internationalisation higher education and educators' perceptions of their practices

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Del Rosario]On: 29 October 2013, At: 09:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Internationalisation, higher educationand educators' perceptions of theirpracticesJeannie Daniels aa Academic Language and Learning Unit , La Trobe University ,Melbourne , AustraliaPublished online: 03 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Jeannie Daniels (2013) Internationalisation, higher education andeducators' perceptions of their practices, Teaching in Higher Education, 18:3, 236-248, DOI:10.1080/13562517.2012.719158

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719158

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13562517.2012.719158

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719158

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Internationalisation, higher education and educators’ perceptions of theirpractices

Jeannie Daniels*

Academic Language and Learning Unit, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

(Received 15 December 2011; final version received 14 June 2012)

Internationalisation of higher education is big business in Australia, yet, despitethe growing body of literature informing learning and teaching of internationalstudents, challenges remain. While language and pedagogical differences are welldocumented from the students’ perspective, less known are the challenges toeducators and their practices in responding to these named issues. This articleexplores some implications for educators and their practices, when internationalstudents come to study in an English-language university in Australia. A smallresearch project focusing on educators’ perspectives reveals the pedagogicalchallenges, difficulties and differences in approaches to teaching large numbers ofinternational students. Implications for educators are discussed, focusing on theneed to respond to policy and institutional demands to participate in theseinternational collaborations, and to engage in building sound and equitableeducational provision.

Keywords: international students; higher education; teaching practices

Introduction

Internationalisation of higher education is big business in Australia, as it is in other

English-speaking countries offering a Western-style education (Guruz 2008). In an

educational context, this phenomenon refers to the global perspectives developing

across higher education teaching and learning and within the curriculum (Rizvi and

Walsh 1998; Ryan 2003) in line with ‘the role of international markets and people

exchange in education, [and] coupled with the rise of global networks in information

and communications’ (Marginson 2000, 98).

Of the four main groups involved in developing and sustaining international

education collaborations (governments, institutions, educators and students) the

focus here is on educators and some issues they face in creating mutually beneficial

connections within the educational environment, with their students, and, impor-

tantly, for their practices.

Despite the growing body of literature informing international teaching in

Australian higher education, challenges remain (see e.g. Carroll and Ryan 2005;

Rizvi 2010; Sawir et al. 2007). This article constitutes an exploration of the

implications for educators and their practices when international students come to

study in an English-language university. Findings from a small research study

provide insight into how educators, faced with teaching international students,

*Email: [email protected]

Teaching in Higher Education, 2013

Vol. 18, No. 3, 236�248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719158

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719158

perceive both their own practices and the challenges to sound educational provision

in light of the changing purposes of higher education and the resulting expectations

and aims of different participant groups.

The Australian context

The perceived status of a Western-style education and degree, along with a more

mobile student population, has attracted many students from countries in which

English is not the first language, to study in Australia. While the majority of these

students come from mainland China and India, a large number of other, mostly

Asian, countries are also represented (Guruz 2008).

Given Australia’s claim of being ‘the world’s most diverse multicultural society’

(Victorian Multicultural Commission 2011), welcoming international students into

the educational system seems a natural consequence of such diversity. This

phenomenon is not a new one, however, having begun in 1950 with the Colombo

Plan and its aim of encouraging development across the Asian region. Since then, an

active student recruitment programme in place for over two decades has seen some

universities becoming financially dependent on the business of educating these

students.

Differences in purpose and aims amongst participant groups can impact on the

structures and the effectiveness of these international connections; they may also

impact on the confidence of educators to do their work well. While there are some

common aims amongst the various stakeholders, Marginson (2006, 2) notes that the

priorities informing their positions differ markedly, with ‘doggedly persistent

differences’ creating potential conflict on a number of levels.Points of difference in these international exchanges can be complex, yet

educators are expected to respond to this complexity of student needs, while already

operating within an � at times � unsupportive environment shaped through policy

decisions. They must also contend with institutional expectations of successful

participation and completion of their students. In a number of ways, these educators

are subjected to what Ball (2008, 50) calls measures of performativity, through

‘a flow of changing demands, expectations and indicators that makes one continually

accountable and constantly recorded. And yet it is not always very clear what is

expected’. Responding to the various requirements of policy, individual institutions

and students, educators can find themselves faced with challenges to their capacity to

deliver equitable and effective learning opportunities.

Language and pedagogical differences in the international classroom are well

documented in the literature, but mainly from the students’ perspectives (Bretag

2007; Dawson 1998; Dawson and Conti-Bekkers 2002; Tran 2009). What are less

known are the challenges to educators and their practices in responding to these

named issues and to the broader cultural differences that operate within these

overarching concepts of language and pedagogy. More obvious student needs, such

as those relating to language differences, are well understood by educators. There has,

however, been little discussion of the implications to student�teacher relationships of

the cultural, social and personal (Sawir et al. 2007) or even broader contextual

frameworks (Rizvi 2010) of pedagogy, cultures, knowledges and expectations.

Teaching in Higher Education 237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Background to the research

Educators in the Faculty of Business, Economics and Law at La Trobe University in

Victoria, Australia currently work with substantial numbers of international

students. Of the 6000 undergraduate and 2000 postgraduate students in the faculty

35% are international � from 40 different countries � and comprise 72% of the

university’s international student population. Students are admitted with an

International English Language Testing System (IELTS) score of 6.5 or 7.0; this is

classed as Competent to Good, and is an average of the reading, writing, speaking and

listening scores. The result is that many students may read capably in English, but

write at a much lower level than is acceptable for academic work. Students may also

have a good level of aural communication in Standard English, but some teaching

staff, too, come from countries other than Australia so that students are exposed to

English spoken with many different accents, including Australian, Kenyan, Iraqi and

Scottish.

English language fluency of international students is a major area of concern.

Many students come from Mainland China to complete their final undergraduate

year here after studying in their own country at an affiliated college where only

Standard English is spoken and little is taught about western style-educational

practices. These educational cultural differences are evident, with Chinese students

tending to congregate in peer groups (their preferred learning style; and probably

also a strategy that lessens their linguistic and social isolation). Other, educational

differences are evident too: educators are baffled when students claim never to have

written an essay using citations � not required in certain educational cultures � or to

have presented orally to an audience.

In my role as Academic Language and Learning lecturer working with both

students and staff in this faculty I identified high levels of confusion and frustration

in some teaching staff faced with the challenges of teaching students whose

understanding of both English language and Australian higher educational processes

is limited. As part of my work in developing staff capabilities, I set out to explore

ways in which these educators might respond to the challenges of their present work

environment, develop a reflective approach towards addressing their concerns and

re-shape their practices in ways that would accommodate the changing environment

and satisfy their own professional needs as well as those of their students. I wanted to

know:

� How do educators re-shape or adjust their practices in response to changing

student demographics?

� How can educators offer an educational experience that responds to

international students’ desire for a Western-style education, yet, at the same

time address quite pronounced cultural differences within the classroom?

� How do they respond to/contribute to policy and institutional demands on

them to participate in these international collaborations?

A small research project

These ‘guiding questions’ (Cox 1996) informed the design of a small interpretive

research project undertaken in the Faculty during the latter half of 2011.

238 J. Daniels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Interpretivism understands reality as socially constructed, and while within any

organisation workers will identify with shared symbols, structures and texts of their

workplace, as individuals they may interpret differently the value and the significance

of these (Putnam 1983). Using an ideographic analysis in which ‘explanation centers

on reasons why individuals create and interpret their world in a particular way’

(Putnam 1983, 41), the aim was to focus on educators’ own perceptions and

experiences, that is, how educators ‘see’ and interpret their world.

A questionnaire was constructed (see Appendix 1) and distributed to approxi-

mately 140 teaching staff within the Faculty. The questionnaire format was selected

due to known time constraints of educators during teaching periods; this format

would facilitate quick and easy completion and therefore also a reasonable response

rate. Both closed and open questions were used (the latter were optional).

The questions were organised to obtain data in three areas of practice. First,

I sought to elicit their thoughts about teaching international students, and how

effective they felt in their teaching; for example, how clear they were about their

purpose in teaching these students. The second category of questions asked about

their relations with the institution: did they know what their institution’s expecta-

tions were and did these expectations match their own? Finally, staff perceptions of

shared difficulties were investigated by asking if they knew what teaching strategies

their peers used; if they shared these ideas with each other; and if they believed other

staff felt as they did when it came to teaching international students.

These categories emerge from the literature that reveals little existing research from

educators’ perspectives; an increasing managerialism of both higher education and of

educators (Ball 2008; Zipin and Brennan 2003) and concerns over this

climate of academic managerialism that emasculate educators, ‘imposed upon to

realign within forceful overlays of new managerial govern-mentality’ (Zipin and

Brennan 2003, 363). Responses were arranged on a scale from very much to not at all,

although the precise wording (see Appendix 1) altered according to the question asked.

While open-ended questions in questionnaires can add to the time needed for

analysis (Bradburn, Sudman, and Wansink 2004; Creswell 2002), these responses add

depth to the data and, as such, are a ‘potentially valuable part of any survey

questionnaire’ (Bradburn, Sudman, and Wansink 2004, 153). The invitation to

provide additional comments gave respondents the opportunity to identify issues

outside the scope of the researcher’s experience, as well as to stimulate reflection on

action (Schon 1983), encouraging educators to expand and reflect on some

consequences and implications of their concerns within their teaching practices.This reflective aspect is an important one, as it introduces the notion that

participants first of all need to engage with their experiences before they can begin to

make sense of them (Boud 2001). Reflection means returning to experience: that is,

remembering ‘how it was experienced at the time’; recognising the feelings that

accompanied the experience; and re-evaluating that experience, and involves:

that which is already known, seeking relationships between old and new ideas,determining the authenticity for ourselves of the ideas and feelings that have resulted,and making the resulting knowledge one’s own. (Boud 2001, 14)

Reflection, therefore, is about understanding what is happening or has happened,

and taking charge of the experience and feelings that accompany it. The educators


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

with whom I work feel disempowered by the decisions made about their teaching;

opportunities for reflection may assist them to better understand what is happening

around them, and to them.

Analysis of the data revealed both similarities and differences in educators’perceptions. Additional comments were categorised according to the framework used

for the questionnaire, adding depth to the findings as well as identifying particular

areas of concern for some individuals.

The findings � what the educators say

The data from the questionnaires provided useful insights into educators’ percep-

tions about their teaching, about the students they teach, and about the institutional

directives that inform and steer their practices. There was a range of viewpoints on

the aspects of teaching that were the focus of the questions. Differences of opinion

were to be expected, as the faculty academics are diverse in their educational, social

and ethnic backgrounds. Some of the findings, however, showed consistency ineducators’ perceptions, particularly in relation to negative features of their practices;

particularly lack of support, or concerns not being addressed.

Teaching practices

Educators in the Faculty clearly enjoy working with and teaching international

students. Asked about their own teaching practice, 93% of respondents claimed to

usually, or very much, enjoy this aspect of their work. All, to some degree, enjoyed

working with these students. They were equally positive in their confidence levels in

teaching international students, with over 82% responding usually or very much,

indicating a high level of confidence. Despite having such a positive approach,

educators are clearly aware of the challenges facing them, and facing these students.More than 90% of those questioned recognise that their international students

encounter language problems, and of those, more than half (61%) believed these

language differences were also problematic for them as educators.1 For one

respondent this connection was obvious, prompting them to explain, ‘if the students

have a problem understanding me, then clearly I have problems’. Similarly, there was

an awareness of the challenges caused by the different educational cultural

conventions: a lesser number of educators (63%), but still a majority, understood

that their students also faced cultural challenges due to the different educationalprocesses; for example, one respondent recognised that ‘so-called cultural differences

in understanding of plagiarism [are] deeply problematic’, while another described

how they took time with students to ‘explain how cultural conventions might differ

here, particularly in relation to learning compared to their own expectations’.

In fact, respondents identified a number of strategies to accommodate these

difficulties (although most addressed language rather than cultural concerns),

including speaking more slowly, repetition, emphasising important points and

simplifying written material. One educator, however, maintained that the samestandards of language and educational conventions should apply equally since all

received the same qualification on completion. Such lack of shared understandings

indicates that educators also experience challenges of management and professional

guidance.

240 J. Daniels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Relationships with the institution

It appears that, in this faculty at least, educators have significant concerns regarding

decision-making at upper levels of institutional management: many expressed their

views with some cynicism, particularly when asked what they believed was the prime

motivator for enrolling international students, who of course pay full upfront fees.

Whilst fee-paying overseas students are now, for many universities, a necessary

component of continuing financial viability, it is clear that some respondents felt that

financial gain is the institution’s major incentive � and this at the expense of

educators. The strength of this perception is evident in the comments of some staff

members, one of whom suggested that the institution ‘panders to poor quality

international students just to get money [and] has little interest in academics’.

Another individual supported this view, claiming ‘the focus is on money not staff ’.

Yet, others felt students’ educational needs were not being considered either, and that

‘the institution does not see students. It sees $ signs’. In fact, all but one named

money as a major, if not the only, consideration, with one educator making the

strength of their feelings known by writing ‘money’, and in the section named other,

writing ‘the money, oh and the money. By the way, did I mention the money?’

The most vociferous comments were reserved for policies that they see as

misguided, or non-existent: one respondent, asked about the institutional policies

governing international students, claimed: ‘I didn’t know we had any’. Responses

revealed a high level of dissatisfaction with over half of the respondents (59%)

claiming the institution does not understand their needs for teaching international

students. In addition, 64% of the teaching staff who responded claimed not to feel

supported by the institution’s policies and guidelines.

Most staff (82%) said they had received no professional development on teaching

international students, although one had received this elsewhere. Of these respon-

dents, almost half (48%) of those who responded stated they would attend workshops

or some form of training if offered (with some qualifying their response with the

proviso that these had to be ‘useful’, ‘relevant’ and ‘convenient’, and not just, as one

cynically put it: ‘the usual bullshit’. Most of those who said they would not attend

workshops alluded to the lack of time available for professional development, while

others explained that the problem was students’ English levels and not a teaching

problem.

Collegiality and peer support

Fewer than 50% of those who completed the questionnaire knew what teaching

activities their peers use to engage, and engage with, international students, although

almost 62% agreed that sharing teaching ideas with their peers does or would help

them develop tools and skills for teaching international students. Overwhelmingly,

however, staff members believe that their peers share much the same perceptions

about teaching international students as they do. This is despite the responses to the

various questions revealing some quite diverse perceptions about student needs,

where skills were most lacking, and how identified issues should be best dealt with.

Such disparate views and beliefs have emerged, it seems, from a culture in which

many of these educators know little about their peers’ teaching practices.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Additional comments

This section allowed respondents to have their say about any issues that they felt were

not addressed by the questions, or simply to add any comments they thought were

pertinent. Additional comments relating to the questions focused mainly on two

aspects:

� Language difficulties and/or the lack of adequate language skills of interna-tional students; and

� Perceived disinterest or reluctance on the part of the institution to recognise

and address the substantial difficulties faced by some respondents claimed to

be facing in their attempts to meet the educational needs of their international

students.

One response in this section focused on the academics’ capabilities, alluding to the

range of Englishes and accents spoken by the lecturers themselves (who come frommany different countries). That respondent expressed concern suggesting that

international students come to Australia with expectations that they will be taught

by ‘non-migrant Australians’. While this sentiment may be somewhat unrealistic,

given that Australia is a nation mainly of migrants, the comment draws attention to

the need also for educators to have a reasonable command of the language in which

they communicate with students.

Discussion

A major concern identified in the literature is ‘students’ lack of language skills’

(Carroll 2005, 36). The inadequacy of English language capabilities of some

international students was, unexpectedly, a frequently identified concern within

this study also. International student entry requirements are policy decisions, and the

frustration of educators, faced with having little part in the decision-making, yet,

being expected to respond to the situation that eventuates, was evident in their

responses.

In dealing with language issues, and other aspects of teaching internationalstudents, it seems these educators, while trying hard to address students’ needs, are

left to their own devices. The quality and scope of teaching provision would thus vary

according to each individual lecturer’s approach, with students having quite diverse

experiences of learning � and quite possibly also learning outcomes, as Ryan and

Carroll (2005) explain:

Many lecturers, faced with unfamiliar student characteristics and needs, are unsure howto respond whilst at the same time meeting what they perceive to be the academicexpectations of the institution . . . Such tensions can lead to ad hoc decisions byindividual lecturers and a ‘lottery’ system for students as to how well their needs aremet. (5)

Remarks in the two major categories of additional comments suggest there are

ongoing concerns about problems that reach up to (and in some cases, emanate

from) higher institutional levels, suggesting that much of the process of inter-

nationalisation of education has happened to the academic staff. They have been

242 J. Daniels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

offered little preparation and support to enable them to accommodate these student

characteristics, which can be very different to those of domestic Anglo-Australian

students. One respondent summarised the situation thus:

My colleagues in our department try very hard to provide assistance to internationalstudents, however often feel that additional support from ‘upstairs’ is not provided tocater for their needs . . . I feel they are accepted into our courses sometimes not with thelevel of skills (language and academic) and then left to their own devices or those of thelecturers. I feel it’s not fair on these students or the lecturing/academic staff.

The sense of professional isolation was clearly evident in the responses, and it

seems some educators experience isolation from their peers as well as from policy-

makers who make decisions that impact on their practices. Whilst no additional

comments related directly to the sharing or knowledge of peers’ teaching strategies,

responses suggest that little collaboration in the form of peer support/review or team

teaching, occurs. Any sharing of teaching ideas with peers seems to be undertaken on

an ad hoc basis. None of the responses suggested that the institution had any policy

regarding peer collaboration, yet, such strategies are known to improve both

teaching quality and morale, with Dunn and Carroll (2005, 136) affirming that

collaboration is ‘a significant contributor to better experiences for teachers and all

students’.

On the other hand, the absence of collaborative strategies and communication

and the associated lack of leadership have significant implications for professional

practice, such as a loss of collegiality and unsureness of professional identity (Zipin

and Brennan 2003).

Although the findings from this questionnaire have not, in themselves, addressed

the guiding questions (see 5) they provide a context that will inform further research.

The next step is to repeat the data collection, using the same questions and

questionnaire, across all faculties and including the university’s regional campuses.

Results of this data will also inform the design of professional development

workshops aimed at developing skills of reflective practice and building educators’

capacities to respond effectively to the issues they face in their daily teaching

practices as they work with international students.

Conclusion

Most educators that I speak with do care about their students, want them to succeed

in their studies, and want to teach them effectively; many, however, lack support and

are unsure of how to do so. The findings from the research support this view. There is

a need for better communication between educators, and with senior management;

clear policy guidelines must form part of that communication, and professional

development opportunities for teaching staff need to address the pressures brought

about through the changing face of the student population.

Responding to the requirements of policy, individual institutions and to students,

educators can find themselves doubting their capacity to deliver effective and

relevant education. This article has identified some challenges facing educators in an

Australian higher education setting, as they struggle with the necessary changes to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

practice required to meet the needs of international students, as well as institutional

demands and broader policy expectations.

This research project has been one small step towards addressing the differences

in purpose amongst educators, students, institutions and policy-makers in relation to

the internationalisation of education. Perceived differences about the purposes of

this phenomenon remain, and yet, these perceptions and their implications must be

addressed if all stakeholders � educators, students, policy-makers and higher

education institutions � are to be satisfied.

The development of reflective capabilities in higher education lecturers has

implications not only for their practices but also for the future of their inter-

nationalised workplaces. While it is not the role of educators to teach policy-makers

and institutional administrators how to do their jobs, developing reflective practices in

relation to the international students they teach will go a long way towards facilitating

constructive and influential participation in current debates. When educators are

confident about their role and have a clear sense of purpose; that is, what they are

doing and why they are doing it, they are better equipped to critique and debate those

policy and institutional directives that impact on them and their ability to practice.

The educators’ responsibility � and what most would like to be able to do � is

participate in developing the international learning environment to provide equitable

learning opportunities to all students. International students must of course continue

to make explicit their cultural, learning and social needs, for researchers and

educators are generally keen to understand better their point of view. What remains

is for those concerned with recruitment and constructing policy to become similarly

reflective. Further research will extend the scope of this small project, and add to that

literature focusing on the educators’ role in the growing � but still problematic �process of internationalising higher educational provision.

Note

1. As the questions did not distinguish between the diversity of nationalities of internationalstudents, any or all of these responses could relate to students from countries such as NewZealand or Canada where English is a first language, as well as those from countries whereEnglish is learned as a second or subsequent language.

References

Ball, S. 2008. The education debate. Bristol: The Policy Press.Boud, D. 2001. Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. New Directions for Adult

and Continuing Education 90: 9�17.Bradburn, N.M., S. Sudman, and B. Wansink. 2004. Asking questions:The definitive guide to

questionnaire design: For market research, political polls and social and health questionnaires.San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Bretag, T. 2007. The emperor’s new clothes: Yes there is a link between English languagecompetence and academic standards. People and Place 15: 13�21.

Carroll, J. 2005. ‘Lightening the load’: Teaching in English, learning in English. In Teachinginternational students: Improving learning for all, ed. J. Carroll and J. Ryan, 35�42. Oxon,UK and New York: Routledge.

Carroll, J., and J. Ryan, eds. 2005. Teaching international students: Improving learning for all.Oxon, UK and New York: Routledge.

Cox, J. 1996. Your opinion, please!: How to build the best questionnaires in the field of education.Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

244 J. Daniels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Creswell, J.W. 2002. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative andqualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Dawson, J. 1998. From accommodation to incorporation: Internationalising the classroomthrough structured dialogue. HERDSA 21st Annual Conference, July 7�10. Auckland:HERDSA.

Dawson, J., and G. Conti-Bekkers. 2002. Supporting international students’ transitionaladjustment strategies. Focusing on the student: Proceedings of the 11th Annual TeachingLearning Forum, February 5�6. Perth WA: Edith Cowan University.

Dunn, L., and J. Carroll. 2005. Collaborating and co-learning: Sharing the message onteaching international students within institutions. In Teaching international students:Improving learning for all, ed. J. Carroll and J. Ryan, 136�46. Oxon, UK and New York:Routledge.

Guruz, K. 2008. Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledgeeconomy. Albany: New York State University Press.

Marginson, S. 2000. The enterprise university in Australia. Leading and Managing 6: 98�112.Marginson, S. 2006. Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher

Education 52: 1�39.Putnam, L. 1983. The interpretative perspective: An alternative to functionalism. In

Communication and organizations, ed. L. Putnam and M. Pacanowsky, 31�54. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Rizvi, F. 2010. International students and doctoral studies in transnational spaces. InThe Routledge doctoral supervisor’s companion: Supporting effective research in education andthe social sciences, ed. M. Walker and P. Thomson, 158�70. London and New York:Routledge.

Rizvi, F., and Walsh, L. 1998. Difference, globalisation and the internationalisation of thecurriculum. Australian Universities Review 41: 7�11.

Ryan, J. 2003. Excellence through diversity: Internationalisation of curriculum and pedagogy.17th IDP Australian International Education Conference, October 21�24, in Melbourne,Australia.

Ryan, J., and J. Carroll. 2005. Canaries in the coalmine’: International students in westernuniversities. In Teaching international students: Improving learning for all, ed. J. Carroll andJ. Ryan, 3�10. Oxon, UK and New York: Routledge.

Sawir, E., S. Marginson, A. Deumert, C. Nyland, and G. Ramia. 2007. Loneliness andinternational students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education 12:148�80.

Schon, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: BasicBooks.

Tran, L.T. 2009. Making visible ‘hidden’ intentions and potential choices: Interntaionalstudents in intercultural communication. Language and Intercultural communication 9:271�84.

Victorian Multicultural Commission. 2011. All of us. State Government of Victoria 2009.Available from http://www.multicultural.vic.gov.au/2009 (accessed April 8, 2011).

Zipin, L., and M. Brennan. 2003. The suppression of ethical dispositions through managerialgovernmentality: A habitus crisis in Australian higher education. International Journal ofLeadership in Education 6: 351�70.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Teaching international students

About your teaching practice:

1. Do you enjoy teaching international students?(please circle the relevant response)

Very much Usually Sometimes Seldom Never


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

http://www.multicultural.vic.gov.au/2009

2. Do you feel confident teaching international students?

Very much Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

3. Are the language differences problematic (for you)?

Yes No

4. Are the cultural differences problematic (for you)?

Yes No

5. Do you think these differences are problematic for students too?

� Language Yes No

� Cultural Yes No

6. Do you try to accommodate these differences?

Yes (optional) please say how. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

No (optional) please say why not. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

1

About your relationship with the institution:

7. Do you feel prepared when teaching international students?

Mostly Sometimes Seldom

8. Have you been offered/attended professional development eg. workshops on teachinginternational students?

Yes no

If yes, how long ago?

This year within the last 2 years 3 or more years ago

Were these useful?

Mostly in part not really

246 J. Daniels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

If no, would you attend if these were offered?

Yes no

Why/Why not?(optional). . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

9. Do you feel this institution understands your needs for teaching international students?

Yes No

Comments?. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

2

10. Do you feel you are supported by the institution’s policies and guidelines in this respect?

Yes No

Comments?. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

11. Why do you think this university enrols international students? Is it for:

� The money

� Our good education system

� Foreign relations

� Other (please specify). . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

12. What is your greatest challenge in teaching international students?

� Language difficulties

� Cultural differences

� Educational differences, (eg, lack of referencing skills, speaking up in class)

� Level of education

3

About you and your peers:

13. Do you know what activities other lecturers use to engage/with international students?

Yes No

14. Would you/do you find sharing ideas helpful when teaching international students?

Yes I don’t know No


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

15. Do your peers share your perceptions about international students?

I think most do I don’t know No, I think I’m in the minority

Any comments you’d like to add?. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

4

248 J. Daniels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

24 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

internationalisation higher education and educators' perceptions of their practices

Documents