internationalization of the curriculum: friend or foe to ...web.uvic.ca/~sherriw/images/ed 6890...

Internationalization of the Curriculum: A Remedy for International Students' Academic

Adjustment Difficulties?

A final paper submitted to Dr. Lenora Perry

Sherri Williams

Victoria, BC

In partial fulfillment of the requirements of Education 6890

For the degree of Master of Education

Faculty of Education

Memorial University of Newfoundland

St. John's

Newfoundland and Labrador

August 4, 2008

Internationalization of the Curriculum

ii

Abstract

International student recruitment is an important internationalization initiative of post-secondary

institutions in Canada and around the world. International students’ diverse cultural

backgrounds, experiences, and learning styles may not be met by the traditional, Euro-centric

curriculum and pedagogy inherent in most Western post-secondary institutions. This paper

critically examines whether 'internationalizing the curriculum', or incorporating an international

and intercultural dimension into the curriculum and pedagogy of Western educational

institutions, provides a more inclusive learning environment for international students and

improves their chances for academic success. It includes a discussion of the academic challenges

facing international students; the challenges inherent in the curricular reform process; the roles of

the stakeholders; and the rationale, tenets, and approaches underlying internationalizing the

curriculum. The research indicates that although the infusion approach to internationalizing the

curriculum is the most-widely used in Canadian post-secondary institutions, the more culturally

inclusive transformation approach is the goal towards which institutions should aspire to best

meet the diverse learning needs of international students.


iii

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………ii

Preface …………………………………………………………………………………………. v

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Rationale for Internationalizing the Curriculum ……………………………………………….. 4

Academic Adjustment Difficulties of International Students …………………………………. 7

Linguistic Challenges ………………………………………………………………….. 7

Pedagogy and Expectations for Learning ……………………………………………… 9

Curricular Concerns …………………………………………………………………...11

Challenges in Internationalizing the Curriculum ……………………………………………... 12

Institutional Policies and Support …………………………………………………….. 12

Funding and Resources ……………………………………………………………….. 13

Organizational Structure and Communication ……………………………………….. 14

Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom …………………………………………. 15

Commodification of Education ……………………………………………………….. 16

Hiring and Reward Policies ………………………………………………………….. 16

Faculty Development and International Experience …………………………………. 17

Intercultural Knowledge, Skills, and Interest ………………………………………… 18

Pedagogical and Content Concerns …………………………………………………... 19

Internationalization of the Curriculum ………………………………………………………... 19

Tenets, Goals, and Approaches ………………………………………………………. 19

Roles of Stakeholders ………………………………………………………………… 28

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………. 32


iv

References …………………………………………………………………………………….. 33

Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………………. 44


v

Preface

"Today…internationalization of the university means far more than inter-personal or

even inter-institutional cooperation across borders. It is a necessary, vital, and deliberate

transformation of how we teach and learn and it is essential... to the future of Canada. In

a world characterized by challenges and opportunities of global proportions, universities

are key agents of change."

(The University of British Columbia, 2006, ¶ 2)


1

Internationalization of the Curriculum: A Remedy for International Students' Academic

Adjustment Difficulties?

Introduction

Canadian universities have a long history of involvement in international education

activities (James & Nef, 2002; Lemasson, 1999; Shute, 2002). However, the internationalization

of higher education has become much more firmly entrenched within the Canadian post-

secondary system over the past two decades (Knight, 1997, 2000a, 2000b). Although numerous

definitions of the concept of internationalization exist, Knight (2003), a renowned expert in the

field, defines the internationalization of higher education as "the process of integrating an

international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-

secondary education" (p. 2).

The importance of valuing diversity within the teaching and learning functions of higher

education is essential as post-secondary institutions engage in one of their many avenues of

internationalization: the increased recruitment of international students to their campuses. In

recent years, the recruitment of international students has become an important and highly

competitive focus of post-secondary institutions in both Canada and around the world. If

Canadian post-secondary institutions wish to remain competitive within the international

education marketplace (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada [AUCC], 2007a;

Savage, 2005) it is crucial that they understand the diverse needs of their international student

clientele, and provide a learning environment that meets their special needs (Canadian

Association of University Teachers, 2008; Cunningham, 1991; Reus, 2007; Vertesi, 1999).

Taylor (2004), in his study of internationalization practices at four universities worldwide

summed it up nicely when he stated, "a strategy for internationalization is much more far


2

reaching and inclusive than is implied simply by the recruitment of international students. At the

heart of the development process lies a fundamental reexamination of teaching provision to

reflect the challenge of internationalization" (p. 157).

International students often encounter pedagogical and curricular adjustment difficulties

due to teaching methods, styles, and expectations that may be different from those they are

accustomed to in their native cultures (Andrade, 2006; Arthur, 2004; Crabtree & Sapp, 2004;

Dalili, 1982; Durkin, 2008; Grey, 2002; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Zhai, 2002; Zhou, Jindal-

Snape, Topping, & Todman, 2008). International students often perceive the content of the

curriculum as exclusionary and cite concerns that instructors show a lack of interest in their prior

knowledge (Arthur, 2004; Chen, 1996; Grey, 2002; Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000).

Part of the difficulties these students encounter may be due to the traditional teaching and

learning environment within Western higher educational institutions that may not reflect the

cultural backgrounds and diverse learning needs of the international student population (Adams,

1992; Guo & Jamal, 2007; Hayle, 2008; Joseph, 2008; Samuel & Burney, 2003; Schapper &

Mayson, 2004; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006). Lynch (1997) indicated that students from

diverse cultures who are exposed to the traditional "Euro-centric, male-biased curriculum using

narrow methods of instruction,…may feel isolated and alienated from the educational goal that

they are pursuing" (p. 57).

Curricular and pedagogical change, or what is commonly referred to as the

internationalization of the curriculum may be an effective means of providing an academic

environment that supports the diverse cultural learning needs of international students. Bond

(2006) defined this curricular transformation as "changing fundamentally what we teach and how

we teach it" (p. 3). Leask (2001) suggested that, "internationalizing university curricula is a


3

powerful and practical way of bridging the gap between rhetoric and practice to including and

valuing the contribution of international students" (p. 100). Although the phrase

internationalization of the curriculum can refer to such varied internationalization activities as

study abroad programs, foreign language courses, interdisciplinary or area programs, or the

provision of programs or courses with an international, intercultural, or comparative focus

(Bremer & van der Wende, 1995), within this paper the intent of an internationalized curriculum

will be on "introduc[ing] an international, intercultural or global dimension into course content

and materials and into teaching and learning methods" (AUCC, 2007b, ¶ 1). The focus, therefore,

is not only on the subject matter of the curriculum, but also on the pedagogical implications of

teaching and learning approaches that will promote the inclusion of international students

(Adams, 1992; Bond, 2006; De Vita & Case, 2003; Leask, 2001; Marchesani & Adams, 1992;

Maidstone, 1995; McKellin, 1998; McLoughlin, 2001).

This paper will examine whether an internationalized curriculum may be a means of

creating a more pluralistic or culturally inclusive classroom environment for international

students that could embrace the diversity required for their success. It will present an overview of

the academic adjustment difficulties and learning needs of international students in higher

education and propose a link between these students' unique needs and the necessity of

curriculum and pedagogical reform. The internationalization of the curriculum will be presented

as a potential remedy for alleviating the academic difficulties international students, from non-

Western backgrounds, may face as a result of the traditional Euro-centric or Western biased

curriculum and traditional pedagogical practices commonly found in Western post-secondary

institutions. Support for and challenges inherent in internationalizing the curriculum will be


4

examined along with the roles of the major stakeholders involved. A critical review of the

literature in the field will attempt to answer the following research questions:

1. Does the Western, Euro-centric bias evident in the curriculum and pedagogical

practices of Western higher education impede the academic success of international

students?

2. If so, how can an internationalized curriculum better support the learning needs of this

student population?

3. What constitutes an internationalized curriculum and how can it be implemented?

Rationale for Internationalizing the Curriculum

Numerous researchers emphasize the centrality of the curriculum and the

internationalization of the curriculum and teaching and learning processes as critical elements of

internationalization (Bond, 2003a; Bond, Qian, & Huang, 2003; Green & Olson, 2003; Knight,

1994, 1997, 2000a; Lemasson, 2002; Paige, 2003; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). Knight (1994)

described the curriculum as "the backbone of the internationalization process" (Knight, 1994, p.

6). Other researchers concur, emphasizing the importance of an internationalized curriculum in

providing a student-centered learning experience for all students and in preparing students to be

successful in today's increasingly interdependent global society (Bonfiglio, 1999; Leask, 2001;

Lemasson, 2002; Schuerholz-Lehr, 2007; Schuerholz-Lehr, Caws, van Gyn, & Preece, 2007).

Education and the curriculum play a key role in shaping students' values (Khalideen,

2006). Because curriculum is typically reflective of the values, attitudes, and beliefs of a

particular culture and an institution, forcing students to assimilate to an unfamiliar learning

culture is unlikely to be successful and may negatively impact on their sense of identity (Cortazzi

& Jin, 1997; Freedman, 1998; Kennedy, 1995; Khalideen, 2006; Mestenhauser, 2002b). The


5

ethnocentric values underlying the curriculum and pedagogy in Western post-secondary

institutions "keeps foreign students in their ghettos, makes it difficult for them to deal with our

academic ethnocentrism and with abstracting theoretical principles from culture-bound

instruction" (Mestenhauser, 2002b, p. 23). The combination of a didactic lecture format with

tutorials and seminars that emphasize the discussion, critical thinking, and active learning

inherent in Western post-secondary institutions "privilege[s] western forms of knowledge"

(Joseph, 2008, p. 34) and disregards the diverse ways of knowing of international students. An

optimal learning environment reflects students' "cultures, experiences, and perspectives" (Banks,

2004, p. 243). Because the manner in which people think, reason, and view knowledge is

culturally and socially determined (Mestenhauser, 2002a; Peelo & Luxon, 2007), international

students from diverse cultural backgrounds may have difficulty balancing the expectations of the

traditional Western curricular perspective and pedagogical strategies with their own culturally

based learning expectations and values.

Students' preferred learning styles and strategies are greatly determined by their social

and cultural backgrounds (Harris, 1995; Mestenhauser, 2002a; Myles, Qian, & Cheng, 2002;

Peelo & Luxon, 2007); however, faculty members' ethnocentric values and cultural framework

also impact on how they judge students' learning styles and performance (Jin & Cortazzi, 1997;

Miles et al., 2002; Valiente, 2008). Joseph (2008), a former international post-graduate student in

Australia, suggested that the focus on "critical thinking and analysis, notions of plagiarism and

ethics of research, language nuances and academic traditions as practiced within…western post-

industrial countries are concepts located within a western ideology of academe" (p. 33). Valiente

(2008) questioned the attitude of superiority embraced by Western faculty towards their

preferred styles of learning and teaching and the Western assumption that international students


6

use "the 'wrong' style of learning" (p. 73). McLoughlin (2001) and Biggs (2003) also cautioned

against viewing an inclusive approach to learning and teaching from the 'deficit model'

perspective. The deficit view posits that, "international students (students of diverse language,

race and ethnic backgrounds) can be brought up to a 'normal' standard by redressing their

'deficits'" (McLoughlin, 2001, p. 12). Instead, these authors recommended that an inclusive

learning and teaching environment should recognize, value, and accommodate students' cultural

differences and worldviews. These researchers remind us of the importance of assessing our

ethnocentric attitudes towards learning and of being sensitive to the diverse learning needs of

students. Furthermore, both students and faculty should engage in a critical examination of their

cultural differences in order to better understand each other's academic cultures, cultures of

learning, and cultures of communication (Cortazi & Jin, 1997; Grey, 2002).

In comparing the educational outcomes of domestic and international students at four

Canadian universities, Grayson (2006) concluded that, "the educational outcomes of

international students are lower than those of domestic students" (p. 15). Despite the fact that the

international students in Grayson's study entered university with equivalent or slightly higher

grades than their domestic counterparts, their grade point averages and accumulated credits after

their first year of studies were lower than those of domestic students. This underlines the

importance of academic institutions providing support for international students and of

committing "resources to deal with problems such as low levels of English linguistic capital"

(Grayson, 2006, p. 26). One might also add the importance of institutions recognizing that

international students' cultural backgrounds may demand a modification in curriculum and

pedagogy to better meet the academic learning needs of these students.


7

Academic Adjustment Difficulties of International Students

International students who choose to study in a foreign environment face a host of cross-

cultural adjustment difficulties as part of their transition experience. Carroll and Appleton (2007)

aptly referred to the academic adjustment problems facing transitioning students as "academic

'culture shock'" (p. 72). Regardless of their cultural or linguistic background, all new students

transitioning into higher education must learn to navigate and adjust to a new educational system

and to the individual disciplines (Carroll & Appleton, 2007; Dalili, 1982; Ellis, Sawyer, Gill,

Medlin, & Wilson, 1992; Mullins, Quintrell, & Hancock, 1995; Terenzini et al., 1994), each of

which "has its own culture" (Ellis et al., 1992, p. 67). However, international students often face

a myriad of cross-cultural adjustment problems that domestic students from Western society do

not typically encounter (Andrade, 2006; Burns, 1991; Church, 1982; Pavel, 2006). As Peelo and

Luxon (2007) emphasize, "learning means different things to different groups" (p. 68). It is

important to recognize that international students cannot be considered a homogeneous group

(Bond 2003a; Burns, 1991; Cunningham, 1991; Kuhlman, 1992; Mestenhauser, 2002b);

therefore, international students, pending their personal and cultural background, experience

varying types and levels of adjustment problems. Andrade (2006) noted that, "students from

families, communities, and schools with widely different norms and behaviors from those in the

college environment may have difficulty adjusting to the new environment" (p. 61). International

students' academic adjustment difficulties can be exacerbated by variables such as their English

language competency, difficulties with unfamiliar pedagogical styles and expectations for

learning, and curricular content which does not recognize their unique cultural experiences and

worldviews.

Linguistic Challenges


8

International students whose first language differs from that of the host country cite

linguistic and communication difficulties as foremost amongst their academic challenges

(Chapman Wadsworth, Hecht, & Jung, 2008; Dalili, 1982; Ellis et al., 2005; Galloway &

Jenkins, 2005; Kennedy, 1995; Samuelowicz, 1987; Zhai, 2002; Zhang & Brunton, 2007). Lack

of familiarity with the linguistic and culturally determined communication norms of the new

academic environment can be very stressful for international students (Chapman Wadsworth et

al., 2008). A lack of confidence in their second language competency may inhibit international

students from actively participating in group work, class discussions, and presentations

(Andrade, 2006; Burns, 1991; Chen, 1996; Grey, 2002; Hellstén & Prescott, 2004). In addition,

difficulties in comprehending the idiomatic or colloquial language and cultural references

utilized by their classmates and instructors are common complaints of international students

(Ellis et al., 2005; Grey, 2002; Lacina, 2002; Robertson et al., 2000). International students often

encounter difficulties comprehending lectures and class discussions due to a speaker's rate of

speech (Chen, 1996; Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986; Mullins et al., 1995; Poyrazli & Graham,

2007; Robertson et al., 2000; Zhai, 2002). However, some international students in Hellstén and

Prescott's (2004) study felt that if lecturers slowed their rate of speech, it reduced the challenge

for them and prevented them from advancing their English skills. One important caution with the

results of Hellstén and Prescott's (2004) study, however, is the lack of reliability due to sampling

bias. Other researchers have stressed the levels of fatigue and anxiety international students

experience as a result of the increased time they require to take notes, read academic texts, and

complete written assignments in their second language (Andrade, 2006; Burns, 1991; Chen,

1996; Ellis et al., 2005; Grey, 2002; Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986; Mullins et al., 1995; Pedersen,

1991).


9

Faculty must become cognizant of these linguistic difficulties faced by international

students when planning and delivering their courses. For example, they may wish to avoid using

excessive amounts of idiomatic or casual language and should clearly explain any culturally

biased references they may use. As a faculty participant in Schuerholz-Lehr et al.'s (2007) study

indicated, "in an international setting, it is critical to clarify/define the terms you are using, as the

common ground that we often assume, may not exist, and meaning is grounded in cultural

context" (p. 80). However, an international student in Chen's (1996) study stressed that faculty

must also avoid equating international students' linguistic difficulties with levels of intelligence.

This student stated that faculty members "should be patient and listen to them, and try to share

and exchange opinions" (p. 10).

Pedagogy and Expectations for Learning

Pedagogical styles and expectations for learning approaches that differ from those to

which the international students are accustomed in their own cultures may also be a source of

difficulty (Andrade, 2006; Arthur, 2004; Cortazzi & Jin, 1997; Crabtree & Sapp, 2004; Dalili,

1982; Durkin, 2008; Grey, 2002; Polyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Zhai, 2002; Zhou, Jindal-Snape,

Topping, & Todman, 2008). Despite the diversity of students in Canadian post-secondary

institutions today, the "traditional Anglo-American lecture-and-discussion format" (Vertesi,

1999) prevails. In addition, participation in small group tutorial or seminar sessions and the

interactive teaching and learning process required within many Western institutions is an

unfamiliar and challenging concept to many international students (Mullins et al., 1995;

Samuelowicz, 1987). Studies have indicated conflicting results vis-à-vis international students'

expectations of learning difficulties in the foreign environment. An early study of international

students in Australia indicated that the majority of the students did not anticipate any problems


10

adapting to the foreign educational system (Samuelowicz, 1987). However, Burns' (1991) study

of first-year South East Asian students' indicated that 79% of the students felt unprepared for

university level study in the foreign environment. Although there are concerns with

Samuelowicz's (1987) study, including questions about the sampling method used, its limited

literature review, and the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, the presentation of thick

descriptions from international students within the study makes reference to the results worthy of

consideration.

International students from collectivist Asian cultures in particular may be accustomed to

and more at ease with the lecture method of instruction (Chapman Wadsworth et al., 2008;

Harris, 1995); however, independent, self-directed learning, actively engaging in class

discussions, asking questions in class, and critical and analytical thinking may be skills they are

not comfortable with and have not developed in their own academic cultures (Burns, 1991;

Chapman Wadsworth et al., 2008; Harris, 1995; Robertson et al., 2000; Samuelowicz, 1987).

The need to adapt to these new required styles of learning may prove particularly onerous for

international students whose cultural backgrounds emphasize passive learning and respect or

deference for authority, and would not tolerate challenging, criticizing, or questioning the

instructor (Andrade, 2006; Burns, 1991; Durkin, 2008; Hellstén & Prescott, 2004; Samuelowicz,

1987). Students from some cultures may have difficulties not only asking questions, but also

understanding questions, knowing how to ask questions, and knowing whom to approach when

they experience difficulties in class (Ellis et al., 2005).

Other studies indicate that international students from particular cultures may experience

"difficulty conducting research" (Robertson et al., 2000, p. 93) and understanding the academic

writing requirements of Western cultures including the emphasis on referencing and avoiding


11

plagiarism (Burns, 1991; Durkin, 2008). Students in Durkin's (2008) study felt constricted by the

inability to express their own thoughts and opinions within their research. Burns (1991)

indicated that students from Asian cultures, who have been taught to employ a circular, holistic

argument, often encounter difficulties with academic writing expectations in Western

institutions. A typical Western approach values the comparison, discussion, and evaluation of

numerous arguments found in the research and presentation of the findings in a logical and linear

sequence.

Assessment mechanisms in Western post-secondary institutions may also be problematic

and discriminate against the preferred learning styles of some international students (Burns,

1991; Harris, 1995; Mullins et al., 1995; Samuelowicz, 1987). Burns (1991) suggested that, "no

assessment instrument is culturally neutral" (p. 76). Institutions need to develop diverse

assessment mechanisms to better support their international students (Harris, 1995; Mullin et al.,

1995; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006).

Curricular Concerns

Studies have also indicated that some international students take issue with the cultural

bias or "monocultural focus" (Samuel & Burney, 2003, p. 95) evident in Western curricula and

the lack of interest that some instructors show towards their prior knowledge (Arthur, 2004;

Chen, 1996; Grey, 2002; Miles et al., 2002; Robertson et al., 2000). International students in

three studies (Chen, 2006b; Grey, 2002; Samuel & Burney, 2003) felt excluded and marginalized

in their classes by what they perceived to be the "Euro-centric emphasis with a penchant towards

Anglo-Saxon assumptions and premises" (Samuel & Burney, 2003, p. 103). Many students cited

the content of their courses, which they believed to be fundamentally Canadian or North

American and the examples and texts utilized in their classes as problematic (Chen, 2006;


12

Samuel & Burney, 2003). However, some students in the humanities, social science, science and

engineering fields did not react negatively to the content of their courses because they had

chosen to come to Canada to acquire Western knowledge (Chen, 2006b).

Despite this powerful evidence of the problems international students encounter with the

curricular and pedagogical practices inherent in most Western post-secondary institutions,

studies indicate that faculty members neglect to consider the social, cultural, and academic

problems that many international students experience (Bond et al., 2003; Bowry, 2002; Myles et

al., 2002; Vertesi, 1999). In light of this research, the need for a more culturally inclusive

academic environment and curriculum, which considers these students' unique needs, is readily

apparent.

Challenges in Internationalizing the Curriculum

There are numerous challenges inherent in the process of internationalizing the

curriculum. Institutional barriers, internal structures, and factors associated with faculty's

reluctance to engage in the curricular reform process can all impede the progress of reform.

Institutional Policies and Support

Internationalization is an ongoing, multifaceted, holistic process that impacts on the

entire institution (Paige, 2003; Schoorman, 2000a). Written policy statements and strategic plans

defining the institution's internationalization goals are an important element and must be acted

upon (Knight, 1994, 1995). Knight (1994) emphasized the necessity of permanent commitment

to internationalization at an institution: "Internationalization must be entrenched in the culture,

policy, planning and organizational processes of the institution so that it is not treated as, nor

does it become, a passing fad" (p. 5).


13

The lack of a curricular review and assessment process at the majority of Canadian

universities is a major barrier to the curricular reform process (Knight, 2000a; McKellin, 1998).

Respondents within Knight's (2000a) study indicated that the responsibility for internationalizing

the curriculum rested with individual departments and faculties or in some cases, a faculty

member, who was assigned a facilitative role in the process. Only 1.6 % of Canadian post-

secondary institutions have developed internationalized curricula specifically for foreign students

(Taylor, 2000). Knight (1994, 2000a) emphasized the important role an international office,

staffed by leaders who have credibility with faculty, and who possess the requisite academic,

administrative, and cross-cultural skills can play in the curricular development and review

process.

Faculty in other Canadian studies (Bond et al., 2003; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006)

indicate that a lack of support and encouragement for the curricular reform process at both the

departmental and institutional levels and "limitations placed on instructors by the infrastructure,

policies, and procedures of their departments and the institution in general" (Schuerholz-Lehr et

al., 1997, p. 87) are barriers to the successful internationalization of the curriculum.

Funding and Resources

Insufficient funding and resources can also be serious impediments to internationalizing

the curriculum (Bond, 2003a; Bond et al., 2003; Castenada, 2004; Cleveland-Innes, Emes, &

Ellard, 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Knight, 1995, 2002a; Jones & Andrews, 2002; Schoorman,

2000a; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006). In this era of fiscal restraint, the establishment of

new international programs and curricula must compete with many other institutional demands

for funding (Knight, 1995; Taylor, 2000). Closely associated with this issue are time constraints

on faculty due to downsizing of departments, increased teaching loads, and larger class sizes


14

which may inhibit faculty from successfully designing and delivering an internationalized

curriculum (Bond, 2003a; Bond et al., 2003; Castenada, 2004; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn,

2006). Faculty may also be reluctant to engage in curricular reform if insufficient release time

and financial rewards are not allocated for their efforts (Taylor, 2000). However, McKellin's

(1998) study of British Columbia post-secondary institutions indicated that the majority of

respondents surveyed provide "release time for faculty to undertake international projects or to

develop course curricula" (p. 45). It appears that the priority institutions place on funding this

important aspect of internationalization will determine its level and extent of development.

Organizational Structure and Communication

Although the curricular reform process will vary by institution, the discipline-based focus

of many North American institutions and the traditionally decentralized nature of the curricular

reform process within Canadian institutions can negatively impact on the internationalization of

the curriculum (Carter, 1992; Maidstone, 1995; Taylor, 2000). The majority of the respondents

in Knight's (1995) study suggested that, "internationalization needs to occur at local academic

and administrative units within a broad policy framework" (Knight, 1995, p. 20). However,

faculties, which have diverse goals and characteristics, tend to address curricular reform within

the context of their own disciplines and classes. Faculty members don't often collaborate with

colleagues, including those who have international experience, in designing and delivering their

courses (Bond, 2003a; Cleveland-Innes et al., 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Jones & Andrew, 2002;

Mestenhauser, 1998). Since successful internationalization of the curriculum requires a

collaborative, interdisciplinary approach, one of the greatest challenges in internationalizing the

curriculum is bringing together large numbers of faculty from diverse disciplines to collaborate


15

towards this goal (Cleveland-Innes et al., 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Jones & Andrews, 2002;

Maidstone, 1995; Mestenhauser, 1998).

Closely connected with the decentralized nature of post-secondary institutions are

communication difficulties. The use of both formal and informal communication and

information-sharing strategies amongst the stakeholders involved within the institutional

internationalization process is crucial to its success (Jones & Andrews, 2002; Knight, 1994).

However, respondents in Knight's (1995) study of 89 Canadian institutions indicated that

communication was very helpful to the internationalization process but not fundamental.

Nevertheless, the participants within this study did note the importance of communication to

promote the cross-disciplinary aspect of internationalization.

Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom

A fear of loss of personal autonomy and academic freedom may provide another barrier

to the curriculum reform process. Faculty who have not been involved in the development of the

institution's mandate to internationalize may perceive the call to internationalize their courses to

be mandated from a top-down perspective and may resent what they regard as an intrusion into

their rights of academic freedom and integrity (Khalideen, 2006). Khalideen (2006) stressed that

many faculty members "find it difficult to relinquish 'power' over what is taught because in some

ways they benefit from the status quo. Others are opposed to change since they see change

simply as a criticism of their current practice" (p. 5). Nevertheless, a faculty member within

Castaneda's (2004) study indicated the need for increased departmental and/or administrative

support for addressing diversity within the curricular and pedagogical practices of the institution

and lamented the climate in which some faculty members view this as mandated reform which

infringes upon their rights to academic freedom. Faculty within Knight's (1995) study indicated


16

academic freedom to be both a facilitator and a barrier within the internationalization process. As

one respondent indicated, "academic freedom is both a facilitator, allowing faculty members to

pursue international interests and a barrier in that those who are not interested must be convinced

or co-opted and cannot be asked to change their focus of interest" (Knight, 1995, p. 20).

Commodification of Education

Additionally, some faculty may be suspicious of internationalization efforts as indicative

of the 'commodification of education', which focuses on the economic benefits of

internationalization initiatives rather than traditional humanistic or academic rationales

(Cleveland-Innes et al., 2001; Knight, 1997). The recruitment of international students is often

seen as an important source of revenue for post-secondary institutions. A great number of

academics disagree with this consumer approach towards the view of education and curriculum

as a commodity (DeVita & Case, 2003; Schapper & Mayson, 2008; Vertesi, 1999). These

researchers caution against the standardization approach to internationalizing the curriculum that

has occurred in Australia in which faculty have little or no input into curriculum design and are

required "to deliver prepackaged education with efficiency and economy" (Schapper & Mayson,

2008, p. 197). Knight (1999) highlighted the importance of achieving a balance between the

economic and academic rationales for recruiting international students. In order for faculty to

fully embrace the internationalization of the curriculum, institutions must focus on the

recruitment of international students not simply as "cash cows" (Brown & Jones, 2007, p. 2), but

as positive forces of diversity who can enrich the learning environment for the benefit of

everyone on the campus (Bond & Thayer Scott, 1999; Taraban, Dippo, Fynbo, & Alsop, 2006).

Hiring and Reward Policies


17

Institutions that neglect to reward faculty involvement in internationalization initiatives in

their tenure and promotion policies provide another barrier to faculty involvement (Bond et al.,

2003; Bond & Thayer Scott, 1999; Burn, 2002; Carter, 1992; Castaneda, 2004; Harari, 1992;

O'Brien & Sarkar, 2002). Knight's (1995) survey of Canadian institutions indicated that 84% of

respondents did not explicitly recognize the contribution to or participation of faculty in

international activities within their assessment and reward policies. Although 62% of faculty in

Bond et al.'s (2003) study disagreed that international or intercultural experience is an important

criteria in hiring new faculty, the majority of researchers recommended that institutions consider

faculty's international experience and competence in their recruitment and hiring processes and

introduce reward and promotion strategies for faculty based on their involvement in international

activities such as internationalizing the curricula (Bond, 2006; Bond & Thayer Scott, 1999;

Carter, 1992; Knight, 1994; Maidstone, 1995; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981).

Faculty Development and International Experience

Lack of funding to support faculty development and to aid faculty in increasing their

levels of international awareness and expertise through international research, study, and

teaching activities can also impede curricular reform (Cleveland-Jones et al., 2001; Ellingboe,

1998; Harari, 1992; Knight, 1994, 2000; Paige, 2003; Taylor, 2000; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981).

Some researchers propose a direct link between faculty who are 'internationalized' and their

interest in and ability to reform and deliver an internationalized curriculum (Knight, 1994;

Taylor, 2000; Maidstone, 1995). However, other research shows that such international

involvement and experience does not necessarily result in these faculty members transferring

their experiences into internationalizing their classes and courses (Ellingboe, 1998; Tonkin &

Edwards, 1981). In Ellingboe’s (1998) study, some faculty, despite having international


18

experience, "had not made the cognitive shift to internationalize their curriculum. Those who had

international experiences had not connected them with their teaching, and ways of infusing their

disciplines with international perspectives were unknown to them" (p. 211). This underscores the

importance of providing professional development opportunities to assist faculty with translating

their international expertise and knowledge into the content and pedagogy of their courses.

Bond and Thayer Scott (1999) indicated that it may be a challenge to convince some

Canadian faculty to participate in such internationalization activities since they may view them

as an extra burden and a drain on human and financial resources that have already been cut in

times of fiscal restraint. Many faculty members find the choice of participating in international

work a difficult one considering that it may negatively impact on their colleagues at home who

are faced with increasing class sizes and decreasing resources.

Intercultural Knowledge, Skills, and Interest

Lack of personal knowledge, skills, or interest in internationalization, and a lack of

intercultural knowledge and sensitivity are other reasons for the lack of faculty involvement in

international curricular reform initiatives. Bond (2006) indicated that issues such as

ethnocentricity, a disbelief that knowledge is socially constructed, a belief that their discipline is

already international, and a neglect to engage in self-reflection regarding the impact of their

personal cultural beliefs on their choice of course content and pedagogical practices are all issues

in faculty reluctance to engage in curricular internationalization and reform. Benick et al.'s

(1996) survey, examining faculty resistance to change within Ontario post-secondary institutions,

also found that many faculty lack the motivation, "interest…experience, commitment, flexibility

and openness [to revise their curricular and pedagogical practices]….They don't seem to

understand the principles of an inclusive environment" (p. 26)


19

Consequently, the need for faculty development programs and workshops that promote

intercultural sensitivity and increase understanding of how and why to internationalize the

curriculum are also essential (Bond et al., 2003; Carter, 1992; Castaneda, 2004; Cleveland-Jones

et al., 2001; Harari, 1992; Knight, 1994; Maidstone, 1995; Odgers & Giroux, 2006; Otten, 2003;

Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006).

Pedagogical and Content Concerns

Canadian faculty members and instructors engaged in a workshop focusing on

internationalizing curricula at the University of Victoria expressed difficulty with determining

appropriate methods of validating the international students and their prior learning experiences

while maintaining equity (Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007). The instructors in this workshop also

questioned whether they should be creating a distinction between the international and traditional

content within their courses or integrating the two. Another participant was also wary "that the

emphasis on internationalization of the classroom does not impede the learning of basic ideas

and processes that students are coming here to learn" (Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007, pp. 79-80).

Moreover, mindful as they are of the need for diverse assessment mechanisms to better meet the

needs of international students, faculty in Schuerholz-Lehr and van Gyn's (2006) study

commented on the difficulties inherent in this process due to large class sizes and lack of

resources to comprehensively assess students' learning.

Institutions desiring the successful development and delivery of internationalized courses

for their international student populations must be mindful of this myriad of challenges inherent

in the curricular and pedagogical reform process.


Tenets, Goals, and Approaches


20

There is no 'one size fits all' method of internationalizing an institution or of

internationalizing the curriculum (Bond, 2003a; Harari, 1992). The decision of how to

internationalize an institution and the extent of the internationalization process must be based

upon an institution's unique history, context, goals, mission, values, and resources (Harari, 1992;

Knight, 1994, 1995, 2004; Lemasson, 1999; Schoorman, 2000a).

Research has emphasized that the internationalization of the curriculum should be part of

an ongoing, comprehensive, integrated, interdisciplinary approach to institutional

internationalization (Bonfiglio, 1999; Edwards & Tonkin, 1990; Ellingboe, 1998; Green &

Olson, 2003; Harari, 1992; Schoorman, 1999, 2000a, 2000b; Taylor, 2000). Bonfiglio (1999)

stressed that within the traditional discipline-based focus of North American post-secondary

education "learning becomes isolated and disconnected" (p. 11) and the diverse perspectives

inherent in today's global society are ignored. She also cautioned that within this single

disciplinary approach, faculty is seen as conveyors of knowledge and students have little

opportunity for personal input and participation. Curricular reform needs to occur not only at the

faculty and departmental level, but also at the institutional level in order that students'

experiences with an internationalized curriculum are not isolated to a particular course or

department (Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006). Transforming the curriculum requires a move

from individual faculty members working in isolation to a more comprehensive, collaborative

strategy in which the tenets of internationalized pedagogy and curricular reform infiltrate all of

the faculties and departments within an institution.

Research indicates that some academic disciplines such as anthropology, foreign

languages, fine arts, science, history, and political science see themselves as inherently

international and may not see a need to further internationalize their curricula (Bond 2003a;


21

Edwards & Tonkin, 1990; Schoorman, 1999; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). However, as a faculty

member within Schoorman's (1999) U.S. based case study recognized, although "the problems of

science are international, and the same for all,…the approach to that problem depends on the

culture" (p. 29). Faculty members who deny the need to internationalize their courses are

neglecting to consider the diverse learning styles and experiences of international students within

their classes. As Benick and Saloojee (1996) indicated, "an inclusive learning environment can

be created in any course regardless of discipline because it is about respecting students and

valuing them as partners in teaching and learning" (p. 2). For an overview of the

"internationalized curricula by discipline" (Taylor, 2000, p. 12) at Canadian institutions, please

refer to Appendix A.

An internationalized curriculum demands a move from a teacher-centered learning

environment, in which the traditional lecture and discussion style of teaching dominates (Bond,

2003a, 2006; Jones & Young, 1997; Lynch, 1997; Vertesi, 1999), to a more inclusive, student-

centered, interactive, and experiential learning environment (Benick, Newby, & Samuel, 1996;

Bond, 2003a; Saloojee, 1996; Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007). Such an environment would value

the diverse learning styles and previous experiences of international students (Guo & Jamal,

2007; Lynch, 1997; McLoughlin, 2001; Peelo & Luxon, 2007; Saloojee, 1996; Vertesi, 1999).

Moreover, it would incorporate intercultural and international dimensions to facilitate the

academic achievement of culturally diverse students (Banks, 2002; Bond, 2003a, 2006;

Maidstone, 1995; Otten, 2003; Whalley, Langley, & Villarreal, 1997; Vertesi, 1999). Bond

(2006) indicated that 80% of Canadian faculty utilizes the lecture format as the predominant

method of instruction; however, 90% of students indicated that interactive pedagogies promote

improved learning environments.


22

Researchers propose incorporating a range of learner-centered instructional strategies that

encourage international students' participation such as peer learning; small and large group

discussions and projects that incorporate diverse groups of students and examine particular issues

from various cultural perspectives; reaction papers and reflective writing assignments focusing

on intercultural issues; analyses of international case studies; problem solving exercises focusing

on international or intercultural contexts; the use of multimedia and technology within the

classroom; and the incorporation of international students and international guest speakers in the

class (Castaneda, 2004; Grey, 2002; Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007; Taylor, 2004; Whalley et al.,

1997). However, the majority of faculty members within Schuerholz-Lehr et al.'s (2007) study

expressed uncertainty about how to incorporate an international perspective within their

teaching, implying a need to offer professional development opportunities for faculty members

to assist them in providing effective and relevant teaching and learning strategies for their

culturally diverse students. Bond et al. (2003) proposed a number of practical "best

practices/good practices" (p. 11) for teaching and learning within an internationalized curriculum

derived from faculty across Canada. (See Appendix B for a list of these strategies.) These

strategies would be appropriate for faculty from diverse disciplines to employ in order to

enhance the learning environment for all students within their classes, regardless of students'

cultural or ethnic backgrounds.

Whatever techniques are employed, it is incumbent upon faculty to modify their

pedagogical approaches to meet the diverse learning needs of a multicultural student population

(Adams, 1992; Banks, 2002; Maidstone, 1995; Vertesi, 1999). Faculty must explicitly outline the

academic expectations and teaching and learning style requirements of the new educational

environment (Lim & Ilagan-Klomegah, 2003; Mullins et al., 1995; Samuelowicz, 1987). Faculty


23

should also guide and support students in understanding their reasons and goals for utilizing

particular teaching strategies within the classroom environment (Bond et al., 2003; Burns, 1991;

Carroll & Appleton, 2007; Mullins et al., 1995). Furthermore, faculty members must provide

sufficient time to enable international students to modify and add to their existing repertoire of

learning styles to more successfully engage in their new learning environment (Valiente, 2008).

As Schuerholz-Lehr and van Gyn (2006) noted, "good teaching is at the heart of

internationalizing the curriculum" (p. 13).

Schuerholz-Lehr and van Gyn (2006) proposed a 'course design wheel' (see Appendix C)

based on the tenets of student-centered learning and encompassing the three essential elements of

an internationalized curriculum: internationalized content, internationalized pedagogical

strategies, and culturally sensitive assessment strategies. The learning outcomes within their

wheel include "intercultural competence, global awareness, world mindedness, global literacy,

embrace of pluralism, and shift in frames of reference" (Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006, p.

23).

The three approaches to internationalizing the curriculum most common in Canadian

post-secondary institutions are the add-on, infusion, and transformation approaches (Bond,

2003a, 2003b).

The first approach used to internationalize the curriculum was the add-on approach (Bond

2003b). It is characterized by adding "content, concepts, themes, and perspectives…to the

curriculum without changing its structure" (Banks, 2004, p. 246), nor its pedagogical approaches.

Nevertheless, as Harari (1992) stressed, curricular reform requires more than "adding a course

here and there, more than repackaging of old courses" (p. 54).


24

The infusion approach to internationalizing the curriculum is the one most commonly

employed in Canadian post-secondary institutions today (Bond, 2003b). Within this approach,

the curriculum is infused with "course content that reflects diverse perspectives [and]… provides

students with knowledge of the differences in professional practices…across cultures" (Whalley

et al., 1997, p. 16). The infusion approach focuses on the interdisciplinary nature of the

internationalization of the curriculum and provides opportunities for students in all fields of

study to experience "an international, multicultural and if possible intercultural dimension"

(Maidstone, 1995, p. 63-64). However, DeVita and Case (2003) cautioned against the use of an

infusion approach, which they regard as perpetuating Western approaches and philosophies of

learning. They expressed concern that this approach focuses on knowledge dissemination rather

than on the active and critical learning required for the development of intercultural skills and

attitudes, and insisted that questions need to be asked about the "source of knowledge that is

infused, its history and geography, and the legitimacy of labeling Western constructions as

international content" (DeVita & Case, 2003, p. 389). In a similar vein, Brookfield (2007) cited

Marcuse's (1965) research as a rationale in opposition to such an infused approach to curricular

reform. As Brookfield (2007) suggested, the emphasis in higher education on exposing students

to diverse perspectives and ways of knowing stems from the humanistic value of "hav[ing] all

student voices heard, all experiences analyzed, and all viewpoints honored" (p. 557). However,

Brookfield (2007) summarized Marcuse's (1965) argument that diversifying the curriculum is

ultimately repressive rather than liberating. By incorporating diverse perspectives and radical

values within their curricula, faculty members simply juxtapose mainstream, Euro-centric

perspectives and values against minority views, which "always dilutes their radical qualities"

(Brookfield, 2007, p. 558). The majority ideology will always end up overshadowing that of the


25

minority, thereby ensuring "its continued dominance" (Brookfield, 2007, p. 560). Faculty must

be cognizant of the cautions proposed by these researchers if they choose to employ the infusion

approach.

The final approach to internationalizing the curriculum, the transformation approach, is

probably the most difficult to adopt and the least utilized approach to modify the curriculum

(Bond, 2003a, 2003b). Bond (2003a) stated that the goal of the transformation approach is "to

enable students to move between two or more worldviews" (p. 5). This culturally inclusive

approach, which is based upon the student-centered tenets of critical pedagogy, promotes a

counter-hegemonic view of curricular reform aimed at eradicating inequitable social structures

through the educational process and helping students appreciate the multiple realities that exist in

today's global society (Banks, 2002, 2004; Joseph, 2008; Khalideen, 2006; Kitano, 1997; Morey,

2000; Schapper & Mayson, 2004; Schoorman, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). The transformation

approach recognizes that the intellectual skills and knowledge that institutions impart to their

students within the curricula are culturally biased (Kennedy, 1995; Mestenhauser, 2002a, 2002b;

Rivzi & Walsh, 1998); therefore, a transformed curriculum demands a critical examination and

transcendence of the cultural assumptions and traditional, male dominated, Euro-centric values

espoused within the traditional curriculum of many Western post-secondary institutions

(Maidstone, 1995; Marchesani & Adams, 1992; Rivzi & Walsh, 1998). Schoorman (1999)

indicated that this counter-hegemonic approach to internationalization requires "the

representation (not confined tokenism) of multiple cultural perspectives in the knowledge

generated and in the organizational practices of the education institution" (p. 23). Marchesani

and Adams (1992) stressed that a transformed curriculum honours the multiple "experiences,

perspectives, and worldviews of traditionally marginalized peoples….It encourages new ways of


26

thinking, incorporates new methodologies, so that different epistemological questions are raised,

old assumptions are quested, subjective data sources are considered, and prior theories either

revised or invalidated" (pp. 15-16). Within the transformation approach, the internationalization

of the curriculum moves beyond the simple exploration of cultural diversity (Rivzi & Walsh,

1998). Students must be encouraged to critically question and examine "the politics of difference

in relation to histories of knowledge and power [within society and the]…dominant values and

other competing values " (Rivzi & Walsh, 1998, p. 10). Consequently, a transformed approach to

an internationalized curriculum aims to assist students with developing the required critical

consciousness, values, awareness, skills, and knowledge of cross-cultural differences to thrive as

global citizens in a constantly changing world (Khalideen, 2006; McTaggart, 2003; Rivzi &

Walsh, 1998; Schuerholz-Lehr, 2007; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006). Students' diverse

cultural backgrounds are valued and respected within the classroom environment and students

are encouraged to explore reality through the lenses of varied cultural and ethnic groups (Banks,

2002, 2004; Quan, 1996). Moreover, the transformation approach to curriculum development

provides the opportunity for students to have a voice within the learning environment; students

actively participate in the learning process and teachers and learners share the power within the

classroom and learn from each other (Kitano, 1997; Quan, 1996; Schoorman, 1999). As Morey

(2000) indicated, although "certain disciplines lend themselves more readily to transformation,

such as those in the humanities and social sciences…even those in mathematics and the basic

and applied sciences (including those taught in large lecture formats) can be modified or

transformed" (pp. 29-31) to be more culturally inclusive.

Within the transformation perspective, an internationalized curriculum provides students

with an opportunity to explore the impact of diverse cultures on knowledge construction within


27

the field of study (Whalley et al., 1997). Course content should incorporate, wherever possible,

sources representing local, national, and international perspectives (Freedman, 1998; Knight,

1997; Schoorman, 2000b; Whalley et al., 1997). Knowledge should be examined not from the

perspective of a single discipline, but from multidisciplinary contexts (Bond, 2003a; Freedman,

1998) and should "include sources that may be fragmented [and] conflicting" (Freedman, 1998,

p. 50). Internationalized course content should be carefully chosen to ensure it accurately reflects

different countries and cultures and should encourage students to critically reflect on their own

socially determined cultural identity in order to "provide emancipatory learning experiences" (p.

16).

Although the infusion approach to internationalizing the curriculum may be the most

prevalent in Canadian post-secondary institutions and is viewed by many researchers as being an

effective means of internationalizing the curriculum (Bond, 2003b; Cogan, 1998; Harari, 1992;

Maidstone, 1995), one questions whether this method is truly sufficient to meet the needs of

culturally diverse students in today's global society. As Mestenhauser (1998) indicated,

"knowledge is not universal, but culture-specific, and…the infusion model merely adds to the

existing traditional structure of knowledge without confronting its origin" (p. 17). The

transformation approach, on the other hand, encourages students and faculty to critically explore

diverse ways of knowing and being and "has the potential to…change, in fundamental ways how

faculty and students think about the world and their place in it" (Bond, 2003b, p. 8). This

student-centered approach to curriculum and pedagogy, in which faculty and students act as

partners in the learning and teaching process (Kitano, 1997; Quan, 1996; Schoorman, 1999),

aims to transcend the Euro-centric content and ways of knowing that may impede the academic

success of some international students (Maidstone, 1995; Marchesani & Adams, 1992; Rivzi &


28

Walsh, 1998). Although further research is required to determine which approach would result in

the greatest gains for international students in terms of their academic achievement and success,

it would appear that the transformation approach has the greatest potential to create culturally

inclusive classroom environments that would meet the needs of today's diverse student

populations, and in particular, international students.

Roles of Stakeholders

The internationalization of the curriculum is an ongoing, multifaceted process that

requires the collaboration and support of faculty members, students, academic departments, the

institutional administration, and international offices on campuses. Taylor (2000) also suggested

the importance of teaching and learning centers in providing support for this process; however,

within Canadian post-secondary institutions, "few centers appear to be proactive in the

internationalization of the curriculum" (Taylor, 2000, p. 19). For stakeholders to work together to

successfully internationalize the curriculum, it requires commitment to the process, intercultural

sensitivity, financial support, willingness, interest, open lines of communication, and

interdisciplinary cooperation (Ellingboe, 1998). Additionally, as Harari (1992) stated, "there is

no substitute to a consensus-building process which must be initiated and nurtured on campus"

(p. 69).

Researchers overwhelmingly contend that faculty members are the key to the reform

process required for the internationalization of the curriculum (Bond, 2006; Bond et al., 2003;

Carter, 1992; Ellingboe, 1998; Green & Olson, 2003; Harari, 1992; Paige, 2003; Saloojee, 1996;

Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006; Taylor, 2000). "Faculty are in a preferential and privileged

position to influence the classroom atmosphere and to create environments where students learn

effectively and successfully" (Samuel & Burney, 2003, p. 84). In Bond et al.'s (2003) study of


29

faculty members at Canadian post-secondary institutions, 80% of faculty respondents envisioned

themselves as having the primary responsibility for internationalizing the curriculum. Moreover,

only "20% [of participants] said they did not make 'every effort to internationalize' their courses"

(p. 5). Although these results are hopeful for internationalization at Canadian institutions, Bond

(2006) reminds us that in order to engage faculty in the curricular internationalization process,

faculty members need to see a clear link between the curricular reform process and their personal

projects and missions.

Nevertheless, faculty cannot act alone in this process (Harari, 1992; Tonkin & Edwards,

1981). Although it is the responsibility of faculty to devise and deliver curricula, visionary senior

administrators and institutional leaders, including the president, the Senate, academic deans, and

faculty-administrators, through a consensus-seeking process, must provide guidance, leadership,

professional development opportunities, and support to assist faculty in internationalizing the

curriculum (Ellingboe, 1998; Green & Olson, 2003; Harari, 1992; James & Nef, 2002; Jones &

Andrews, 2002; Knight, 1994, 1995; Maidstone, 1995; Paige, 2003; Schoorman, 2000b; Taylor,

2004; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). Institutional leaders must support faculty in creating more

inclusive learning environments that reflect the present and future needs of the institution and its

students (Benick et al., 1996). Green and Olson (2003) emphasized that effective leaders provide

the energy and momentum required for institutional change and have the power to remove the

barriers inhibiting change. Maidstone (1995) cautioned that internationalization of the

curriculum will remain a marginalized activity undertaken by a limited number of faculty

working in isolation unless senior administration provides the support and structural framework

necessary for change. However, Mestenhauser (1998) admonished that the senior administrators

who traditionally make decisions regarding the curricular reform process often don't have the


30

required interdisciplinary, intercultural, and pedagogical competencies required to engage in this

process.

Other studies have emphasized the role of a centralized international office staffed by

experienced, inter-culturally sensitive personnel in supporting internationalization efforts such as

the curricular reform process (Harari, 1992; Jones & Andrews, 2002; Knight, 1995). For

example, although the role of the international office at the University of Alberta is to provide

assistance with program development and to promote collaboration amongst faculties and

between senior administrators and individual faculties (Jones & Andrews, 2002), this does not

appear to be the case with the majority of Canadian post-secondary institutions. Very few of the

institutions within Knight's (2000a) and McKellin's (1998) studies alluded to the role that an

international office on their campus plays in promoting and facilitating the internationalization of

the curriculum.

Students also play a crucial role in internationalizing the curriculum. The importance of

including a cross-cultural perspective within the curriculum and pedagogical techniques of a

course and of drawing upon the knowledge and experiences of international students as a

resource towards this goal is essential for successful curricular reform (Bond, 2006; Bond et al.,

2003; Edwards & Tonkin, 1990; Harari, 1992; Knight, 1994; Leask, 2001; Maidstone, 1995;

Mestenhauser, 1998; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981; Vertesi, 1999). Nevertheless, numerous

researchers denounce that faculty neglect to call upon the international students or domestic

students in their classrooms with international or intercultural experience as potential resources

(Bond, 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Mestenhauser, 1998, 2002b; Taylor, 2004; Vertesi, 1999). Knight

(2000a), in her longitudinal Canadian study, noted that fewer than 20% of the Canadian

universities surveyed provide "support to faculty on how to use the experience and knowledge of


31

international students…in the classroom" (p. 45). Nevertheless, Bond et al.'s (2003) national

study on the role of faculty in internationalizing the curriculum at Canadian institutions found

that "faculty strongly agrees (90%) that they encourage international students and students who

have lived in another culture to contribute their understanding and experience to classroom

discussions, projects and assignments" (p.10). A limitation of this study, however, is connected

with response bias in that the participants self-selected to participate in the Internet survey on a

voluntary basis. Bond's (2003, 2006a) study of the role of Canadian faculty members in

internationalizing the curriculum revealed that female faculty members, faculty who speak

several languages, and faculty who have lived or studied in a foreign country are more likely to

encourage the contributions of such students within their classes. Schoorman's (1999) case study,

which examined the views of faculty at a large Midwestern American research university

towards the value of incorporating international students as educational resources within the

classroom, found that faculty members who employed a "facilitative, dialogical instructional

style" (p. 37) tended to recognize the cultural knowledge and experiences of foreign students in

their classes. However, faculty from the Department of Science, in particular, indicated that, "the

culture of students made no difference in the teaching and learning…[T]o pay attention to the

culture of students implied a lowering of the standards of excellence" (Schoorman, 1999, p. 37).

This research appears to support Vertesi's (1991) belief that, "international students in all courses

are an untapped force for internationalization" (p. 154). Nevertheless, it is important that in

attempting to engage the international students in their classes, that faculty not be seen as

singling out these students as different or exotic since this may succeed in further marginalizing

these students rather than making them feel valued and included (Bond et al., 2003, Schuerholz-

Lehr et al., 2007).


32

Conclusion

The extensive body of research examining the academic adjustment difficulties of

international students appears to provide evidence that the traditional Euro-centric curricular and

pedagogical practices evident in post-secondary institutions within the Western world do not

provide a learning environment readily conducive to many international students' academic

success. An internationalized curriculum, encompassing curricular and pedagogical reforms that

recognize the diverse backgrounds and learning styles of international students, could be an ideal

remedy for better supporting the learning needs of this group of students. However, the

establishment of an internationalized curriculum would require an ongoing, collaborative,

interdisciplinary approach combining the support, knowledge, efforts, and skills of inter-

culturally sensitive and internationally experienced faculty, students, and administrators. Such a

curricular reform process must be institution-wide in order to best meet the needs of all students

in all departments and faculties. Furthermore, institutions need to be aware of the numerous

factors that can inhibit the successful development and delivery of an internationalized

curriculum in order to address and minimize the effects of these variables on their curricular

reform process. Although the infusion approach to the internationalization of the curriculum

prevails in many Canadian post-secondary institutions today and is preferable to the earlier add-

on approach, it is still not sufficient to meet the diverse needs of today's international students.

The move towards a transformation approach, which promotes a critical awareness of the bias

and values inherent in Western pedagogical and curricular approaches, honours and

acknowledges culturally diverse ways of knowing and being, and values students as active

partners in the learning process, is the goal towards which post-secondary institutions should

aspire for the benefit of future generations of domestic and international students.


33

References

Adams, M. (1992). Cultural inclusion in the American college classroom. In L. L. B. Border &

N. Van Note Chism (Eds.), Teaching for diversity: New directions for teaching and

learning: Vol. 49 (5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International student persistence: Integration or cultural integrity?

Journal of College Student Retention: Research Theory & Practice, 8(1), 57-81.

Arthur, A. (2004). Counseling international students: Clients from around the world. New York:

Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2007a). Trends in higher education:

Volume 1. Enrolment. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from

http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/trends_2007_vol1_e.pdf

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2007b, August). Internationalization of the

curriculum. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from

http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/curriculum_2007_e.pdf

Banks, J. A. (2002). An introduction to multicultural education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Banks, J. A. (2004). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. In J. A. Banks & C. A.

McGee Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (5th ed.) (pp.

242-264). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Benick, G., Newby, D., & Samuel, M. (1996). Forging the links between institutional players. In

G. Benick & A. Salooje (Eds.), Creating inclusive post-secondary learning environments

(pp. 19-33). Toronto, ON: Ryerson Polytechnic University.

Benick, G., & Saloojee, A. (1996). Introduction. In G. Benick & A. Salooje (Eds.), Creating

inclusive post-secondary learning environments (pp. 1-4). Toronto, ON: Ryerson

Polytechnic University.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (2nd ed.).

Philadelphia, PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University

Press.

Bond, S. (2003a). Engaging educators: Bringing the world into the classroom: Guidelines for

practice. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Bureau for International Education.

Bond, S. (2003b). Untapped resources: Internationalization of the curriculum and classroom

experience: A selected literature review (CBIE Research Millennium Series No. 7).

Ottawa, ON: Canadian Bureau for International Education.

http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/trends_2007_vol1_e.pdf

http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/curriculum_2007_e.pdf


34

Bond, S. (2006). Transforming the culture of learning: Evoking the international dimension in

Canadian university curriculum. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from

http://international.yorku.ca/global/conference/canada/papers/Sheryl-Bond.pdf

Bond, S., Qian, J., & Huang, J. (2003). The role of faculty in internationalizing the

undergraduate curriculum and classroom experience (CBIE Research Millennium Series

No. 8). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Bureau for International Education.

Bond, S., & Thayer Scott, J. (1999). From reluctant acceptance to modest embrace:

Internationalization of undergraduate education. In S. Bond & J.-P. Lemasson (Eds.), A

new world of knowledge: Canadian universities and globalization (pp. 45-76). Ottawa,

ON: International Development Research Centre.

Bonfiglio, O. (1999). The difficulties of internationalizing the American undergraduate

curriculum. Journal of Studies in International Education, 3(2), 3-18.

Bowry, C. (2002). Foreign students on campus: Questioning the educational benefits. In S. Bond

& C. Bowry (Eds.), Connections and complexities: The internationalization of higher

education in Canada (Occasional Paper Series in Higher Education No. 11, pp. 3-9).

Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba, Centre for Higher Education Research and

Development.

Bremer, L., & van der Wende, M. (1995). Internationalizing the curriculum in higher education:

Experiences in the Netherlands. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Nuffic.

Brookfield, S. (2007). Diversifying curriculum as the practice of repressive tolerance. Teaching

in Higher Education, 12(5-6), pp. 557-568.

Brown, S., & Jones, E. (2007). Introduction: Values, valuing and value in an internationalized

higher education context. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising higher

education (pp. 1-6). New York: Routledge.

Burn, B. (2002). The curriculum as a global domain. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 6(3), 253-261.

Burns, R. (1991). Study and stress among first year overseas students in an Australian university.

Higher Education Research and Development, 10(1), 61-77.

Canadian Association of University Teachers. (2008). CAUT policies: Policy statement on

international students. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from

http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=279&lang=1

Carroll, J., & Appleton, J. (2007). Support and guidance for learning from an international

perspective. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising higher education (pp.72-

85). New York: Routledge.

http://international.yorku.ca/global/conference/canada/papers/Sheryl-Bond.pdf

http://www.caut.ca/en/policies/internationalstudents.asp


35

Carter, H. M. (1992). Implementation of international competence strategies: Faculty. In C. B.

Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the future: Strategies for internationalizing higher education

(pp. 39-51). Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education Administrators.

Castaneda. C. R. (2004). Teaching and learning in diverse classrooms: Faculty reflections on

their experiences and pedagogical practices of teaching diverse populations. New York:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Chapman Wadsworth, B., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008). The role of identity gaps,

discrimination and acculturation in international students' educational satisfaction in

American classrooms. Communication Education, 57(1), 67-87.

Chen, S. (1996). Learning multiculturalism from the experience of international students: The

experience of international students in a teacher training program. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 398177)

Chen, L.-H. (2006b, March 2). Internationalizing Canadian graduate education: East Asian

international students' perspectives. Paper presented at the Internationalizing Canada's

Universities: Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities symposium. Retrieved May 20,

2008, from http://www.yorku.ca/yorkint/global/conference/canada/papers/Liang-Hsuan-

Chen.pdf

Chen, S. (1996). Learning multiculturalism from the experience of international students: The

experience of international students in a teacher training program. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 398177)

Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 540-572.

Cleveland-Innes, M., Emes, C., & Ellard, H. J. (2001). On being a social change agent in a

reluctant collegial environment. Planning for Higher Education, 29(4), 25-33.

Cogan, J. J. (1998). Internationalization through networking and curricular infusion. In J. A.

Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum:

Internationalizing the campus (pp. 106-117). Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for learning across cultures. In D. McNamara &

R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in higher education: Issues in teaching and learning

(pp. 76-90). New York: Routledge.

Crabtree, R. D., & Sapp, D. A. (2004). Your culture, my classroom, whose pedagogy?

Negotiating effective teaching and learning in Brazil. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 8(1), 105-132.

http://www.yorku.ca/yorkint/global/conference/canada/papers/Liang-Hsuan-Chen.pdf

http://www.yorku.ca/yorkint/global/conference/canada/papers/Liang-Hsuan-Chen.pdf


36

Cunningham, C. G. (1991). The integration of international students on Canadian post-

secondary campuses (CBIE Research No. 1). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Bureau for

International Education.

Dalili, F. (1982). Roles and responsibilities of international student advisors and counselors in

the United States. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED225499)

De Vita, G., & Case, P. (2003). Rethinking the internationalization agenda in UK higher

education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(4), 383-398.

Durkin, K. (2008). The adaptation of East Asian masters students to western norms of critical

thinking and augmentation in the UK. Intercultural Education, 19(1), 15-27.

Edwards, J., & Tonkin, H. (1990). Internationalizing the community college: Strategies for the

classroom. New Directions for Community Colleges, 70, 17-26.

Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to internationalize a campus portrait: Results,

resistance and recommendations from a case study at a U.S. university. In J. A.



Ellis, B., Sawyer, J., Gill, R., Medlin, J., and Wilson, D. (2005). Influences of the learning

environment of a regional university campus on its international graduates. The

Australian Educational Researcher, 32(2), 65-85.

Freedman, K. (1998). Culture in curriculum: Internationalizing learning by design. In J. A.



Galloway, F. J., & Jenkins, J. R. (2005). The adjustment problems faced by international students

in the United States: A comparison of international students and administrative

perceptions at two private, religiously affiliated universities. NASPA Journal, 42(2), 175-

187.

Grayson, J. P. (2006, March 2-3). The experiences and outcomes of domestic and international

students at UBC, York, McGill, and Dalhousie. Paper presented at the Internationalizing

Canada's Universities Symposium: Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities, Toronto,

Ontario, Canada. Retrieved July 4, 2008, from

http://international.yorku.ca/global/conference/canada/papers/Paul-Grayson.pdf

Green, M. F., & Olson, C. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user's guide. Washington,

DC: American Council on Education.

Grey, M. (2002). Drawing with difference: Challenges faced by international students in an

undergraduate business degree. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(2), 153-166.

http://international.yorku.ca/global/conference/canada/papers/Paul-Grayson.pdf


37

Guo, S., & Jamal, Z. (2007). Nurturing cultural diversity in higher education: A critical review of

selected models. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(3), 27-49.

Harari, M. (1992). The internationalization of the curriculum. In C. B. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to

the future: Strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 52-79). Carbondale, IL:

Association of International Education Administrators.

Harris, R. (1995). Overseas students in the United Kingdom university system. Higher

Education, 29(1), 77-92.

Hayle, M. E. (2008). Educational benefits of internationalizing higher education: The students'

perspectives. Unpublished master's thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario,

Canada.

Heikenheimo, P. S., & Shute, J. C. M. (1986). The adaptation of foreign students: Student views

and institutional implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(5), 399-406.

Hellstén, M., & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at university: The international student experience.

International Education Journal, 5(3), 344-351.

James, S., & Nef, J. (2002). The role of the institutional context in the internationalization of

higher education. In S. Bond & C. Bowry (Eds.), Connections and complexities: The

internationalization of higher education in Canada (Occasional Paper Series in Higher

Education No. 11, pp. 125-148). Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba, Centre for

Higher Education Research and Development.

Jones, T. J., & Young, G. S. A. (1997). Classroom dynamics: Disclosing the hidden curriculum.

In A. I. Morey & M. K. Kitano (Eds.), Multicultural course transformation in higher

education: A broader truth, (pp. 89-103). Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Jones, Z., & Andrews, M. B. (2002). Organizational strategies for internationalization of higher

education. In S. Bond & C. Bowry (Eds.), Connections and complexities: The


Education No. 11, pp. 89-112). Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba, Centre for Higher

Education Research and Development.

Joseph, C. (2008). Difference, subjectivities and power: (De)colonizing practices in

internationalizing the curriculum. Intercultural Education, 19(1), 29-39.

Kennedy, K. J. (1995). Developing a curriculum guarantee for overseas students. Higher

Education Research and Development, 14(1), 35-46.

Khalideen, R. (2006, March 2-3). Internationalizing the curriculum in Canadian universities:

Considering in the influence of power, politics and ethics. Paper presented at the

Internationalizing Canada's Universities: Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities


38

symposium. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from

http://www.yorku.ca/yorkint/global/conference/canada/papers/Rosetta-Khalideen.pdf

Kitano, M. K. (1997). What a course will look like after multicultural change. In A. I. Morey &

M. K. Kitano (Eds.), Multicultural course transformation in higher education: A broader

truth, (pp. 18-34). Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints (CBIE Research No. 7).

Ottawa, ON: Canadian Bureau for International Education.

Knight, J. (1995). Internationalization at Canadian universities: The changing landscape.

Ottawa, ON: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Knight, J. (1997). A shared vision? Stakeholders perspectives on the internationalization of

higher education in Canada. Journal of Studies in International Education, 1(1), 27-44.

Knight, J. (1999). Issues and trends in internationalization: A comparative perspective. In S.

Bond & J.-P. Lemasson (Eds.), A new world of knowledge: Canadian universities and

globalization (pp. 201-238). Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre.

Knight, J. (2000a). Progress and promise: The AUCC report on internationalization at

Canadian universities. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Knight, J. (2000b). Taking the pulse: Monitoring the quality and progress of internationalization

including tracking measures (CBIE Research Millennium Series No. 2). Ottawa, ON:

Canadian Bureau for International Education.

Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33, 2-

3.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales.

Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31.

Kuhlman, A. (1992). International students and scholars. In C. B. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the

future: Strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 22-38). Carbondale, IL:

Association of International Education Administrators.

Lacina, J. G. (2002). Preparing international students for a successful social experience in higher

education. New Directions for Higher Education, 117, 21-27.

Leask, B. (2001). Bridging the gap: Internationalizing university curricula. Journal of Studies in

International Education, 5(2), 100-115.

Lemasson, J.-P. (1999). Introduction: The internationalization of Canadian universities. In S.

Bond & J.-P. Lemasson (Eds.), A new world of knowledge: Canadian universities and

globalization (pp. 1-19). Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre.

http://www.yorku.ca/yorkint/global/conference/canada/papers/Rosetta-Khalideen.pdf


39

Lemasson, J.-P. (2002). Internationalization and partnership: A dynamic relationship. In S. Bond

& C. Bowry (Eds.), Connections and complexities: The internationalization of higher

education in Canada (Occasional Paper Series in Higher Education No. 11, pp. 79-86).

Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba, Centre for Higher Education Research and

Development.

Lim, I. L., & Ilagan-Klomegah, P. (2003). Malaspina University-College: Linking students,

linking cultures. In International students: Contributing to the internationalization

process. A series of case studies (pp. 11-17). Victoria, BC: The British Columbia Centre

for International Education.

Lynch, E. W. (1997). Instructional strategies. In A. T. Morey & M. K. Kitano (Eds.),

Multicultural course transformation in higher education: A broader truth (pp. 56-70).

Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Maidstone, P. (1995). International literacy: A paradigm for change. A manual for

internationalizing the post-secondary curriculum. Victoria, BC: Province of British

Columbia, Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.

Marchesani, L. S., & Adams, M. (1992). Dynamics of diversity in the teaching-learning process:

A faculty development model for analysis and action. In M. Adams (Ed.), New directions

for teaching and learning: Vol. 52 (pp. 9-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marcuse, H. (1965). Repressive tolerance. In R. P. Wolff, B. Moore, Jr., & H. Marcuse, A

critique of pure tolerance (pp. 81-117). Boston: Beacon Press.

McKellin, K. (1998). Maintaining the momentum: The internationalization of British Columbia's

post secondary institutions. Victoria, BC: The British Columbia Centre for International

Education.

McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment

design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 7-29.

McTaggart, R. (2003). Internationalisation of the curriculum. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from

James Cook University, Teaching website:

http://www.jcu.edu.au/teaching/idc/groups/public/documents/staff_publications/jcuprd_0

16751.pdf

Mestenhauser, J.A. (1998). Portraits of an international curriculum: An uncommon

multidimensional perspective. In J. A. Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming

the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus (pp. 3-39). Phoenix, AZ:

The Oryx Press.

Mestenhauser, J. A. (2002a). Critical, creative and comparative thinking in an internationalized

curriculum. In S. Bond & C. Bowry (Eds.), Connections and complexities: The


40




Mestenhauser, J. A. (2002b). The utilization of foreign students in internationalization of

universities. In S. Bond & C. Bowry (Eds.), Connections and complexities: The




Mullins, G., Quintrell, N., & Hancock, L. (1995). The experiences of international and local

students at three Australian universities. Higher Education Research and Development,

14(1), 201-232.

Myles, J., Qian, J., & Cheng, L. (2002). International and new immigrant students' adaptations to

the social and cultural life at a Canadian university. In S. Bond & C. Bowry (Eds.),

Connections and complexities: The internationalization of higher education in Canada

(Occasional Paper Series in Higher Education No. 11, pp. 29-41). Winnipeg: The

University of Manitoba, Centre for Higher Education Research and Development.

O'Brien, D., & Sarkar, A. (2002). International add-ons': Must this be the fate of

internationalization of higher education in Canada? In S. Bond & C. Bowry (Eds.),

Connections and complexities: The internationalization of higher education in Canada

(Occasional Paper Series in Higher Education No. 11, pp. 149-166). Winnipeg: The

University of Manitoba, Centre for Higher Education Research and Development.

Odgers, T., & Giroux, I. (2006, March 2-3). Internationalizing faculty: A phased approach to

transforming curriculum design and instruction. Paper presented at Internationalizing

Canada's Universities: Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities symposium. Retrieved

June 2, 2008, from

http://www.yorku.ca/yorkint/global/conference/canada/papers/Odgers-Giroux.pdf

Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education. Journal of Studies in


Paige, R. M. (2003). The American case: The University of Minnesota. Journal of Studies in


Pavel, S. (2006). Interaction between international and American college students: An

exploratory study. The Wesleyan Journal of Psychology, 1, 39-55.

Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19(1),

10-58.

http://www.yorku.ca/yorkint/global/conference/canada/papers/Odgers-Giroux.pdf


41

Peelo, M., & Luxon, T. (2007). Designing embedded courses to support international students'

cultural and academic adjustment in the UK. Journal of Further and Higher Education,

31(1), 65-76.

Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international students

within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(1), 28-

45.

Quan, S. (1996). Transforming curriculum. In G. Benick & A. Salooje (Eds.), Creating inclusive

post-secondary learning environments (pp. 67-75). Toronto, ON: Ryerson Polytechnic

University.

Reus, K. (2007). International post-secondary education: The education gateway. Retrieved

May 25, 2008, from Campus 2020 Web Site:

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/campus2020/documents/education_gateway.pdf

Rivzi, F., & Walsh, L. (1998). Difference, globalisation and the internationalization of the

curriculum. Australian Universities' Review 41(2), 7-11.

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning

environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher

Education Research and Development, 19(1), 89-102.

Saloojee, A. (1996). Creating inclusive learning environments. In G. Benick & A. Salooje (Eds.),

Creating inclusive post-secondary learning environments (pp. 35-55). Toronto, ON:

Ryerson Polytechnic University.

Samuel, E., & Burney, S. (2003). Racism, eh? Interactions of South Asian students with

mainstream faculty in a predominantly white Canadian university. The Canadian Journal

of Higher Education, 33(2), 81-114.

Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students. Higher Education Research

and Development, 6(2), 121-134.

Savage, C. (2005). The national report on international students in Canada 2002. Ottawa: The

Canadian Bureau for International Education.

Schapper, J. N., & Mayson, S. E. (2004). Internationalisation of curricula: An alternative to the

Taylorisation of academic work. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,

26(2), 189-205.

Schoorman, D. (1999). The pedagogical implications of diverse conceptualizations of

internationalization: A U.S.-based case study. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 3(2), 19-46.

http://www.campus2020.ca/EN/international_post-secondary_education:_the_education_gateway/


42

Schoorman, D. (2000a). How is internationalization implemented? A framework for

organizational practice. Boca Raton, FL: Florida Atlantic University. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. 444426)

Schoorman, D. (2000b). What really do we mean by 'internationalization?' Contemporary

Education [Electronic version], 71(4).

Schuerholz-Lehr, S. (2007). Teaching for global literacy in higher education: How prepared are

the educators? Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 180-204.

Schuerholz-Lehr, S., Caws, C., van Gyn, G., & Preece, A. (2007). Internationalizing the higher

education curriculum: An emerging model for transforming faculty perspectives.

Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(1), 67-94.

Schuerholz-Lehr, S., & van Gyn, G. (2006, March 2-3). Internationalizing pedagogy or applying

pedagogy to internationalism - the journey of a professional development workshop.

Paper presented at Internationalizing Canada's Universities: Practices, Challenges, and

Opportunities symposium. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from

http://www.acadiau.ca/fountaincommons/teaching/documents/Sabine-Schuerholz-

Lehr_000.pdf

Shute, J. (2002). The influence of faculty in shaping internationalization. In S. Bond & C. Bowry

(Eds.), Connections and complexities: The internationalization of higher education in

Canada (Occasional Paper Series in Higher Education No. 11, pp. 113-123). Winnipeg:

The University of Manitoba, Centre for Higher Education Research and Development.

Taraban, S., Dippo, D., Fynbo, T., & Alsop, S. (2006, March 2-3.). From individual projects to

faculty-wide engagement: The developing role of the international advisory group in

internationalization of York's Faculty of Education. Paper presented at Internationalizing

Canada's Universities: Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities symposium. Retrieved

June 6, 2008, from

http://www.yorku.ca/yorkint/global/conference/canada/papers/Svitlana-Taraban.pdf

Taylor, F. (2000). Canadian university efforts to internationalize the curriculum. Ottawa, ON:

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Taylor, J. (2004). Toward a strategy for internationalisation: Lessons and practice from four

universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(2), 149-171.

Teekens, H. (2003). The requirement to develop specific skills for teaching in an intercultural

setting. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 108-119.

Terenzini, P. T, Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L., et al.

(1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in Higher

Education, 35(1), 57-73.

http://www.acadiau.ca/fountaincommons/teaching/documents/Sabine-Schuerholz-Lehr_000.pdf

http://www.acadiau.ca/fountaincommons/teaching/documents/Sabine-Schuerholz-Lehr_000.pdf

http://www.yorku.ca/yorkint/global/conference/canada/papers/Svitlana-Taraban.pdf


43

The University of British Columbia. (2006, April 11). Bridge to the 21st century:

Internationalization at UBC. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from

http://www.trek2000.ubc.ca/supp_docs/bridge.html

Tonkin, H., & Edwards, J. (1981). The world in the curriculum: Curricular strategies for the 21st

century. New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press.

Valiente, C. (2008). Are students using the 'wrong' style of learning? A multicultural scrutiny for

helping teachers to appreciate differences. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(1), 73-

91.

Vertesi, C. (1999). Students as agents of change. In S. Bond & J.-P. Lemasson (Eds.), A new

world of knowledge: Canadian universities and globalization (pp. 129-158). Ottawa, ON:

International Development Research Centre.

Whalley, T., Langley, L., & Villarreal, L. (1997). Best practice guidelines for internationalizing

the curriculum. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and the Centre

for Curriculum, Transfer and Technology.

Zhai, L. (2002). Studying international students: Adjustment issues and social support. San

Diego, CA: Office of Institutional Research San Diego Community College District.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 474481)

Zhang, Z., & Brunton, M. (2007). Differences in living and learning: Chinese international

students in New Zealand. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 124-140.

Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Todman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of culture

shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher

Education, 33(1), 63-75

http://www.trek2000.ubc.ca/supp_docs/bridge.html


44

Appendix A

Figure 2. Internationalized curricula by discipline: Canada

Note. From Canadian University Efforts to Internationalize the Curriculum (p. 11), by F. Taylor,

2000, Ottawa, ON: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Copyright 2000 by The

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.


45

Appendix B

Best Practices/Good Practices For Teaching and Learning in an Internationalized

Curriculum (Bond et al., 2003, pp. 11-12)

Get to know your students very early in the course

Make up a handout so that students can tell you about themselves

Ask students about their different experiences (including education) in Canada and

outside North America

Be careful not to single out international students as different, exotic

Find out how many languages are spoken in your class

Find out how many students have lived or worked abroad, and where

Ask about the ways in which your students have been taught before, particularly recently

Ask students what teaching strategy seems to work best for them

Disclose the languages you speak, even a little

Develop a climate of trust and respect

Make it known in your course outline and in your first meeting with your students that

you invite them to contribute their ideas and experiences

Describe your own experiences living and working in different cultures to help shape the

course

Tell your students about yourself, including your cultural heritage

Disclose in your course outline what you believe about respect, diversity and inclusivity

Make these beliefs explicit; practice them in the presence of students

Set out in the course outline, or develop with the students, guidelines for conflict

resolution should they be needed

Discuss with students your choice(s) of teaching strategies and your reasons for making

the choices; convey strategies in your course outline

Try to use as many different teaching strategies as possible

Be open to and invite disagreement

Recognize that some students do not feel comfortable speaking in large groups; provide

different types of opportunities for participation

Instructional strategies

Build on your students' linguistic and cultural distinctiveness

Use current issues whenever possible to present or contextualize your course content

Use experiential learning whenever possible (e.g. field-based assignments, group work,

case studies); the more active the learning the better

While group work has the potential to enhance learning, students who look or speak

differently may be at a disadvantage

Effective group work/assignments require students who are prepared for what is expected

and know how to handle issues such as conflict or non-participation

If you use group work, structure the membership to be diverse

Assess group work based on individual effort

Create assignments which build on students' background knowledge and experience


46

Encourage your students to think critically and abstractly

Preparing to internationalize course content

Find out what your International Student Office and other campus services can offer you

Collaborate with colleagues at home and abroad

Join networks of faculty who teach the same or similar courses in Canada and outside

North America

Make good use of international guest speakers who are on campus

Use examples in all assignments that introduce original materials from other countries

and cultures

Avoid stereotypes


47

Appendix C

Figure 1. Teaching for world-mindedness: The course design wheel

Note. From "Internationalizing Pedagogy or Applying Pedagogy to Internationalism - The

Journey of a Professional Development Workshop," by S. Schuerholz-Lehr and G. van Gyn,

2006, p. 23. Paper presented at Internationalizing Canada's Universities: Practices, Challenges,

and Opportunities symposium.

internationalization of the curriculum: friend or foe to ...web.uvic.ca/~sherriw/images/ed 6890...

Documents