An emerging paradigm of internationalization of the curriculum

By Betty Leask (La Trobe University)

Although there are regional and national differences, six characteristics of a new emerging paradigm of internationalization of the curriculum can be identified in the literature and in practice.

Curriculum as a system

A paradigm based on the understanding of “curriculum” as a system in which many elements work together to restrict or extend student learning and, therefore, their contributions to their local communities and to the world. Mestenhauser (1998) identified the importance of moving away from the “fragmented, non-integrated, and closed” (p.7). He argued that fragmented curriculum internationalization approaches, guided by disciplinary thinking, addressed as an addendum, circumscribed in projects and individual courses, restrict the potential that the complexity of the curriculum as a system offers.

Leask (2015) identifies three dimensions of the curriculum system: the formal, the informal, and the hidden. The formal curriculum is the content described in the syllabus and in the ordered and planned schedule of student experiences and activities. The informal curriculum refers to learning that takes place outside the classroom, including support services and additional activities also organized by partners external to universities, generally optional and not evaluated — peer tutoring, peer-assisted study sessions, and cultural festivals etc.

The third dimension is the hidden curriculum, little discussed and generally invisible. It includes various unintended, implicit, and hidden messages communicated in both the formal and informal curriculum. For example, selected textbooks send a “hidden” message about whose knowledge counts and whose does not. Such messages are also conveyed in the informal curriculum when international students are required to complete intercultural skills training before classes start, but domestic students are exempt. In this case, it is worth asking: do domestic students already possess such skills? Or maybe they do not need them because it is up to international students to “fit in”? What are the truly intended messages?

The formal, informal, and hidden elements of the curriculum are interconnected and work together as a complex whole. Intended learning outcomes, disciplinary knowledge, pedagogy, content, and experiences inside and outside the classroom, as well as assessment, are also elements of the system that shape students’ lived experience, contributing or not to international and intercultural learning during their undergraduate studies.

1) Focus on learning outcomes for all

Focuses on the learning outcomes necessary to live and work in a globalized world. The aim of curriculum internationalization has been to prepare graduates for “the highly interdependent and multicultural world in which they live and (will have to) operate in the future” (Harari 1992, 53). The impact of globalization on local communities means that everyone will simultaneously be global and local citizens and professionals. For many years, however, curriculum internationalization has been narrowly defined as mobility programs, recruitment of international students, or inclusion of international content, and not as a systematic coordinated approach to developing skills, knowledge, and values necessary for all citizens of the 21st century.

In 2009, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada suggested that an internationalized curriculum is “a means for Canadian students to develop global perspectives and skills at home” (AUCC 2009, p. 5). Leask and Carroll (2011) summarized 10 years of international research showing that the presence of international students in classes and campuses does not result in intercultural learning without careful planning and the intervention of teachers and support teams to support the development of intercultural learning outcomes.

Today, “global citizenship has become part of the discourse of internationalization in higher education worldwide” (Deardorff & Jones 2012, p. 295) and curriculum internationalization is often linked to the development of students as global citizens committed to ethical and socially responsible action on a global scale, as well as the ability to work in multicultural/multinational teams (Lilley et al., 2014).

3) A decolonized and cognitively fair curriculum

Discussions about curriculum decolonization and cognitive fairness are also relevant. They require the creation of spaces and resources to rethink the formal, informal, and hidden curriculum, considering alternative cultural views of the world and diverse knowledge systems, and how they can be recognized, examined, and valued. A decolonized curriculum can, for example, examine the ways in which dominant approaches to knowledge production and distribution are almost entirely linked to the market and the economy; how this reproduces and reinforces the existing society, perpetuating and exacerbating inequalities; and explore alternative approaches and what they can offer (Escrigas, Sanchez, Hall, & Tandon 2014). Both are based on the understanding that knowledge is contextually situated, not objective and culturally neutral (Leibowitz, 2017).

In effect, study programs can include space for students to critically examine dominant knowledge paradigms, their strengths and weaknesses, rather than relying on a narrow set of worldviews, largely resulting from the distribution of power.

This is important because in fields such as medicine, physics, nutrition, and geology, for example, commercial funding of research in some areas has resulted in a situation where competition and self-interest replace the common good. Additionally, secrecy and restricted access replace open sharing of ideas and exploration of all possibilities offered by new knowledge.

Issues of cognitive justice have been identified in various disciplinary areas (see, for example, Breit, Obijiofor & Fitzgerald (2013) regarding journalism curriculum). It is therefore an important dimension when rethinking internationalization of the curriculum (see Leask 2015, Chapter 4, pp 42-52).

The informal curriculum can also be decolonized. Indigenous knowledge is often absent, leaving students and staff without even a basic understanding of its origins and potential. Disciplines themselves have strong knowledge cultures. Local knowledge traditions and paradigms are often considered less valuable than those coming from the West.

Creating a campus culture that clearly indicates the value placed on different ways of seeing the world signals not only that everyone is welcome on site, but also that indigenous experience and knowledge paradigms are valued. As part of a strategy to communicate the value placed on local indigenous knowledge, Australia’s La Trobe University requires all incoming students to complete a brief mandatory module on Australian indigenous history, culture, and customs and the fundamentals of indigenous knowledge. Wominjeka La Trobe is a mandatory short-term online discipline that communicates how much the university values indigenous knowledge and develops in students a broader capacity for cultural literacy graduation. The module requires students to engage in critical reflection on the cultural foundations of knowledge and their own attitudes, values, and beliefs (La Trobe University, n.d.).

A number of other ways to use internationalization of the curriculum as a bridge to advance cognitive justice are described in Breit et al. (2013); de Wit & Leask (2017); Green & Whitsed (2015); and Montgomery (2019).

4) First intercultural, then international

Internationalization of the curriculum is gaining greater prominence. Traditionally, intercultural and international elements have always been side by side, but international orientation dominated, as it appeared first in the discourse. However, interculturality is gaining greater importance, in part as a result of the focus on curriculum internationalization at home for all (Jones, 2019).

Many different definitions of intercultural competence have been applied in international education. All include knowledge, skills, and attitudes such as: “ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s own intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Deardorff 2006, p. 247) and knowledge of others and oneself and skills to interpret, relate, discover, interact, and value the values, beliefs, and behaviors of others (Byram 1997). There are also specific examples and models for disciplines, such as that of Freeman et al. (2009), who developed a taxonomy of intercultural competence aimed at helping academics map existing opportunities, and create and incorporate new opportunities into their study programs.

Intercultural competence is multifaceted and requires the development of complex skills, attitudes, and knowledge. However, discussions of pedagogies tested on the subject were until recently limited. This is partly because intercultural learning has long been mistakenly taken as an outcome and automatic benefit of intercultural contact on campus, in classes, and abroad.

Interculturality has similarities and differences with intercultural competence, specifically referring to interactions of mutual respect and dialogue between people from different cultures, which promote mutual understanding, preserving the cultural identity of each individual. It is important to note that the concept of interculturality does not only refer to relationships that develop between individuals from different countries or regions of the world; it also includes individuals who are part of the same community but have different characteristics from an ethnic, social, or other perspective (Killick, 2017; Killick & Foster, 2021).

It is therefore a valuable concept to guide curriculum internationalization at home, for all students, as globalization has resulted in increased diversity in local communities and the massification of higher education has also brought about increased sociocultural diversity in classrooms.

5) Active and experiential learning

Active and experiential learning is increasingly recognized as crucial in an internationalized curriculum, at home or abroad. Mobility experiences provide students with active encounters with diverse people and ideas. However, they rarely receive assistance to make sense of such experiences and learn from them through guided reflection that allows the incorporation of this learning into their home study programs (Leask & Green, 2020).

In home classrooms, active learning strategies involve the elaboration of structured and timed tasks by teachers, in which students are required to respond to a specific idea or event. Students may work in groups or alone for a very short period to produce a tangible outcome shared with others. Experiential learning includes students’ work in community initiatives, either at home or abroad, as part of classwork. Active learning can occur in the classroom, online, and on campus is at the core of an internationalized curriculum.

Innovative combinations of face-to-face and online activities focused on the development of all students’ intercultural and international knowledge, skills, and attitudes (their interculturality) have become much more important during the Covid-19 pandemic; however, activities such as Virtual Exchange and various forms of Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) had been increasingly applied in universities in different parts of the world even before 2020 (Helm & Guth, 2022). The intelligent use of new and emerging technologies provides active, experimental, and intercultural learning opportunities for all students in local contexts.

6) A purpose-based and context-dependent continuous process

Internationalization of the curriculum is increasingly approached as a planned, purposeful, and continuous process of review and quality improvement focused on the development of international and intercultural learning outcomes for all students. This requires careful planning and continuous review of what students are learning and who they are becoming.

Both internationalization of higher education and internationalization of the curriculum are context-dependent processes. The emphasis in one country or region may include mobility, while in another, it may not. Marmolejo & Gacel-Ávila (2016) point to a persistent focus on the physical mobility of students and staff in Latin America that, despite the benefits for individuals, has not contributed to the systematic transformations and quality improvements necessary at the sectoral and institutional levels, and suggest that this needs to change.

IoC approaches in any context will need to evolve over time, including a disciplinary perspective. For example, an internationalized curriculum in nursing will be very different from one in engineering, arts, or sciences.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the IoC process and traditional approaches to curriculum review and redesign — the inclusion of an “Imagining” stage, where those developing the formal curriculum (the academic staff) are invited to explore new possibilities and ideas — challenging dominant paradigms and including other perspectives in this consideration.

Another key element is working with students as partners in the process. This means “a process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, though not necessarily in the same way, to the conceptualization, decision-making, and practice of teaching, learning, and assessment” (Cook-Sather, Bovill & Felton 2014, 6-7).

Green’s (2018) research on student involvement in the internationalization process found that using them as equal partners, rather than casual informants, challenges institutional practices naturalized of access and equity, outcomes and process, power, and privilege, thus creating new possibilities. His research suggests that treating students as partners can be a powerful tool for creating a more inclusive and egalitarian form of IoC.

Leia Mais Veja todas