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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum iv
References …………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………………. 44
Internationalization of the Curriculum
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)
Internationalization of the Curriculum
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 postsecondary 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 postsecondary 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum
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, JindalSnape, 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum
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 nonWestern 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum
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
Internationalization of the Curriculum
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 postindustrial 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum
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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum
7
Academic Adjustment Difficulties of International Students
International students who choose to study in a foreign environment face a host of crosscultural 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum
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).
Internationalization of the Curriculum
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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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;
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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).
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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 postsecondary 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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)
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum
Tenets, Goals, and Approaches
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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;
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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, studentcentered, 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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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).
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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 &
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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, SchuerholzLehr et al., 2007).
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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 interculturally 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 addon 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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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.7285). New York: Routledge.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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-HsuanChen.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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 36
Cunningham, C. G. (1991). The integration of international students on Canadian postsecondary 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.
Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum:
Internationalizing the campus (pp. 198-228). Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.
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.
Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum:
Internationalizing the campus (pp. 40-52). Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.
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), 175187.
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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
internationalization of higher education in Canada (Occasional Paper Series in Higher
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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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, 23.
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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 40
internationalization of higher education in Canada (Occasional Paper Series in Higher
Education No. 11, pp. 53-77). Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba, Centre for Higher
Education Research and Development.
Mestenhauser, J. A. (2002b). The utilization of foreign students in internationalization of
universities. 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. 13-27). Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba, Centre for Higher
Education Research and Development.
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
International Education, 7(1), 12-26.
Paige, R. M. (2003). The American case: The University of Minnesota. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 7(1), 52-63.
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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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), 2845.
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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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-SchuerholzLehr_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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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), 7391.
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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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.
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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
Internationalization of the Curriculum 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.