationalization of the feedback, learning through 82
 Index 195

Fitzclarence, L. 7 inequalities 32, 59

focus questions 44 informal curriculum 8–10, 13, 15, 30
force field analysis 105–06, 112 information and communication
formal curriculum 8–9, 10, 15, 30 technologies (ICTs) 83–87
Freeman, M. 64 institutional blockers 106–08, 110,
111–13, 114
generic curriculum 12–13, 76 institutional context 31, 112, 113, 155,
Gibbs, G. 86 159, 162, 164–65
Giddens, A. 16 institutional goals 45
global citizenship 13, 20, 31, 37, institutional strategy 114–16
58–62, 74, 103 intended international learning
global context 32–33, 38 outcomes (IILOs) 73–86, 90
global outlook 74 intended learning outcomes (ILOs)
global society 3, 12, 17, 21, 24, 26, 72–78
32–33, 103 intercultural competence 62–67
globalization 12, 13, 16–18, 21, 24, 32, intercultural dialogue/engagement
39, 59–60, 103 101–02
globalized curriculum 12–13 intercultural learning 13, 19, 72
Good Practice Principles: Teaching intercultural sensitivity 60
Across Cultures 96–103 International Association of Universities
Goodman, J. 21 (IAU) 107
Goodson, I. 7 international perspectives 74
graduate attributes/capabilities 20, 31, international students 11, 19–20,
37, 38, 53–58, 62, 64, 76–77, 112, 79–80, 89–90, 92–93
162–64 Internationalization at Home (IaH)
Green, W. 47 18–20
group work 79–81, 95–96, 170–81 internationalization of the curriculum:
academic rationale for 117; in
Hall, B. 61 accounting 33–35; assessment and
Harari, M. 58 71–72, 86–88; blockers and enablers
Harris, A. 60 of 49, 105–17; case studies of 6, 26,
Heyward, M. 62 33–39, 84–86, 154–69; conceptual
hidden curriculum 8–9, 15 framework for 26–40, 76; current
higher education: in Africa 21; cross- focus of 3–4; current state of 18–22;
border delivery of 11–12, 17–18; debates over 21; definitions of 3–4,
evolution of 61; intercultural 9–10, 13–14, 43, 122; disciplines
competence in 62–67; response to and 14; global citizenship and 58–62;
globalization by 16–18 globalization and 16–18, 24; graduate
Hough, J. 54 capabilities and 53–58; imagining
Hudson, R. 49 and 105, 110, 157–58, 161–62,
Hudzik, J. 12, 20, 28, 155 164, 167–69; institutional goals for
45; institutional strategy for 114–16;
ideoscape 17 intercultural competence and 62–67;
Imagine stage, of internationalization of introduction to 3–15; in journalism
curriculum 42, 47–48, 51, 52, 110, 35–37; key resources for 121–53;
157–58, 161–62, 164, 167–69 learning and 71–72, 78–86; learning
imperialism 18 outcomes and 72–78; misconceptions
196 Index

and concerns about 11–15; process of graduate capabilities 53–58; intended

9–10, 13, 41–52, 105, 114, 121–22; 72–86, 90; teaching methods and 107
in public relations 37–39; rationales Leask, B. 10, 20, 26, 43
for 23–24, 45; reasons for 16–25; Lewin, K. 6, 105, 112
research on 5–7, 26; student diversity Lewin, R. 58
and 89–104; teaching and 71–72; Lilley, K. 60
technology and 83–86; trends in Lingard, B. 59
13–14; Western hegemony and 21–22 local context 31
Internationalization of the Curriculum localization 12
in Action Fellowship 4–7, 112, localized curriculum 44
122–24 Louie, K. 89
internationalized curriculum: defined Luke, A. 91
9–10; impact of 14
Mak, A. 95
job market 31 Marginson, S. 18
journalism 35–37, 109 Maringe, F. 29
mathematics 14
Kalantziz, M. 89 McArthur, J. 62
Kemmis, S. 7 McDermott, P. 22
Kennedy, M. 95 mental space 110
Killick, D. 61 Mestenhauser, J. 20, 29
Kintsch, W. 91 meta-conversations 83
Klein, J. 28, 29 Mhlanga, E. 32
Knight, J. 62 migration 18
knowledge: construction 106; minority culture groups 92–93
culture-specific 91; disciplinary 76; mobility 9–10, 12, 18, 19, 81–82,
intercultural competence and 64–65; 89–90
production 28, 61–62 module 10
knowledge-skills gaps 107–08, 111, 113
Kramsch, C. 17 national citizenship 59
national context 32
Lander, D. 90 negotiation 51
language 91 Nicol, D. 97
Larkins, R. 89 North 18, 20, 22
Latin America 22 Nussbaum, M. 72
leadership 110, 115–16, 117
learning: context 100–101; cultural Ogude, N. 58
diversity and 93–96; by doing Ojo, E. 32
81–82; intercultural 13, 19, 72; online classes 83–86
internationalization of the curriculum oppression 21, 32
and 71–72, 78–86; making sense of Organization for Economic
things and 83–84; motivations for 81; Co-operation and Development
through feedback 82 (OECD) 58
learning activities, organization of outbound mobility 12, 19
78–86
learning environments 88 Papoutsaki, E. 36
learning outcomes 11, 13, 20, 71; paradigms 29–30, 105, 155–58
assessment of 30, 71–72, 86–88; participatory action research (PAR) 5–6
 Index 197

pedagogy 7–8 of 71; feedback from/to 45, 82;

peer mentoring 8 graduate capabilities of 20, 31, 37,
personal blockers 108, 114 38, 53–58; international 11, 19–20,
professional practice 30, 84–85 79–80, 89–90, 92–93; as learners
program: defined 10; of study 10 97–98; learning outcomes for 11, 13,
promotion policies 111 20, 30, 71–88, 90; mobility of 18, 19,
Prosser, M. 91 89–90; motivations of 81; relationship
public relations 37–39 building among 79–81
study abroad programs 12, 19, 81–82
Questionnaire on Internationalization subject 10
of the Curriculum (QIC) 44–46, 114, syllabus 7
122–48, 154, 156, 159–62 systematic development 30–31

Race, P. 77, 78, 82, 83 Tandon, R. 61

Ramburuth, P. 90, 93, 95 Taylor, M. 38
Ramsden, P. 91, 92 teachers: adaptability of 102–03; role
recolonization 21, 22, 32 of 93; support for 117; see also
regional context 32 academic staff
resources 121–53 teaching 7–8; cultural diversity and
responsible global citizenship 60, 62 93–96; Good Practice Principles:
review and reflect stage 43–44, 156–57, Teaching Across Cultures 96–103;
160–61, 163, 166–67 internationalization of the curriculum
revise and plan stage 48–49, 158, and 71–72; methods 107; principles
164, 169 of effective 90–91; student diversity
Ritzen, J. 114 and 90–92
Rizvi, Fazal 5, 59, 60 technical skills 78
technology 17–18, 19, 83–86
Sanchez, J. 61 Teichler, U. 32
Sanderson, G. 114 tenure 111
science 14, 108 Thailand 22
short-term mobility 19 transnational education 11–12, 18
Sinlarat, P. 22 Trigwell, K. 91
skillsets 20, 31, 37, 38, 53–58, 64–65
Slethaug, G. 89 unit 10
social peer mentoring 8 United Kingdom, recruitment of
Soudien, C. 21 international students in 19–20
South 18, 21, 22 United States: hegemony of 21–22;
South Africa 21, 58 internationalization of the
stereotypes 92 curriculum in 20
Steven, C. 54, 55 universities: global citizenship and 13,
Stohl, M. 26 31, 58–62, 103; institutional context
Student Diversity Questionnaire 94 for 31; recruitment of international
student evaluations 45 students by 19–20; response to
student learning, assessment of 30 globalization by 16–18
student-generated cases 95 University of South Australia 56
students: autonomy for 65;
conational 79; diversity of 79–80, van der Wende, M. 17
89–104; domestic 11; engagement van Dijk, T. 91
198 Index

virtual mobility 19 Western hegemony 21–22, 32

volunteering programs 8 Whitsed, C. 47
Wright, S. 90
Wasserman, H. 36
Webb, G. 58, 61 Yorke, M. 97
Weber-Bosley, G. 64
Welch, C. 90, 93, 95 Zeleza, P. 21
Western education 12, 21, 22, 29, 32