Internationalization of the curriculum: progressing towards Education 4.0

By Betty Leask (La Trobe University)

The creation of productive, socially responsible, and citizenship-oriented local and global societies is increasingly a focus of higher education. This elevates the importance of curriculum internationalization centered on personal and common good. Approaches in this regard have evolved in response to changes in the conceptualization of internationalization in higher education, focusing on its impact on all students and society. Education 4.0, aligned with the ongoing fourth industrial revolution, presents new opportunities for the internationalization of teaching and learning, while also posing different challenges for each region of the globe.

The catalyst for the fourth industrial revolution is the fusion of technologies resulting in a blurring of the lines between the physical, digital, and human spheres, as evident in robotics, cloud computing, and the Internet of Things, among others. The fourth revolution builds upon the third and undoubtedly will create opportunities and challenges for educators and society. Consider the opportunities it creates for those with access to such technologies and the growing challenges it presents for an equitable and just society, as not everyone will have the resources or skills to access and use these technologies.

Education 4.0, understood in this article as a learning approach aligned with the fourth industrial revolution, offers new possibilities for higher education institutions to prepare future graduates for life and work (Bonfield et al., 2020). At its simplest form, the internationalization of higher education is a process related to research, education, communication, and trade beyond national borders. Initially conceptualized as an institutional response to globalization (Knight, 1997), it has taken various national formats because there is no “one single model that adapts to all regions, or even nations and institutions within a region” (Egron-Polak & Marinoni, 2022, p.75). Unfortunately, this has led to the creation of a hierarchical global system, encouraging and rewarding fierce competition for the best and brightest students and researchers and privileged institutions in the Global North.

Inequalities have been exacerbated, and the potential of institutions in the Global South to generate positive impact in their communities has been adversely affected. The system is supported by the most powerful national and supranational governments (predominantly, but not exclusively, in the Global North) seeking the best outcome for their economies, often with little attention or consideration to the broader context.

Thus, the potential benefits of internationalization of higher education to improve the quality, relevance, and competitiveness of higher education have not been equally shared among national systems. In the Latin American context, this point is illustrated by Marmolejo & Gacel-Ávila (2016), who note that while internationalization is showing positive trends, there are significant challenges for universities in the region.

Strengthening the national capacity to respond has always driven internationalization, as reflected in definitions for the past 25 years, which reference globalization in various ways. In 1997, internationalization of higher education was described as a national policy largely aimed at protecting a nation’s individuality (Knight, 1997). However, by 2015, the focus shifted to how (process), purpose (improving the quality of education and research), and outcomes could benefit all students, staff, and society (de Wit et al, 2015). The shift in emphasis is understandable in the context between 2003 and 2015, which witnessed concerns over the growing gap between the impact of internationalization on institutions, students, and communities in the Global North and the Global South (International Association of Universities, 2012).

Thus, the latest definition was based on research incorporating perspectives from both the Global South and the Global North (de Wit & Merx, 2022). It maintains the focus on international, intercultural, and global aspects, but additionally emphasizes the importance of purpose and intentionality. Intentionality implies coordinated planning for specific goals related to quality improvement, involving all students and staff, and providing benefits beyond academia, to the broader community.

While the definition by de Wit et al. (2015) does not specify which society(s) (national, international, or global) will benefit from internationalization, the social impact of universities on a global scale has been a key feature in the evolution of higher education. Escrigas, Sanchez, Hall, and Tando (2014) argue that universities have a global social responsibility to contribute to the creation of dynamic and sustainable global communities. The Covid-19 pandemic has underscored the complex interconnectedness of the world, such that policies of national governments and regional conglomerates (e.g., vaccine production, supply, and distribution) have short- and long-term impacts on people’s lives worldwide. These policies can either improve or exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities.

The specific focus in the definition by de Wit et al. (2015) on all students and staff and on education places the internationalization of curriculum, teaching, and learning at the heart of institutional internationalization processes.

Internationalization of the Curriculum

The terms internationalization and curriculum often mean different things, at different times and places, to different people. For example, for some, the term “curriculum” refers to a list of readings and mandatory activities that students will undertake (sometimes called a syllabus), while for others, it means content, pedagogy, and assessment. Concerning educational theorists, there are significant differences between intended and received curriculum — hence, it is essential to observe what students learn, but also how they learn.

It is through the curriculum that we educate students, convey core values of disciplines and professions, and put them into practice (Barnett and Coate, 2017). Leask (2015) applies educational theories to distinguish the process of internationalization of the curriculum (IoC, in abbreviation) and its product, an internationalized curriculum. For Leask (2015), Internationalization of the Curriculum is the incorporation of international, intercultural, and/or global dimensions into the curriculum content as well as learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods, and support services of a study program (p. 9).

This transforms internationalization of the curriculum from the method of infusion, where optional isolated experiences and activities for a minority are included in the training, to program and course design based on John Biggs’s seminal work (1996) of “constructive alignment” and other foundational research in the field (Marton, Hounsell & Entwhistle 1997; Prosser & Trigwell 1999).

In the internationalization of the curriculum, this means the design process starts with the conception of international, intercultural, and/or global learning outcomes, rather than with the selection of content or learning experiences and activities.

In the early 2000s, while internationalization of the curriculum was being discussed in Australia, Canada, and the UK (Bourn, 2010; Clifford, 2009; Jones & Killick, 2013; Leask, 2009), Internationalization at Home (IaH) emerged in Europe, initially as “anything different from mobility” and then as: the intentional integration of international and intercultural dimensions into formal and informal curriculum for all students in domestic learning environments (Beelen & Jones, 2015a, p. 69).

Indeed, the concepts of IaH and IoC are very similar and are currently being discussed in Latin America, South Africa, and across Asia. Both aim to reach 100% of students; they are embedded in the core formal and informal curriculum, not just in elective elements; they are delivered through internationalized assessments and learning outcomes; they do not rely on the presence of international students or staff and do not presume that their presence will automatically “internationalize” students’ experience; they are not dependent on English-medium instruction; and they are specific to individual study programs and the academics delivering them (Beelen and Jones, 2015b, p. 8).

The only difference between the two concepts is that IaH specifically and deliberately excludes mobility experiences, whereas IoC does not. This is significant because only a very small percentage of the world’s students will have the opportunity to participate in a mobility experience (less than 5% worldwide and even fewer in Latin America); however, all graduates will live and work in a globalized world.

Models for Brazil-Australia cooperation and partnership in Higher Education: Australian perspectives

Recent developments in international education in Australia suggest that Brazil has the potential to become a significant partner in cooperation and integration with Australian higher education institutions. Considering this trend, we identify opportunities for enhancing bilateral cooperation between the two countries in this context. Written from an Australian perspective, the article explores distinct and overlapping integration opportunities. These opportunities are identified based on the case study of Griffith University and the practices used and conceived by the institution.

In recent years, there has been a paradigm shift in international education in Australia: the emergence of Brazil as a key partner for cooperation and integration in Australian higher education institutions (HEIs). This shift is related to two trends. On the one hand, Brazil has emerged as a significant source of international students in the country, largely outside of higher education. On the other hand, there is increasing recognition that Australian HEIs must shift their focus from Asia to other regions such as Latin America. Similarly, a similar movement is occurring in Brazil, aimed at diversifying traditional partners from North America and Europe, with a shift towards building strategic partnerships with Asia and neighboring Latin American countries.

Regarding international student exchange between Brazil and Australia, Australia has become one of the top destinations for Brazilian students, trailing only Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ireland (Icef 2019). In 2020, Brazil was the fifth largest source of international students for Australia (Dese 2021a). Indeed, Australia has experienced a greater boom in migration originating from Brazil in the last two decades, driven mainly by international students (Wulfhorst 2014). Research in this cohort indicates that they are typically young professionals with a high level of education, belonging to the upper-middle and middle classes (Rocha 2006; 2008; 2009). These students often remain in Australia for many years, enrolling in different types of courses, often seeking more definitive forms of migration (Rocha 2019).

In contrast, the number of Australians traveling to Brazil for study is small, as is the active involvement of Australian HEIs with the country. A pre-pandemic survey by the “Forum of International Directors of Australian Universities” (2019) reported that one in four Australian undergraduate students participated in some form of overseas learning experience during their undergraduate studies, with 49% of them visiting the Indo-Pacific region, while there were no statistics for the South American continent. In contrast, 13.8% of American students study abroad in Latin America (Nafsa 2019).

These numbers support the conclusions and recommendations of a report on Australia’s engagement with Latin America in education, published in 2018 by the “Council for International Education – Latin America Working Group” (CIE-LAWG). Although 84% of the surveyed institutions were involved with Latin America, English language centers accounted for the majority of this universe. In comparison, only 44% of Australian HEIs reported having links in the region. Reasons cited for non-involvement in LA included: lack of demand, lack of resources, and the inability of Latin American students to afford the high fees charged by Australian HEIs (CIE-LAWG 2018, 18). These responses are in line with the so-called “transactional mindset” of Australian universities, which are “money-focused” and relatively less focused on “bidirectional mobility and equal partnerships” (CIE-LAWG 2018, 4).

Although many Brazilians have traveled to Australia to study (and in some cases, migrate), relatively few have entered the higher education sector (in 2020, only 6% of Brazilian enrollments in Australia were in HEIs). As the number is low, Australian universities do not prioritize engagement with Brazil. In other words, the low visibility of Brazilian students outside of the vocational and English language teaching sectors indicates that Brazil is off the radar of Australian HEIs. However, there is a greater understanding that “engagement” needs to mean more than just “number of students received.” As highlighted in the CIE-LAWG report (2018, 33):

There are various opportunities to increase bidirectional mobility of students, researchers, and academics between Australia and Latin America. Current mobility efforts have mainly focused on bringing Latin American students to Australia, but there is significant desire in many Latin American countries to receive more Australian students.

The report also recognizes that “relations between Australia and emerging partners in Latin America are in an early stage of development” and that new initiatives need to be long-term, bidirectional, and consistent to build a relationship of trust (45).

These trends represent a potentially paradigmatic shift for Australian higher education institutions. We see Latin America, and Brazil in particular, as one of the main focuses of cooperation, integration, and internationalization of Australian higher education in the coming years. We rely on demographic trends and the case study of Griffith University to identify four distinct but overlapping integration opportunities: international student flows, interinstitutional interdisciplinary organizations, institutional partnerships, and academic cooperation among peers. We argue that Australian and Brazilian HEIs could explore these opportunities to leverage bilateral cooperation and integration in the coming years.

For the purpose of contextualization, we begin by presenting an overview of the international education sector in Australia and how it is expected to change in the coming years.

The international education sector in Australia

Australia is recognized as a success story in terms of internationalization of education, especially when evaluated according to the gross metric of how many foreign students it attracts. In 2019, there were 758,154 international students studying in Australia, from over 190 different nationalities (Dese 2021a). The sector that consistently accounted for the majority of enrollments was Higher Education (including undergraduate and graduate courses taught by universities), followed by Vocational Education and Training (VET) (which includes shorter undergraduate courses taught by Registered Training Organizations). English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS) focus exclusively on English language proficiency and accounted for 12% of total enrollments in 2020. Schools include enrollments in primary and secondary schools, while Non-Award is a broad category covering non-credited courses in various areas. Figure 1 illustrates the evolution of enrollments in all sectors for all international students with a student visa in Australia.

Australia’s international education is undergoing significant changes that are likely to affect its profile in the coming years. The sector has been significantly impacted by the Covid-19 mobility crisis. Since March 2020, Australia has implemented strict control measures, which have nearly completely closed its borders to international students. Numbers began to plummet dramatically in the second half of 2020, and the trend has continued since then. As a result, Australia’s international education sector has had to rely on onshore enrollments (students already in Australia), and at the time of writing this article, it is unclear when Australian borders will reopen to international students.

Not all sectors of education have been affected in the same way by this crisis. The VET sector, due to its shorter enrollment periods and lower fees, actually grew in 2020 due to onshore demand, although ELICOS and Schools experienced a more severe impact.

The Federal Government recognized this in May 2020, when it announced that the existing “National Strategy for International Education” (Department of Education and Training 2016) would not be updated but replaced by a new one scheduled for release between 2021 and 2022. This is because a new “understanding [of] the impacts and ramifications of Covid-19, supported by research and analysis conducted during the remainder of 2020 and early 2021,” as well as by “formal consultations with stakeholders” will be necessary (Council for International Education 2020).

The current focus on China, India, and Nepal is expected to shift, with universities being guided to diversify in the post-pandemic context. Other regions — such as Latin America, and primarily Brazil — are now at the forefront of higher education thinking and planning. This global strategic realignment by the Australian government presents cooperation opportunities that transcend the commercial nature of these relationships. Australian and Brazilian universities should closely monitor the evolution of these discussions as they are likely to create new opportunities for research and academic partnerships. This context creates the precondition for broader academic networks in the future.

Leia Mais Veja todas