Integrated resources for intercultural teaching and learning in ...

Integrated resources for intercultural teaching and learning in the context of internationalisation in higher education

Prepared by the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education, in the School of International Studies at the University of South Australia

Project developers (in alphabetical order): Jonathan Crichton Michael Paige Leo Papademetre Angela Scarino Project administrator: Melina Wood July 2004 This project was supported by a University of South Australia Teaching Grant, 2003/2004.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation part 1: Internationalisation of higher education part 2: The ‘intercultural’

3. A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning

4. Models of intercultural learning and intercultural development (a) Internationalisation as education (b) Intercultural development

5. Learning from UniSA texts: mapping the construction of internationalisation

6. Learning from UniSA staff interviews

7. Learning from the AUQA audit reports

8. Reflections on practice: (a) manifestations of understandings of internationalisation (b) implications of the set of principles for: (i) pedagogy, (ii) developing tasks, (iii) assessment

9. Examples from practice: (a) internationalisation as a major task within a course (b) internationalisation as a whole course

10. Additional links and bibliography

Note Each section constitutes a resource in its own right, as well as being a part of the integrated set. To facilitate reading, appendices are included at the end of each resource, rather than at the end of the set.

Intercultural teaching & learning resource project – July 2004 1

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The integrated set of resources, presented in the collection that follows, are intended to be used by individuals or groups of academic staff members, working in diverse disciplines, to examine their own stance and practices in relation to intercultural teaching and learning. These resources are based on a mapping and analysis of current work and discourses in the areas of the internationalisation of education and intercultural teaching and learning. Drawing upon local experiences, within and across disciplines, they are designed to complement resources prepared for the purposes of policy implementation at UniSA. Specifically, the resources are intended to: (1) stimulate self reflection on what it means for academic staff and students in various fields of study to be involved in ‘intercultural’ learning; (2) support staff in developing aspects of ‘intercultural’ learning in their own interactions, discussions, consultations, courses, programs, and, in particular, to consider multiple ways of thinking and acting, depending on one’s field, education, experience, perspective; (3) contribute to a systematic way of examining interculturally aspects of communication and interaction in both domestic and offshore teaching and learning settings. CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT UniSA, like all tertiary institutions in Australia and internationally, is engaged in the internationalisation of higher education. The effect of the rapidly changing context of globalisation at a general level, and, within the institution, the increasing linguistic and cultural diversity of students participating in UniSA programs, both onshore and offshore, have made this an imperative. Responding to this rapid change and diversity is effortful. As Olson and Kraeger (2001:116) state:

Time and space have shrunk; we are no longer insulated from cultural differences as we have been in the past. Today, we encounter people of different culture in every realm of our lives. When we meet each other, we discover differences in perspectives, behaviours, and communication styles. As we interact, we are engaged in an intercultural communication. Yet, intercultural sensitivity does not come naturally; unfortunately, we are more likely to ignore, copy, or destroy the difference.

Importantly, the internationalisation of higher education is a process that involves all students, all staff and all aspects of university life including, for example: international strategic planning; international student recruitment; the internationalisation of the curriculum, including teaching, learning and assessment; the internationalisation of the student experience; transnational education; international links; and the internationalisation of human resources and services. Much work has been undertaken at UniSA towards this process of internationalisation. At a policy level, internationalisation is an integral part of the university’s corporate planning. At a structural level, the office of the Pro Vice Chancellor, International and Development has been established to take a leadership role in the ongoing strategic planning needed in this area, in conjunction with the International Office that services international relations, international student recruitment, and student mobility, among other areas. The university’s Divisions have played a major role in attracting international students to their programs and internationalising the design and delivery of programs for both local and international students, studying both onshore and offshore. With regard to teaching and learning, the effort towards internationalisation has been led by the Flexible Learning Centre through its work in the areas of student advice and staff professional development. This work has centred around the implementation of Graduate Quality 7, which is stated as:

Graduates of UniSA demonstrate an international perspective as a professional and as a citizen.


The Graduate Qualities, as a set, together with the university’s Teaching and Learning Framework, are the two defining resources for teaching and learning at UniSA. Seen as the qualities that all students graduating from UniSA programs will have developed, it is intended that the Graduate Qualities be integrated into the curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment procedures of all courses. The process of integrating Graduate Qualities in the curriculum has been an ongoing task since 1996. Given the continuous effort at UniSA over a period of almost a decade towards internationalisation in general, and of teaching and learning in particular, it is timely to consider how ‘internationalisation’ is understood by academic and specialist-provider staff who have been centrally involved in developing a number of teaching and learning practices towards this end. Of particular interest is the way in which this understanding is manifested across a range of disciplines. It is important to highlight that exploring how ‘internationalisation’ is understood on the ground within the institution should not be construed as a form of evaluation on the part of the project developers. The approach to internationalisation taken at UniSA, in particular through the implementation of Graduate Qualities, has been seen as exemplary (see: Gallagher, 2000:29). Evaluation was neither the brief, nor the interest of the developers of this project. Rather, interest was stimulated by the recognition that work to date has been in the context of the implementation of a central, institutional policy and, as with any policy implementation, it is valuable for all involved to reflect on how it is interpreted at the local level, and how these interpretations fit within the broader international context of work in this area as reported in the literature. Further, since most of the resources developed to date to support staff in their work towards the internationalisation of their courses and programs have been directed towards the implementation of Graduate Qualities, the focus of this project was to develop resources that would incorporate the ideas, developments and discourses of colleagues experimenting with the complex process of internationalisation. As the developers of this project, we see experimentation as necessary and ongoing, and therefore resources developed for this project focus specifically on the relationship between internationalisation and the ‘intercultural’ in teaching and learning. INTERNATIONALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE ‘INTERCULTURAL’ The relationship between the process of internationalisation of higher education and concepts such as ‘intercultural competence’, or ‘intercultural sensitivity’ or ‘intercultural learning’ is central to this project and warrants close consideration. The process of internationalisation and the concept of the ‘intercultural’ are often seen as separate dimensions of education. From a review of the relevant literature (see resource: Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation) it is clearly discernable that these two bodies of scholarship remain quite separate. This is despite the recognition of the need for these ideas to be brought together. Knight (2004:49), for example, expresses the need to address how internationalisation is to ‘deal with the intersection of international and intercultural.’ These two terms are neither synonymous nor clearly understood. The internationalisation of education is generally seen as pertaining to a range of purposes, rationales, perspectives, strategies and discourses related to integrating ‘international dimensions’ in higher education and research, as a response to globalisation. These dimensions, however, generally remain undefined. On the other hand, the concept of the ‘intercultural’, as an interdisciplinary notion, is conceptualised in different ways. For example, Bodycott & Walker (2000:92) express a concern that for many tertiary teachers ‘the onus is often placed on students to adapt to the cultural context in which they are studying’ with the result that ‘the quality of teaching and learning can suffer, or at worst, become irrelevant.’ They describe the development of intercultural competence in learning and teaching as a self-reflective process which prompts learners and teachers “to rethink and confront their beliefs and biases.” (Bodycott & Walker 2000:87) Paige, Jorstad, Siaya, Klein and Colby (2003:177) analyse intercultural competence as:

the process of acquiring the culture-specific and culture general knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for effective communication and interaction with individuals from other cultures. It is a dynamic, developmental, and on-going process which engages the learner cognitively, behaviourally, and affectively.


According to Liddicoat, Papademetre, Scarino and Kohler (2003:14), an educational program aiming at intercultural competence:

means moving well beyond a static approach to learning isolated facts about an individual culture and involves the learner in a process of transformation of the self, his/her ability to communicate and to understand communication and his/her skills for on-going learning.

This body of literature emphasises that the ‘intercultural’ in international education relates ultimately to learning that contributes towards better understanding of our human world and ‘knowing’ in its multiple and diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. As Alfred & Byram (2002:351) point out:

in any society which expects its education system to prepare people for living in an internationalised culture and globalised economy, and also for the interaction between people of different cultures within and across national boundaries, the process of tertiary socialisation and the acquisition of intercultural competence are clearly desirable.

At issue in discussing intercultural teaching and learning is understanding that all learning, across all disciplines, is a social, linguistic and cultural act. Constructing knowledge through social interaction, understanding knowledge acquisition, recognising different ways of knowing, developing multiple perspectives and using multiple sources of knowledge, mediating knowledge, applying knowledge in different cultural contexts, and recognising the ethics of the application of knowledge all involve the use of language to interpret and create meaning, in the context of culture. This notion has been captured in the schooling sector to some extent by catch phrases such as ‘literacy across the curriculum’ or ‘every teacher is a teacher of language and communication’. Such formulations recognise literacy as a linguistic, social and cultural practice. The same applies in higher education, where language, culture, learning and knowing are intimately interconnected. It is this interconnection that is central to understanding the ‘intercultural’ as a goal of education, a goal whereby students learn to construct, act upon, use and communicate their disciplinary knowledge across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. A SET OF PRINCIPLES OF INTERCULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING In developing and integrated set of resources for this project, a set of principles that inform understanding of intercultural teaching and learning was incorporated. The principles, as a set, provide a conceptual rationale for intercultural education. They are based on earlier research of Liddicoat, Papademetre, Scarino and Kohler (2003) and have been further explored and elaborated for the current project. The set of principles is seen as operating simultaneously in its application to the design of programs, and to teaching, learning and assessment. Intercultural teaching and learning involves:

• connecting the intracultural with the intercultural • constructing intercultural ‘knowing’ as social action • interacting and communicating • reflecting and introspecting • assuming responsibility

Permeating these principles is a view that an ethical stance is central to all endeavours in education, and an understanding that such ethical learning is an ongoing developmental process. Emphasis on the principles, as a set that operate simultaneously, and the notion of ‘permeating’ reflect our conceptualisation of the ‘intercultural’ as involving interrelationships and connections. The ‘intercultural’ in teaching and learning is neither additive (in the sense of adding a case study, or example, or a diverse context to teaching and learning in and across disciplines) nor episodic (in the sense of providing a single one-off


experience). Rather, it is developed as an overall orientation to teaching, learning, assessment and education in general. It is an educational stance. For the teacher, it is a way of thinking and doing in relation to the curriculum, teaching, learning, and assessing, and ultimately encouraging such a stance towards developing intercultural sensitivity in students. The set of principles is elaborated in two resources: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning, and: Reflections on practice: implications of the principles for pedagogy. Taken together, these resources provide the conceptualisation of intercultural learning as it is understood by the developers of this project. METHODOLOGY The methodology employed in this project was informed by grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which emphasises an inductive and triangulated approach to the construction of knowledge. This meant identifying the sources of knowledge or data domains to be investigated, gathering the relevant information, and analysing the data for the specific purposes of developing resources for intercultural teaching and learning. The first step was to identify the domains of knowledge and experience to investigate together with the processes of data gathering. The domains were identified with a view to generating data that would be salient to the development of resources. The table that follows provides a summary of the domains identified and accompanying processes of data gathering. Table: Domains and data gathering processes Domains Process of data gathering

1. The literature on: - the internationalisation of higher education - intercultural teaching and learning - intercultural competence and development

- a search of the theoretical, policy and empirical literature

2. UniSA texts - a search of the resources developed for policy and practice of internationalisation of the university

3. Lived experiences of UniSA staff members - a staff survey

- staff interviews: commentaries audio-recorded and transcribed

4. Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) audit reports

- a search of the sections on internationalisation from the audit reports

5. Examples of teaching and learning practice - a search of course materials prepared by UniSA academic staff

6. Additional perspectives provided through various interactions

- participation in various discussions and seminars within the university

Each domain and process of data gathering is discussed briefly below.


The literature A substantial review was undertaken of published works on the internationalisation of education, intercultural teaching and learning, and intercultural competence and development. This review yielded the resource: Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation. UniSA texts A documentary analysis was conducted of the major UniSA texts related to internationalisation of the curriculum and Graduate Quality 7. The purpose of the analysis was to see how ‘internationalisation’ is understood in the UniSA texts that focus on teaching and learning. The analysis sought to identify multiple meanings of ‘internationalisation’ as manifested in the students’ section of the Learning Connection website, on the one hand, and on the staff webpage, on the other. The two key texts that were analysed in depth were the information provided to students on Graduate Quality 7 and, from the texts for staff, the Information Kit. In undertaking the analysis, it was recognised that all texts remain open to ongoing development in response to the ever changing context and our evolving understanding of this work. The analysis is reported in the resource: Learning from UniSA texts: mapping the construction of internationalisation. Lived experiences of UniSA staff members Two processes of data gathering were used to capture the lived experience of UniSA staff members: a staff survey and staff interviews. Staff survey The purpose of the survey was: (1) to elicit a range of understandings of ‘internationalisation’ within the university community; (2) to elicit an understanding of how the UniSA’s texts and resources related to ‘internationalisation’ are used in practice; and (3) to provide a basis for identifying contributors for interview and possible participation in the development of resources for intercultural teaching and learning. In consultation with the Project’s Steering Group, the Deans Teaching and Learning from each Division were asked to identify 10-15 staff members from their Division who were most directly engaged with the internationalisation of the curriculum in their work with local and international students. The Dean Teaching and Learning from Whyalla Campus was also asked to identify 3 – 5 participants. Out of the nominated groups of 10 – 15, we anticipated the participation of at least 10 staff members from each Division, and 3 – 5 from the Whyalla Campus. The Deans, in conjunction with the staff members who agreed to participate, were also asked to select 10 - 15 students from each Division. In consultation with the Project’s Steering Group, staff who provided a specialist function in relation to ‘internationalisation’ were identified. These included: Business Development Managers – International for each Division, administrators of International programs (one from each Division), selected Program Directors (selected to ensure inclusion of (1) programs across all four Divisions, (2) onshore and offshore (3) programs which include ‘international’ in their name and (4) double degrees), international office staff, professional development staff from the Flexible Learning Centre, international student advisors, learning advisors, USASA international students advisors, and the international student advisor in the School of Marketing, and the School of Art. Three versions of the survey questionnaire were developed, one for academic staff (Appendix 1a), one for ‘specialist providers’ (Appendix 1b) and one for students (Appendix 1c) The design of the questionnaires reflects the different ways in which each group of participants contributes to the internationalisation of teaching and learning at UniSA. The survey questionnaire was sent to 70 members of staff (academic staff and specialist providers) and 22 students.


The response rate to the survey was extremely low, (ten staff members and two students) despite efforts to follow up through email reminders. As such, the sample was not sufficient to form the basis for a resource. For this reason greater emphasis was placed on the interviews. Staff interviews The purpose of the interviews was to gain the perspective of policy-makers, that is, the creators of the UniSA policy texts and resources, and to gain further insights from users of the policy texts. Interviews were conducted with 13 participants and focused on one general question: Is there anything that you do in your practice which others at the university might be able to draw on in internationalising their teaching and learning? All interviews were audio-recorded, fully transcribed and forwarded to the participants for verification and confirmation that they could be used as data for this project. The analysis of the interviews is reported in the resource: Learning from UniSA interviews. Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) audit reports Sections on internationalisation from the audit reports of 12 universities were analysed. This analysis yielded the resource: Learning from the AUQA audit reports. Examples of teaching and learning practice Based on commentaries made during interviews with staff, examples of practice were identified by the project team in further discussion with colleagues. These examples reflect experimentation on the part of academic staff members, committed to the internationalisation of their courses. The examples are presented in the resource: Examples from practice Additional perspectives Additional perspectives were provided throughout the project by the Steering Group established for this project. The members of the Steering Group and the Sponsors Group for the project are listed at Appendix 2. In addition, the team met with colleagues working on divisional projects in the area of internationalisation, to ensure that insights, particularly from focus group discussions with students, would be incorporated into this project. Members of the project team have participated in workshops led by the Flexible Learning Centre on the theme of ‘internationalisation’ as a further means of connecting with professional discussions in the area. On the same theme, they have also facilitated a division-wide seminar in the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences, and a school-wide seminar in the School of Psychology. These workshops and seminars have provided valuable opportunities for interaction and discussion. The arrival of Professor Michael Paige from the University of Minnesota, as a visiting researcher with the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education and consultant to the project, has provided the opportunity for discussion, a valuable contribution to the analysis of data, and in shaping the creation of the resources. His presentation at the university-wide seminar, together with the presentation of Associate Professor Anthony Liddicoat, are included as part of the resources (see resource: Models of intercultural learning and intercultural development). Approach to analysis Consistent with grounded theory, the approach to the analysis of these data sets was thematic, a process in which the developers sought to identify recurrent concepts and ideas that would enhance understanding of how intercultural teaching and learning is construed in the context of internationalisation. It should be noted that ‘intercultural teaching and learning’ is the phrase used by the project developers to refer to learning based on the set of principles (see resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning). It is not the term used by the various contributors to the project. Through ongoing interaction among its members, the project team continuously cross-referenced or triangulated three different broad bodies of knowledge:


1. the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning 2. the literature, and 3. UniSA ‘texts’, viewed in their own terms in connection with the lived experiences of colleagues.

This process revealed areas of congruence as well as gaps in one or another of the original data domains being examined, a point discussed in the different sections of these resources. RESOURCES FOR INTERCULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING The primary outcome of the project is a set of integrated resources, which can be used by individuals and/or groups of academic staff members, to promote evaluation and reflection on current perspectives and practices towards the development of teaching and learning oriented towards intercultural learning in the context of internationalisation of the curriculum These resources include material generated from the various data-gathering processes established for this project, as well as the analyses. For example, they include literature reviews and explorations, reflection tools, exemplars of practice with supporting annotations, texts to stimulate discussion, ideas for seminar discussions on the principles of intercultural teaching and learning, interactive tasks, questionnaires, strategies for raising awareness of intercultural communication and interaction, and materials for facilitating discussion on international and intercultural education in general. They are not provided as templates, but rather, as different ways of entering into thinking and discussion about intercultural work. As such, they offer the potential to be used as presented or as the basis for designing further workshops for particular groups. In addition, the resources suggest methods for data gathering and analysis that can be applied in other institutional contexts, such as, individual schools or units within the university or other educational institutions or agencies. Based on an analysis of current theorising and practice related to international education, and its specific connection with intercultural learning, within and beyond UniSA, the sequence of resources developed is as follows:

1. Introduction 2. Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation

part 1: Internationalisation of higher education part 2: The ‘intercultural’

3. A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning 4. Models of intercultural learning and intercultural development

(a) Internationalisation as education (b) Intercultural development

5. Learning from UniSA texts: mapping the construction of internationalisation 6. Learning from UniSA staff interviews 7. Learning from the AUQA audit reports 8. Reflections on practice:

(a) manifestations of understandings of internationalisation (b) implications of the principles for: (i) pedagogy, (ii) developing tasks, (iii) assessment

9. Examples from practice: (a) internationalisation as a major task within a course (b) internationalisation as a whole course

10. Additional links and bibliography


While each resource can be used on its own, the integrated set provides a narrative structure that addresses macro as well as micro considerations in curriculum design, teaching and learning. The Introduction provides an outline of the purpose, methodology and the outcomes of the resource development project. As such, it may be used as an overall framework to stimulate a similar process of analysis and development in other contexts, as well as stimulating the development of further ways of eliciting understanding of the internationalisation of higher education and intercultural learning held by various educational groups. This is followed by the resource: Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation. It is divided into two parts that reflect the distinction often made between the internationalisation of education and the ‘intercultural’ dimension. Part 1 focuses on the more recent literature on the internationalisation of higher education published mainly between 1998 and 2003. The literature centres on the following themes: overviews, definitions, rationales and perspectives, quality, strategies, the ‘intercultural’ dimension, research and discourse. For each theme, this resource provides a summary of two or three references that encapsulate the theme. Further references are also indicated. As such, this resource serves both as a general overview and as a guide to selecting further references related to each specific theme. Part 2 focuses on the concept of the ‘intercultural’ dimension, drawing attention to the multiple meanings of this concept, given its interdisciplinary nature. Fields that contribute to understanding this concept include anthropology, communication studies, education, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, among others. This part of the resource provides an epistemological exploration of linguistic, cultural and intercultural competence and the various approaches adopted in these fields to understanding intercultural communication in relation to teaching and learning. This epistemological, interdisciplinary journey is relevant for higher education in developing an awareness among staff, of the centrality of language and culture in intercultural learning that recognises the social and cultural construction of knowledge, the diverse ways of knowing, the multiple perspectives and sources of knowledge, and the use and application of knowledge in variable contexts. This is followed by the resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning, which presents in detail, principles for intercultural teaching and learning, and program development. The set of principles provides an understanding of the ‘intercultural’ as a concept that, although mentioned in the literature on the internationalisation of education, remains under-described. Most importantly, the set of principles is presented as a way of working towards developing an intercultural stance on an ethical basis. Such a stance provides an understanding of the ‘intercultural’ as neither additive nor episodic. The set of principles is followed by the resource: Models of intercultural learning and development which includes two papers. The first paper: Internationalisation as education explores internationalisation in relation to three themes: internationalising the student body by recruiting students from overseas; internationalising the curriculum; and internationalising students’ educational experiences through overseas exchanges, followed by a detailed discussion of the concept of interculturality. Anthony Liddicoat, the author of this paper, describes this concept as involving a process of decentring from one’s existing cultural mindset and engaging in positive and creative ways with new cultural possibilities. In the second paper: The intercultural in teaching and learning: a developmental model, Michael Paige presents a description of a model of intercultural development first developed by Milton Bennett (1993). In this paper, intercultural education is described from a developmental perspective, whereby teaching is organised around understandings of intercultural competence as a form of human development. These two papers provide a starting point for critically exploring one’s own understanding of the ‘intercultural’ in learning. These conceptualising resources are followed by the resource: Learning from UniSA texts which provides a map of the construction of internationalisation in relation to teaching and learning as it emerges from published UniSA texts. It draws on the Information Kit, produced by the Flexible Learning Centre to support staff in implementing Graduate Quality 7 and the information provided to students on Graduate Quality 7 (http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/poster.asp). This resource may be used as a pathway for reflecting on the teaching and learning environment at UniSA. The analysis in this resource points to the need for conceptualising


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/poster.asp

the Graduate Qualities not only as distinct qualities, but also, and perhaps more importantly, as an integrated set. The resource also suggests that in teaching and learning, connections need to be drawn between the international context of professional practice and the preparation of students to work effectively as professionals in such a context. This requires an explicit focus on language and culture in developing international and intercultural knowledge. The resource: Learning from UniSA staff interviews provides a summary of the major understandings of internationalisation and the key themes that emerge from in-depth interviews with UniSA staff, reflecting on their own practices in relation to the internationalisation of their work. While each individual participant highlights specific dimensions of internationalisation as a complex process of working across cultures, the range of key themes matches those identified in the literature on internationalisation. However, if seen as a range of themes characterising individual attempts at internationalising teaching and learning, this range reflects the need to integrate them in practice, similar to integrating the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning. Such integration would also reflect the interdisciplinary basis of the concept of the ‘intercultural’ and would exemplify the interrelationship of themes in understanding the ‘intercultural’. Again, this resource points to a collective need to reflect upon and render transparent the connections among the various dimensions, within a developmental view of intercultural teaching and learning. The next resource: Learning from the AUQA audit reports presents themes that emerge from the section on internationalisation in the AUQA audit reports of 12 Australian universities. Being the quality assurance agency for higher education in Australia, the AUQA agency performs a high stakes role. As such, it is useful to observe the dimensions considered, the discussion of issues, the recommendations, and the commendations in the reports as markers of features of interest in internationalisation as perceived by this agency. While the reports address a range of parameters that are seen to define the scope of quality assurance, they do not point to ways of capturing the nature of the quality of internationalisation. This resource provides a framework for reflecting on auditing and evaluation processes, as well as the nature of quality in international and intercultural education. The resources: Reflections on practice address different aspects of teaching and learning. The first part: Manifestations of understandings of internationalisation describes different ways that the intercultural may be understood in teaching and learning: as an ‘object of study’, as ‘trained communication’, as ‘language’, as ‘inclusivity’, as ‘immersion’ and as ‘reflexive engagement’. While each of these manifestations captures an aspect of the ‘intercultural’, it is the last that best captures what it means to be interculturally competent. An implication of this manifestation of the ‘intercultural’ for teaching and learning is that the internationalisation of the curriculum, teaching and learning should not only be a matter of what content, materials, tasks, resources, exemplars, etc., to include in the curricula, but also of creating opportunities for reflexive engagement and ongoing development as an overall orientation or stance in students’ own personal and professional interaction, characteristic of the contexts for which they are being prepared as graduates. The second part: Implications of the set of principles for (i) pedagogy (ii) developing tasks and (iii) assessment presents implications of the set of principles outlined in the resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning, for various aspects of curriculum development, namely, teaching and learning, task design, and assessment. This is followed by the resource: Examples from practice which presents accounts of how two lecturers at UniSA have reflected on the meaning of internationalisation for their students and their disciplines. The first example, from the field of computer science, focuses on internationalisation at the level of a major task within a course, in an area that might be seen as ‘the same everywhere’ and therefore not ‘requiring’ internationalisation of tasks and interaction. The second example, from the field of international studies, focuses on internationalisation at the level of a whole course, in an area that might be seen as ‘already international’. These examples are not presented as templates but rather, provide insight into processes of experimentation and reflection needed in working with the ‘intercultural’. They include lecturer’s reflections and examples from their courses.


The resource: Additional links and bibliography provides a selection of links to relevant web-based resources that may be of use in investigating practices in contexts beyond UniSA, and a full bibliography of all references cited in the development of the project. REPRISE: COMMON THEMES The resources developed as part of this project are based on documentary analytic and grounded work, as well as a substantial literature review. Three reference points, that is, the set of principles, the external knowledge base, and the UniSA texts, together with the lived experiences of colleagues, point to two common themes. They are as follows:

• The gap between the discourse of the internationalisation of education and the discourse of the ‘intercultural’, and

• Operationalising the ‘intercultural’ in the curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment. The gap between the discourse of the internationalisation of education and the discourse of the intercultural Consideration of the three reference points for the project mentioned above, reveal a gap between what is understood as the general notion of the internationalisation of education and that of the ‘intercultural’. While many educators acknowledge the need to address this gap, and while they recognise the centrality of language and culture in personal knowledge construction and learning, fundamental questions remain about what this means, both as a concept and in practice. One way of explaining why this gap emerges so persistently is that the ‘intercultural’ may be seen as a specialist area of interest to linguists, or interculturalists, or discourse analysts, or anthropologists. While as a specialist study, this is so, it is, at the same time, central in a way that touches all disciplines as well as interdisciplinary work and is therefore also to be understood and operationalised by all educators. Understanding the interdependence of one’s own language, culture and learning in the construction of knowledge, values and beliefs means understanding one’s own ‘intraculturality’, that is one’s own variable linguistic and cultural identity, that acts as a base for interacting with others (i.e. others’ bodies of knowledge, values and beliefs). This understanding is integral to the ‘intercultural’. It is the process of negotiating meaning-making, as diverse individuals interact, that we call intercultural communication. Intercultural interaction implies recognising and responding to different peoples’ ways of seeing and interpreting the world, their knowledge and values. It requires decentering from one’s own knowledge, culture and discourse and developing a capability to move across different ways of thinking, knowing and doing. Thus the ‘intercultural’ is per force interdisciplinary and interdiscursive and, as such, a concept that pervades learning at any level, in an international perspective. Another way of thinking about the relationship between the internationalisaton of education and the intercultural pertains to who is included and who is excluded by the use of these terms. In general, in Australian universities, discussion of the internationalisation of education focuses on ‘international’ students, understood as ‘overseas’ students. It can be argued that intercultural education, as opposed to international education, is a more inclusive formulation, in that interculturality includes both international and domestic students. All students, regardless of their location, need to develop the capability to contribute in the intercultural construction, exchange and use of knowledge. Operationalising the ‘intercultural’ in the curriculum, teaching and learning What emerges from an analysis of UniSA texts is that there exist three dimensions of expertise, expected for each UniSA graduate, that of the ‘international’, of ‘culture’, and of ‘communication’, central both to the explanation of how Graduate Quality 7 can benefit students and how it should be taught. However, the conceptualisation of these dimensions, as well as the relationships between them, requires clarification if the


‘internationalisation of the curriculum’ is to enable students to benefit to the full extent from acquiring Graduate Quality 7. This clarification reflects the need to provide a principled rationale for the conceptualisation of, and relationships between, the three dimensions of expertise in relation to teaching and learning at UniSA. In the context of the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning (see resource: A set of principles for intercultural teaching and learning), this need, evident in the UniSA texts, gives rise to the question: are the three dimensions of expertise (that of the ‘international’, of culture; and of ‘communication’) interrelated in graduates’ professional practice? And, how are these dimensions interrelated in teaching and learning? The implication of this way of understanding the ‘intercultural’ in teaching and learning is not only a matter of what content (tasks, resources, etc.) to include but how to integrate these aspects of the curriculum, drawing on, and raising awareness of the fact that both students’ and lecturers’ identities are themselves ‘reflexively engaged’ with others in their own lives, and, together, in relation to internationalisation. USE OF RESOURCES In developing any set of resources, assumptions are made about their use. These resources have been developed to be used by individuals or groups of staff members as springboards for reflection, or exemplars, to stimulate review of current practices and thinking towards designing tasks and courses and developing ways of fostering learning, based on the suggested set of principles of intercultural learning, existing literature in the field, and documented experience. They may also be used by those responsible for professional development to generate further resources tailored to the needs and interests of particular groups. Some of the resources presented here may be incorporated in courses developed as part of a Graduate Certificate, which, it is hoped, will provide a formal means for building further understanding of both the context of international education and intercultural teaching and learning, as an integral dimension of internationalising education. The School of International Studies is currently engaged in the process of developing a Graduate Certificate in International Education.


References Alfred, G. and Byram, M. (2002) Becoming an Intercultural Mediator. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural

Development, Vol 23:5. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd

Bennett, M.J. (1993) Towards ethnorelativism: a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.) Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, M. E.: Intercultural Press. pp21-71.

Bodycott, P. & A. Walker (2000) Teaching abroad: lessons learned about inter-cultural understanding for teachers in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education 5(1):79-94.

Gallagher, M. (2000 September). The emergence of entrepreunerial public universities in Australia. Paper presented at the IMHE General Conference of the OECD, Paris. (Occasional papers series OO?E, DETYA)

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Liddicoat, A.J. (2002) Static and dynamic views of culture and intercultural language acquisition. Babel, 36, 3, 4-11, 37.

Liddicoat, A.J., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A., and Kohler, M. (2003) Report on intercultural language learning. Canberra, DEST.

Olson, C.L. & K.R. Kroeger (2001) Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education 5(2): 116-137.

Paige, R.M., Jorstad, J., Siaya, L., Klein, F., and Colby, J. (2003) Culture Learning in language education. A review of the literature. In D. Lange and R.M. Paige (Eds), Culture as the core: Integrating culture into language education. (pp173-236) Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.


Acknowledgments This project was supported by a university-wide Teaching and Learning Grant (2003), sponsored by the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee, which is chaired by Professor Rigmor George, PVC, Access and Learning Support. The project team acknowledges the members of staff who responded to the survey and in particular, those who participated in the interviews: Helen Benzie, Tracey Bretag, Anna Ciccarelli, Gregory Donovan, Rodney Fopp, Sue Gelade, Betty Leask, Terry O’Callaghan, Pat Petronio, Diana Quinn, Rick Sarre, Jill Slay and Katherine Vadura. Jill Slay and Katharine Vadura have willingly provided their courses as exemplars that accompany their reflections on their own work in seeking to internationalise their teaching and learning. This is very much appreciated. We would also like to thank Justine Brooke Olsen and Karine Osttveit, two students, for giving permission for their work to be included in this resource. We thank Anna Ciccarelli and Betty Leask who have travelled the steps of this journey with us. Their personal commitment to the process of internationalisation made them willing participants, as well as valued advisers and critics of the work as it took shape. Special thanks are extended to Jim Dellit, adjunct Research Fellow with the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education, who conducted a number of the interviews, provided an analysis of the AUQA audit reports, and contributed to project discussions. Professor Michael Paige from the University of Minnesota joined the project team as a visiting researcher at the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education at a critical juncture in the development of this project. As a specialist in the field of intercultural education, he has made an invaluable contribution, both as an ‘insider’ member of the team, and as an ‘outsider’, bringing perspectives from many contexts internationally. Associate professor Anthony Liddicoat from Griffith University has had a long standing collaboration with our research centre; his contribution to this project through his paper presented at a university wide seminar is much appreciated.


Appendix 1a Questionnaire (Academic staff)

Name: Role/position: Contact details: Purpose of questionnaire The purpose of the questionnaire is: (1) to elicit a range of understandings of ‘internationalisation’ within the university community; (2) to elicit an understanding of how the UniSA’s texts and resources related to ‘internationalisation’ are used in practice; and (3) to provide a basis for identifying contributors for interview and possible participation in the development of integrated resources for intercultural teaching and learning at UniSA. Part A Which texts and resources have you used in connection with ‘internationalisation’ at UniSA? Texts and resources (please list): ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Part B Describe how you use the texts and resources you have identified above. Please give specific details in relation to the teaching and learning areas below: …in the program as a whole …in the course statement …in the selection of content …in the selection and use of resources


…in the assignments or tasks for teaching and learning …in interaction with students …in the support of students in their learning …in the assessment of student learning …in feedback to students …in course evaluations …in the student handbook …in the administrative procedures related to the course …in support services …other


Part C (a) Based on your responses above, how do you understand ‘internationalisation’ at UniSA? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. (b) Do you have any suggestions which would contribute to the ‘internationalisation’ of teaching and learning? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Follow up We intend to follow up some participants through interview. Would you be willing to participate in an interview?

Yes / No (please circle)

Thank you for your contribution


Appendix 1b.

Questionnaire (Specialist providers) Name: Role/position: Contact details: Purpose of questionnaire The purpose of the questionnaire is: (1) to elicit a range of understandings of ‘internationalisation’ within the university community; (2) to elicit an understanding of how the UniSA’s texts and resources related to ‘internationalisation’ are used in practice; and (3) to provide a basis for identifying contributors for interview and possible participation in the development of integrated resources for intercultural teaching and learning at UniSA. Part A Which texts and resources have you used in connection with ‘internationalisation’ at UniSA? Texts and resources (please list): ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Part B Describe how you use the texts and resources you have identified above. Please give specific details in relation to the specialist function you provide in the context of ‘internationalisation’: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..


Part C (a) Based on your responses above, how do you understand ‘internationalisation’ at UniSA? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. (b) Do you have any suggestions which would contribute to the ‘internationalisation’ of your specialist function? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Follow up We intend to follow up some participants through interview. Would you be willing to participate in an interview?




Appendix 1c. Questionnaire (Students)

Name: Program: Contact details: Purpose of the questionnaire The purpose of the questionnaire is: (1) to elicit a range of understandings of ‘internationalisation’ within the university community; (2) to elicit understanding of Graduate Quality 7 and (3) to provide a basis for identifying contributors for interview and possible participation in the development of integrated resources for intercultural teaching and learning at UniSA. Part A What is your experience of Graduate Quality 7: A graduate of the University of South Australia demonstrates international perspectives as a professional and as a citizen. (Please refer to specific experiences in particular courses in your program.) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Part B (a) Based on your responses above, how do you understand ‘internationalisation’ at UniSA? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..


(b) Do you think that by developing Graduate Quality 7 you will improve your chances of employment in your chosen profession? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. (c) Do you have any suggestions which would contribute to the ‘internationalisation’ of learning at UniSA? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Follow up We intend to follow up some participants through interview. Would you be willing to participate in an interview?




Appendix 2 Project advisory groups

Project steering group members Rigmor George Anna Ciccarelli Betty Leask Greg Giles Angela Scarino Leo Papademetre Jonathan Crichton Project sponsors group Claire Woods Marie Brennan Vicki Feast



2. LEARNING FROM THE LITERATURE: AN ORIENTATION TO INTERNATIONALISATION DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE This resource provides an overview of the recent literature on internationalisation. It is designed to provide an orientation to how the internationalisation of higher education is understood in Australia and internationally, with a particular focus on the challenge of conceptualising and operationalising the ‘intercultural’ dimension. The rationale for developing the resource is that an important step in internationalising one’s teaching and learning is to understand internationalisation at UniSA within the broader context of internationalisation, from different institutional, national, regional and disciplinary perspectives. The resource is structured in two parts. Part 1 focuses on themes in the literature on the internationalisation of higher education, with a particular focus on teaching and learning. A key point to emerge from this overview is the need to develop the intercultural dimension of internationalisation. This point is discussed in Part 2 of this resource, in which a selection of interdisciplinary work on intercultural teaching and learning is explored. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS You can use this resource to stimulate your own reflection on current practice by, for example,

• Reading it/discussing it/talking about how it may influence your pedagogy • Talking about key ideas with students • Applying it to what you already know • Re-evaluating previously held positions

More specifically, you might consider the relevance of the intercultural dimension of internationalisation to your own teaching and learning. For example,

• How does your own perspective on internationalisation compare with those represented in the review?

• How does your own conceptualisation of the ‘intercultural’ compare with those conceptualisations explored in Part 2 of this resource?


PART 1: INTERNATIONALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Introduction Scope and focus: This review focuses on the literature on the internationalisation of higher education produced between 1998 and 2003, and, within this, on the internationalisation of teaching and learning. Approach: The search was necessarily selective; the aim was to identify a sufficient range of references to provide a large scale ‘map’ of the literature based on the identification of eight overlapping and interconnected themes, and sub-themes associated with them. The procedure for identifying the themes involved the following stages. First, a series of internet and library searches was conducted using combinations of key words including ‘internationalisation’, ‘higher education’, curriculum, ‘globalisation’, ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’. Based on the results of the searches, approximately 150 references were identified as being of particularly relevance to the focus of this project. The references were then collected and collated, a process in which they were grouped and regrouped according to emergent themes. At the end of this process, when the themes identified had exhausted the references gathered, eight themes had emerged:

overviews; definitions; rationales and perspectives; quality; strategies; the intercultural; research; and discourse.

Structure: For each theme, the review below provides a summary of two to three references which the project team has found useful as a guide to/representative of the theme. Further references are mentioned where appropriate. Themes Theme: Overviews This theme refers to the prevalence in the literature of overviews of internationalisation, a feature of the literature which may reflect both the evolving complexity of the field and the different standpoints and interests represented by those involved in and affected by it. The most often quoted and influential of these overviews have been produced by Knight (see, for example, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2003a; 2004). For the purpose of this review, Knight (2003a, recently revised as Knight (2004)) is particularly valuable and her work is summarised in some detail below. While Knight has provided overviews of the current and evolving nature of internationalisation, Welch and Denman (1997) provide, from an Australian perspective, a useful historical overview which can be read as background to Knight’s work. For a further overview reflecting the Australian perspective, read Harman (2002), who explains the historical and current context of Australia’s international position as an exporter of education. Knight (2003a) Knight stresses that the meanings ‘internationalisation’ and the associated notion of ‘globalisation’ are diverse, contested and dependent on the particular contexts in which they are experienced. Acknowledging this challenge, she builds on her earlier work in developing a general framework for understanding ‘internationalisation’ as a response to ‘globalisation’. In doing so, she identifies five features of globalisation that are particularly relevant to internationalisation of higher education: the growth and increasing influence of knowledge based societies; information and communication technologies and systems (ICTS); market based economies;


trade liberalisation; and new supra national systems of governance in areas such as quality assurance, accreditation, and student

mobility. Within this context, Knight (p. 5) notes the confusion which has arisen around the meaning of ‘internationalisation’, suggesting that this is in part because of the emergence of related terms such as “transnational”, “borderless”, “offshore”, and “cross-border” education – terms which Knight explains and briefly critiques (p. 7). To address this confusion, Knight distinguishes, using a framework which she describes as “in progress”(p. 8), between internationalisation “at home” and “abroad”. The former is manifested in the development of curricula, programs, teaching and learning, extra-curricular activities, and connections with local communities which seek to develop the home campus itself as a focus of international and intercultural activity. This “at home” concept, Knight argues, can be understood in relation to internationalisation “abroad”, which includes “cross border” or “transnational” education, and refers to the international movement of people, program delivery, providers and projects. Drawing on de Wit (1995, 2002) and Knight and de Wit (1997), Knight identifies four categories of rationale for internationalisation in this sense: social/cultural, political, economic, and academic. She explains how these categories are manifested at the national and institutional levels; and summarises how the categories are becoming increasingly blurred through, at the national level, an increasing emphasis on human resource development, strategic alliances, commercial trade, nation building, and social and cultural development; and at the institutional level, through the prioritisation of international profiles and reputation, student and staff development, income generation, strategic alliances, and research and knowledge production. Knight (p. 16) then summarises the “dominant features of current approaches” to internationalisation, identifying five approaches at the national and sector levels; and six at the institutional level. The former include internationalisation as international programs in, for example, research; sector-wide rationales for internationalisation; ad hoc responses to emergent opportunities; policies promoted in sectors such as foreign affairs and trade; and national strategic initiatives.

The latter are those identified by Knight (1999) and include internationalisation as activities, such as study abroad; outcomes based approaches, such as student competencies; rationales such as income generation; a process of integrating an international dimension into the functions of the university at home, involving campus based activities to promote international/intercultural understanding; and abroad, involving all forms of ‘cross border’ education

Knight emphasises that these approaches and the rationales which support them are not mutually exclusive but reflect different emphases on and understandings of internationalisation. She concludes by identifying questions which are still to be addressed on emergent and unresolved issues relating to internationalisation. Particularly relevant to the focus of this project are questions relating to the nature of and relationship between internationalisation and intercultural teaching and learning, identified by Knight as the question “How does internationalization deal with the intersect of international and intercultural?” (2003a:17, 2004:49). However, a further elaboration of what that ‘intersect’ may mean is not provided. Welch and Denman (1997) In the earlier sections of their paper, Welch and Denman offer a historical account of the internationalisation of education, tracing its emergence through developments in eastern and western education from Confucius’s belief that “he could teach all, including those in neighbouring countries” and the Sophists of 5th century Greece, who argued that education could occur in any location, to the current emphasis on the


internationalisation of universities. In doing so, the Welch and Denman explain how higher education became increasingly internationalised in the pre and post second world war periods, through, for example, the mass movement of refugees and migrants; the growing dominance of North American scholarship; the use of higher education as a means of international influence (a feature of both colonial and cold war

periods) and integration (seen in, for example, the SOCRATES project in Europe); the move from elite to mass higher education; and recent negotiations and agreements on free trade.

The later sections of this paper describe the Australian context of internationalisation, providing an account of, for example, the growth in international student numbers from the 1950s until the mid nineties. Theme: Definitions This theme is manifested in the literature in efforts to capture under a single rubric the prevalent manifestations of internationalisation. As with overviews of internationalisation, the most influential writer in this area is Knight, and it is therefore her most recent definitional work (Knight 2003b) which we refer to here. In addition, to provide a specifically Australian focus, we have included a report (Clyne, Marginson & Woock 2001) of an ARC funded study into the concepts and definitions associated with internationalisation in a sample of Australian universities. This contrasts with Knight (2003b) in its specific focus on Australia, in its basis in case study research, and in its interest in the ‘discourses’ of internationalisation. Knight (2003b) The most often quoted definition in the literature is taken from Knight (1994), in which she defines internationalisation as “the process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institution” (cited in Knight 1997:8). Based on her subsequent work in developing frameworks to explain internationalisation, her most recent version of this definition is

Internationalisation at the national/sector/institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education (Knight 2003b:2).

Stressing the challenge of defining a phenomenon which is understood, implemented and experienced in diverse ways throughout the world, Knight (2003b) explains her rationale for developing this new “working definition” (p. 2), and the meaning and significance of the key terms. She explains that the introduction of the three “levels” reflects the need to understand internationalisation as a phenomenon which operates simultaneously in different social domains; and that the replacement of “teaching, research and service functions of the institution” with the more generic “purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” enables the definition to apply at all three levels, not just that of the institution. Similarly, the addition of “global” to the “international” and “intercultural” is intended to broaden the scope of internationalisation to include a global focus. Retained is “the process of integrating”, which Knight explains as a “process of infusing or embedding the international and intercultural dimensions into policies and programs” (p. 3). However, how such a ‘process of infusing’ may occur is not discussed, nor is the meaning of ‘intercultural dimensions’ further explored. Clyne, Marginson and Woock (2001) The aim of the study reported here by Clyne, Marginson and Woock was to investigate through case studies the ways in which Australian universities are developing the concept of internationalisation in their organisational practices, including the “factors influencing policy assumptions, organisational practices and the intersection between the organisational and educational domains in international education” (p. 111). At the time of publication, the case studies included the University of Canberra, the Australian National University, Woolongong University and Deakin University, and drew on documents and interview data from administrators and academics involved in international education, as well as international and Australian students.


The authors focus on one aspect of the study which was designed to test whether interviewees understandings of ‘internationalisation’ and ‘globalisation’ supported how they are rendered in ‘neo-liberal’ discourse, which, the authors argue, is the dominant discourse on the internationalisation of universities, manifested in Australia primarily in courses for international students (p. 113). The authors report that the majority of interviewees did not “provide coherent definitions of ‘internationalisation’ or ‘globalisation’” (p. 119). Those that did provided two main understandings of ‘internationalisation’: as the “global market in teaching services” and as a “‘catch all’ concept”, including all university activities which “were recognisably international in character”(p. 120). ‘Globalisation’ was discussed in two ways: the majority referred to it in the “neo-liberal sense” (p. 122), in terms of the global economy, the minority in terms of communications and travel. Among other findings, the authors (p. 125) conclude that while ‘globalisation’ tends to be viewed in neo-liberal terms, there is little consistency or clarity of understanding of ‘internationalisation’, “even among staff working in international education”. Theme: Rationales and perspectives As Knight (2003a) emphasises, rationales and manifestations of internationalisation are diverse, evolving and subject to different interpretations. To illustrate this diversity, it is useful to present under this theme recent publications reflecting perspectives from the Philippines, Europe, the USA and Australia. From the Philippines, Bernardo (2003) reports on a recent study of the potential for internationalisation of higher education in the Philippines. Complementing this are: van de Wende’s (2001) analysis from a European perspective of changing rationales for and manifestations of internationalisation; Engberg and Green’s (2002) USA perspective; and Gallagher’s (2002a) Australian perspective. From these perspectives, the “intercultural dimension” of internationalisation as mentioned by Knight (1994:3) tends to be associated with manifestations of what Bernardo (2003:5) has identified as “internationalism” (see below). The perspectives differ primarily in how they render and prioritise this rationale for internationalisation in relation to economic rationales; the perspectives are similar in their emphasis on a growing need to acknowledge and incorporate both types of rationale in internationalisation. However, an elaboration on what constitutes the ‘intercultural dimensions’ in this context is not provided. For further reading on this theme, read de Wit (1998, 2002); for a European perspective, Callan (1998, 2000) and Teichler (1998); for an Australian federal government perspective, DEST (2003); and for a ‘critical’ perspective on rationales for internationalisation, Marginson (2002, 2003). Bernardo (2003) Bernardo (2003:5) identifies the two major rationales of internationalisation as “internationalism” and “open market transnational education”. “Internationalism” focuses on cultural/social development and integration, seeking to develop “international cooperation for the common good and the appreciation of international character or quality in education” (p. 6). This rationale has, in Europe, been associated with the ERASMUS and SOCRATES projects, which have sought to “reduce the social, economic and cultural disparities among the countries of the European Union”(p. 14) – through, for example, the ‘Internationalisation at home’ project (see, for example, Wächter 2000 and Otten 2000). On the other hand, “open market transnational education” is “designed to capitalize on the opportunities afforded by the changing demands of a globalized world economy” (Bernado, 2003:16) – a rationale most closely associated with the Australian experience (Gallagher 2002a). Bernardo explains how each of these rationales is associated with different manifestations of internationalisation. Internationalism is associated with

• international student mobility/exchange programs; • faculty development and exchange; • research collaborations; • internationalizing curricula as foreign language studies; • internationalizing curricula as building international perspectives;


• international networks; and open market transnational education with

• distance education; • twinning programs; • articulation programs; • branch campuses; • franchising arrangements; and • internationalising curricula in terms of standards and quality assurance.

Bernardo makes clear that though these manifestations continue to be associated with the two major rationales, they are being transformed by the “pressures and opportunities afforded by globalization” (p. 23). Included in these transformations is the shift from student mobility as a manifestation of internationalism – with a focus on “the enhancement of international cooperative efforts to advance knowledge” (p. 7) – to student mobility as a response to the global market in education. His recommendations for internationalisation in the Philippines emphasise the need to acknowledge both rationales, while ensuring that internationalisation does not weaken higher education in the Philippines by, for example, creating elites, but is used as an opportunity to improve educational quality and access. Notwithstanding again, there is no elaboration of the ‘intercultural dimension’ in teaching and learning. Van deWende (2001) Van de Wende explains how the increasing influence of economic rationales for internationalisation is shaping – and challenging – the way internationalisation is manifested in educational policy in Europe. Drawing on examples including Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, she (p. 251) identifies a shift from the traditional social/cultural interest in internationalisation as “cooperation”, exemplified by the SOCRATES program (see also Reichert & Wächter 2000), to a commercially driven focus on “competition”, accentuated by pressure for international free trade – exemplified by GATS (see also Knight (2002a) on the implication of GATS for higher education). Van de Wende (p. 255) identifies Europe’s major competitors as being the US, UK and Australia, and the challenge for Europe as being to operate in an increasingly market oriented international educational environment while preserving and developing the traditional emphasis on internationalisation as cooperation. She describes how European organisations and universities are responding to this challenge through the establishment of consortia and other groupings, but argues that there is as yet insufficient evidence to judge the effectiveness of these responses. However, the ‘intercultural dimensions’ as mentioned by Knight are not discussed. Engberg and Green (2002) US perspectives on and rationales for internationalisation, while including the cultural and commercial, have been more varied and fragmented than those of Europe and Australia. In the opening sections of their report on eight American educational institutions which have implemented internationalisation programs, Engberg and Green overview the historical background and rationales which have influenced the US experience. They explain that motivations for internationalising education have included strengthening national security, particularly during the cold war, and enhancing scholarship through study abroad and exchange schemes. However, they (p. 7) also observe that internationalisation has not been a high national priority “over the past 25 years”, explaining that “U.S. scientific, economic, and military might, along with the rise of English as a global language and the success or our higher education system – as well as its attractiveness to international students – have fuelled the American tendency to believe that our own history, language, and culture are all that matter”. According to the authors, successive governments have done little to promote internationalisation, and, for this and other reasons, overall progress towards internationalisation “has been slow” (p. 9). Against this background, the authors identify a number of higher education institutions which have implemented internationalisation programs, and identify in each case how the institution provides examples for others to follow. However, there is no mention of the ‘intercultural dimension’ in teaching and learning. For further reading, see de Wit (2002).


Gallagher (2002a) From an Australian perspective, Gallagher examines the evolving relationships between cultural and commercial rationales for internationalisation. In doing so, he links examples of internationalisation from a range of countries to emergent issues such as educational quality and WTO negotiations, and relates these to the Australian experience. His purpose (p. 1) is to explore “room for reconciliation” between these rationales, which, he argues, would be to the advantage of all stakeholders. He starts by noting that countries who are in fact players in trade-driven international education, such as the US, Canada and UK, are, for different reasons, reluctant to include trade in education at international fora such as UNESCO, the WTO and negotiations on GATS. Citing the example of Norway, which is engaging in this process, he argues that the development of the trade in education through such fora would provide opportunities to enhance international educational quality and access. Gallagher argues that Australia would be well positioned to contribute to this process because it is a highly developed exporter of education supported by “indisputably the world’s best practice benchmark” (p. 4) policies and frameworks, such as the ESOS Act, and the AQF, CRICOS and AUQA. However, he argues that a weakness in Australia’s position is that it has failed to develop the cultural dimensions of internationalised education, explaining that

We have a long way to go on some of the cultural dimensions of education internationalisation. And these cultural dimensions can be seen to underpin our national economic competitiveness and social openness as well as enabling opportunities for personal growth (p. 4).

The failure is, he argues, both a weakness in relation to participation in international fora on higher education and poses a threat to Australia’s longer term cultural, social and commercial interests in the internationalisation of education. However, and although he mentions the inadequacy of internationalisation without consideration of ‘cultural dimensions of education’, Gallagher provides no discussion of what these ‘dimensions’ may be in this context. Theme: Quality As foreshadowed by Gallagher (2002a), the development and maintenance of quality assurance in internationalisation is a prevalent theme in the literature. Examination of relevant issues and a proposed framework for monitoring quality in relation to internationalisation are provided by: Knight (2000b) for an Australian perspective on the implications of globalisation for QA agencies; Woodhouse (2001) for an account of the background of and current approaches to quality in Australia; Vidovich (2002). Further reading in this area includes: from a range of international perspectives, OECD (1999); from European perspectives, van Damme (2001) and Westerheijden and Leegwater (2003); for information on benchmarking in Australian universities, KcKinnon, Walter and Davis (2000); and, for an Australian federal government policy perspective, DEST (2002). Knight (2002b) Knight provides a detailed framework for reviewing the quality of internationalisation strategies in higher education institutions, where ‘internationalisation’ is understood in her (1994:3) sense of a “process” of integration. The framework, The Internationalisation Quality Review Process (IQRP), has been developed by the Institutional Management of Higher Education (IMHE) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in consultation with the Academic Co-operation Association (ACA) in Brussels. The pilot project in which the IQRP was developed formed the basis of an influential collection of studies (OECD 1999), edited by Knight and de Wit, on which Knight (2002b) draws. The purpose of the IQRP, Knight (2002b:1) explains, is to evaluate and improve the quality of internationalisation in three areas: the “achievement” of stated institutional goals relating to


internationalisation; the “integration of the international dimension into the primary functions and priorities of the institution” ; and the “inclusion of internationalisation” within the institution’s “quality assurance system”. The evaluation procedures are based on a self-assessment model which focuses on “the relationship between objectives and actual achievement” (ibid). Knight (p. 2) emphasises that, while the review process is “not intended to prescribe practices or advocate uniformity”, there are nevertheless commonalities between institutions which serve as reference points for the “operational framework” (ibid.) of the review process and the detailed guidelines which Knight provides for conducting an institutional review. The review process is divided into three phases: self-assessment (pp. 2-9); peer review (pp. 10-12); and follow up (p. 12). The most substantial of these is phase one which involves the selection of the review team, and the design and implementation of the self-assessment process. This process involves an “analysis”, rather than “description” (p. 3), of internationalisation strategies referenced to a wide range of criteria under eight headings. These include the higher education system as a whole, international strategies and policies, organisational and support structures, and academic programmes and students. This analysis is designed to produce a “profile” (ibid.) of internationalisation strategies which can then serve as the basis for internal evaluation, peer review and further action. However, no connection is drawn between the nature of quality, as understood for the purposes of quality assurance, and ‘intercultural dimensions’ in internationalisation. Woodhouse (2001) Woodhouse explains how higher education is both shaping and shaped by globalisation, including travel, free trade zones, multinational companies, internationally available information on education, mobility of education, and education as an international business. He explains how these features of globalisation have given rise to three developments which each raise challenges for the evaluation and maintenance of quality. The developments he discusses are education at a distance, manifested as transnational, online, distance and collaborative education; increased mobility of people and the resultant need for international recognition of qualifications; and the international trade in education as an issue of consumer protection and cultural impact.

Woodhouse examines the implications for these developments for quality assurance agencies, the prospects for global accreditation, and identifies a need to review the concepts we currently associate with quality. A connection between ‘quality’ and ‘intercultural dimensions’ in higher education is not made. Vidovich (2002) Vidovich provides an account of how policy on quality assurance in Australian higher education has evolved. He explains how historical conditions, globalisation and the international context of quality assurance has shaped the Australian experience, and, drawing on interviews with AUQA board members, he identifies the emergence and consolidation of a rationale for quality assurance based on a consensus “on the importance of international markets as the major stimulus for new quality policy” (p. 7). This consensus is, he argues, a temporary “settlement” (p. 13), may support different “‘quality’ discourses”(p. 10), and is potentially unstable. A connection between ‘quality’ and ‘intercultural dimensions’ in higher education is not made. Theme: Strategies The literature on strategies as related to curriculum can be discussed under two interconnected sub-themes: (1) strategies related to regions, government, and institutions (including, for example, management, marketing and administration); and (2) strategies concerned more specifically with teaching and learning (understood as a focus on pedagogy as distinct from modes of delivery – such as offshore and online). (1) Sub-theme: Regions, government, and institutions


Knight (2003c) provides a recent international survey of regional, governmental and institutional strategic priorities and initiatives. Gallagher (2000, 2002b) provides a specifically Australian focus. For further reading from the Australian perspective see DEST (2001); on the management of internationalisation in Australian universities, see Manning (2003), Walters and Adams (2001) and Poole (2001); for a European perspective, see Callan (2000); and for perspectives from the USA, see Saiya and Hayward (2003), who report on a survey of internationalisation strategies at more than 750 US colleges and universities and compare the results with a previous survey; and see Paige (2003), who examines strategies adopted by the University of Minnesota. Knight (2003c) Knight summarises a report commissioned by the International Association of Universities (AIU) into internationalisation trends, practices, priorities and policies relating to higher education. The report is based on a survey of 621 IAU members in 66 countries, in Africa, Asia, Europe, North and South America, and the Middle East. It identifies the range and diversity of strategic priorities and considerations across these regions, including among the most significant the need to facilitate student and teacher mobility, concerns about ‘brain drain’ and loss of cultural identity, and the perceived benefits of student, staff and teacher development; academic standards and quality; and international research collaboration. Key new areas of development are identified as distance learning and ICTs, and “while two thirds of the institutions appear to have an internationalisation policy/strategy, only half of these institutions have budgets and a monitoring framework to support implementation” (p. 3). Gallagher (2000, 2002b) The two Gallagher readings can be read together as a guide to the context in which the strategic priorities of Australian universities have emerged and will, he argues, develop in the future. Though not focusing specifically on internationalisation, Gallagher (2000) explains how “entrepreneurial public universities” have emerged in response to the tightening fiscal context of Australian higher education. Within this context, he argues, the “the business of revenue raising and cost management requires a more serious strategic approach” (p. 23). In particular, he focuses (p. 28) on how “graduate attributes” can be “embedded” in curricula by “auditing” curricula to establish their effectiveness in addressing the development of specific attributes in graduates. Such audits provide, he argues, “the framework for strategic decisions to be taken on which attributes require further attention in terms of integration, development and assessment”. Significantly for this project, he identifies (p. 29) the University of South Australia as the most advanced in developing this strategic embedding of graduate attributes, a strategy which is central to the University’s “‘infusion’ approach to internationalisation of the curriculum” (Knight 1995, cited in Leask 1999a:2; see also Leask 2001, 2002a). Gallagher (2002b) identifies three “phases” in the internationalisation of higher education in Australia, and argues that we are currently moving from the second to the third phase. The first phase “was mainly individually driven by academics and students seeking to expand their knowledge and networks through exchange of scholarship” (p. 1). The “dominant mind set” (p. 2) of the second phase has been to attract students from overseas to study in Australia, a model in which the student moves to the provider in the provider’s country. As well as this strategy, the second phase has to a lesser extent involved institutions and teachers moving overseas, and modes of delivery overseas in which no one moves (p. 2), as in forms of distance education. Gallagher argues that the third phase will involve a greater emphasis on this provision of education overseas. He identifies twelve features of this phase and argues that these reflect strategic challenges for the Australian higher education sector, challenges which highlight the importance of meeting international competition and managing quality, and the need to attend to the “yield” – meaning the “revenue per unit of activity” (p. 3) – of internationalisation strategies. (2) Sub-theme: teaching and learning In relation to teaching and learning, internationalisation appear in the literature search in five ways which represent different, though not mutually exclusive, manifestations of the ‘international/intercultural dimension’ in teaching and learning. These are:


‘inclusivity’; course content; language; interaction; and ‘intercultural sensitivity development’.

Each of these, as well as the related literature on the implications of internationalisation for staff development, is discussed below. ‘Inclusivity’ In this manifestation, internationalisation is interpreted as teaching and learning which seeks to raise awareness of and promote values of cultural diversity and equity, with a particular focus on how these apply to international students. As Reich (2002:4) explains, this manifestation is associated with a range of terminology , including “intercultural teaching competence”, “multicultural education”, “intercultural education”, “teaching for cultural diversity”, “teaching for social justice”, “inclusive education” and “intercultural perspectives”. Haigh (2002:51), exemplifies the ‘inclusive’ interpretation of internationalisation, describing it as follows:

Internationalisation of the curriculum is the process of designing a curriculum that meets the needs of an international student body (cf. Callan, 2000). Ultimately, the process is about ‘fair play’. The ideal international curriculum provides equably for the learning ambitions of all students, irrespective of their national, ethnic, cultural, social class/caste or gender identities. It values social inclusion, cultural pluralism and ‘world citizenship’ ahead of partisan links to any smaller geographical, cultural or social unit (Surian 1996).

Focusing on the geography curriculum higher education in the UK, Haigh examines the more general implications for teaching and learning of this combined focus on inclusivity and international students. His discussion also makes clear that, globally, this is an influential manifestation of internationalisation. Further, Morey (2000:25ff) identifies the European “multicultural” tradition in education, and argues that, whereas it has hitherto focused on “diversity within a nation state”, there is a need to develop what she terms “global/international education” which prepares students for the realities of an interdependent world”. She argues that this can be achieved by “transforming” multicultural education to include an international focus. Rizvi and Walsh (1998), argue that the focus on “the celebration of diversity… as an educational goal” (p. 11) in Australian higher education overlooks the potential of what they term an “ethic of difference”, according to which teaching and learning would focus on the exploration of cultural differences between students. Course content This refers to the recommendations in the literature for the introduction of ‘international’ and ‘intercultural’ content as a way of internationalising teaching and learning. For example, in an influential guide to internationalising the curriculum, Whalley (1997:2) quotes Bremer and van de Wende (1995:10), who define internationalised curricula as

Curricula with an international orientation in content, aimed at preparing students for performing (professionally/socially) in an international and multicultural context, and designed for domestic students and/or foreign students.

Reflecting this focus on internationalisation as ‘content’, Whalley recommends that the three “formal aspects” (p. 13ff) of the curriculum – “global skills objectives”, “course content” and “instructional resources” – emphasise the development of students’ knowledge of and skills in identifying and analysing international and culturally diverse issues and examples presented in course content and resources.


Language Internationalisation is manifested as a focus on language in two ways: as addressing the English language and associated cultural challenges faced by international students; and as foreign language learning as a way to develop local students’ capacity to meet the demands of the globalisation. Ramburuth (1999) provides an example of the focus on international students. He reports on a study of the language support needs of local and international students in the Commerce and Economics faculty of an Australian university. He explains how the study led to the provision of language and learning support from within the faculty, and a shift away from using centralised support. Similarly, Hellsten (2002) reports on a study of how international students experience the “transition” (p. 3) to study in the Australian university environment. The study compared students’ expectations of study in Australia with their experiences of these transitions. A major theme which emerged was, contrary to students’ expectations, the risk of isolation resulting from lack of ability and opportunity to integrate with Australian society and culture, a risk compounded by “less than adequate language skills” (p. 10). In relation to internationalisation as foreign language learning, Vogel (2001) argues that learning foreign languages improves graduates’ ability to operate and find employment within an increasingly globalised environment, and explains how, to this end, foreign language learning is integrated across faculties at the European University of Viadrina, (see also, for example, how Gallagher (2002a) identifies internationalisation with, inter alia, foreign language learning). Interaction In the literature on internationalisation, interaction between students and staff and members of other cultures is manifested in four main ways: (1) as study abroad initiatives, such as ‘study tours’ and ‘exchange programs’; (2) as interaction between international and local students, (3) as ‘cross-cultural communication’; and (4) as roleplays and simulations. For an example of the focus on study abroad see Altbach and Teichler (2001), and for interaction between international and local students, see Leask (2002b). In relation to cross-cultural communication, see Edwards (1997), and for role plays and simulations see Bickley and Fyfe (2002). Altbach and Teichler (2001) explain the historical and contemporary context, scale and scope of study abroad initiatives, focusing in particular on the European experience, and examine long term trends and challenges. These include the diversification and massification of university education, increasing ease of student mobility, pressure on programs to be accountable in terms of outcomes and costs, the growth of different forms of distance education, and a “paradigmatic shift” from the acquisition of “experiences” to “competencies” (p. 19). In light of these developments, they argue that the purposes and outcomes of study abroad initiatives should be reconsidered. Further reading in this area are: Hutchings, Jackson and McEllister (2002), who report on a study tour of China designed for business students in Australia; and Vincenti (2001), who argues for a relationship between experiences in studying abroad and effectiveness in working across disciplinary boundaries. In relation to interaction between international and local students, Leask (2002b) draws on recent studies and the experience of internationalisation at the University of South Australia to argue that interaction between these groups should be understood as a key resource in internationalising higher education, with benefits for both groups, for teaching and learning, and for the university. In doing so, she emphasises that internationalisation is a process which includes all students, and the university community as a whole. Drawing on Kudo (2000), she identifies factors which affect the opportunities for and nature of interaction between the two groups of students, and proposes a framework of strategies for encouraging this to occur. Further reading in this area are: Leask (2004), who argues for the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ITCs) in promoting student interaction; and Ward (2001), a literature review which focuses on studies relating to the affects of international students on local students and host institutions, including strategies for fostering interaction in teaching and learning In a paper which exemplifies how role plays and simulations are used to promote internationalisation, Bickley and Fyfe (2002) explains how the ‘Bafa-Bafa’ simulation is used at Curtin University as an “experiential learning strategy” to develop students’ “cross cultural understanding” through the experience of


“being a “‘stranger’” (p. 1) and undergoing “culture shock in a low risk environment” (p. 2). The paper describes how the simulation is run with graduate business students and reports on a study into its effectiveness in developing their “cross-cultural skills” (p. 1). In his review article, Edwards (1997) refers to ‘cross cultural communication’ as training – offered, for example, in ‘cross-cultural communication handbooks’ – which seeks to provide learners with the means to communicate ‘across’ cultures. In characterising such materials, he (p.155) observes that they:

reflect the view… that all potential social difficulties, even those of the broadest and most complex nature, can be dealt with through recourse to manuals, handbooks training ‘modules’ and programmes, and ‘how-to’ guides of various sorts…. one sometimes has the feeling that they are presented instead of – rather than as an outcome of – a more deeply-rooted sociological understanding.

This observation is further elaborated on by Kramsch (2002) and discussed in Part 2 below. ‘Intercultural sensitivity development’ This theme focuses on how an individual can develop intercultural competence. Based on ‘a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity’ (DMIS) by Milton Bennett (1993), a method of assessing intercultural competence, the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), has been developed, trialled and validated in a range of psychometric studies (Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman 2003; Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova & DeJaeghere 2003). Used in conjunction with Bennett’s model (DMIS), the IDI is being used at a number of higher education institutions in the USA. These include Northwestern University, which currently pre and post tests all its students using the IDI, and Richland Community College, Texas, which has introduced the IDI for all students, as well as all teaching and administrative staff. (see resource Part 2: Intercultural development, in Models of intercultural learning and intercultural development ) Implications of internationalisation for staff development The literature in this area focuses on the challenges for staff posed by the internationalisation of teaching manifested as teaching offshore and as teaching and learning more generally. In relation to teaching offshore, Gribble and Ziguras (2003) report on a study of the preparation provided to staff in business faculties at three Australian universities for teaching courses overseas. They found that while no formal preparation was conducted, “informal briefings and mentoring are very common” (p. 209). These informal methods were generally considered by participants to be adequate, and the experience of teaching offshore thought to be more important than formal training could be. However, based on AUQA’s interpretation of the Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee’s (AVCC) Provision of Education to International Students: Code and Guidelines for Australian Universities (AVCC 2002) as “part of the institution’s policy’s and objectives” (p. 208), the authors argue that universities will be obliged to formalise and make accountable training in this area. Drawing on the provisions of the AVCC Code and feedback from participants in the study, the authors (p.210ff) identify areas on which such preparation could focus, including “cross-cultural training” and more information on the “cultural, political, legal and contexts” of each country. Further reading in this area includes Evans and Tegenza (2002), who report on an ARC funded project focusing on the experiences of Australian university teachers delivering courses in Hong Kong, and Leask (2004), whose discussion of how ITCs can be used to promote internationalisation of the curriculum includes an examination of the implications for staff development. In relation to staff development more generally, Paige and Mestenhauser (1999) argue that internationalisation should be understood in relation to staff development as the acquisition of an “international mindset” (p. 502) rather than “in terms of global forces that influence education, as well as exchanges of persons and ideas around the globe” (p. 504). The authors identify and develop seven features of the international mindset and argue that these enable educators to focus on “what learners do with the knowledge and experiences they have” (ibid.), thereby moving beyond “the most common approach to internationalization” which “is to add information to the existing curriculum” (p. 502).


For further reading, see Leeman and Ledoux (2003), who distinguish between different forms of ‘inclusive’ education and report on a major study in the Netherlands of teachers’ preparation for and understanding of inclusive education across all educational sectors. Significant for teaching and learning practice is their finding that, while teachers’ understandings focused on objectives which were “mainly knowledge and attitudes oriented”, “practical skills were hardly dealt with…. and examples were not directly linked to teaching practice” (p. 287). Theme: The intercultural dimension There is general agreement in the literature on the need to include an ‘intercultural dimension’ in the internationalisation of teaching and learning (see, for example, Knight 1994, 1997, 1999, 2003b, 2004; Gallagher 2002a). However, this need raises two related challenges: a) as Knight (2004:49) makes clear, there is the challenge, noted above, of how internationalisation is to “deal with the intersection of international and intercultural” (2003a:17, 2004:49); and b), as raised by Paige and Mestenhauser (1999) and Morey (2000), there is the challenge of how to conceptualise and operationalise intercultural teaching and learning in a way which develops students’ capacity to understand and interact ‘interculturally’. These challenges are emphasised in a recent Australian publication (Liddicoat, Eisenchlas & Trevaskes, eds. (2003) in which, Liddicoat (2003:19) observes that the internationalisation of course content typically “fails to develop the intercultural dimension proposed by Knight and de Wit (1995) and Luong et al. (1996)…. because it fails to attend to issues of identity and engagement which lie at the heart of interculturality”. Discussion of these challenges is taken up in Part 2 below. Theme: Research Research is represented in the literature in two ways: in accounts of the internationalisation of research as a part of the broader process of internationalisation (for example, Bernado 2003; Knight 2003a, 2004); and in calls for more research into aspects of internationalisation. For example, Manning (2003) identifies a lack of research into the management of internationalisation in higher education in Australia, and Knight (2004) identifies a range of issues for further investigation. As well as the questions of the nature of and relationship between the international and the intercultural dimensions of internationalisation, these include the implications of internationalisation for quality and accreditation of programs and providers; the recognition of academic credentials; and the operations of emergent, private sector providers. Moreover, to these specific questions, Knight (p. 50) adds the ongoing need to identify further issues and questions for “evaluation, research, and policy analysis”. Theme: Discourses ‘Discourse’ in the context of this project considers language as a phenomenon which is both socially shaped, in the sense that its use reflects particular values and interests, and socially shaping, in the sense that its use advances these same values and interests. In relation to internationalisation, then, this theme includes references to ways in which the linguistic resources drawn on by the different groups involved reflect and advance their different interests and values, and thereby evidence the operation of different ‘discourses’ of internationalisation., and the ‘intercultural’. Issues focused on under this theme include what discourses are being drawn upon in internationalisation, and how these discourses in turn shape the nature and direction of this process(es). References which suggest discourse in this sense include Callan (1998, 2000), Devos (2003), and Clyne, Marginson & Woock (2001); and, in less specified senses, Rizvi & Walsh (1998), Vidovich (2002), and Bernardo (2003). While the authors of these references explore a range of issues relevant to the discourses of internationalisation, they do not provide a systematic treatment of this theme of discourses in relation to the intercultural, and how ‘intercultural dimensions’ are actually understood, operationalised and promoted in curriculum design, and teaching, learning, and assessment practice.


PART 2: ‘THE INTERCULTURAL’ Introduction As indicated in Part 1 above,

a) [We need] to deal with the intersect of ‘international’ and ‘intercultural’ (Knight, 2003a:17, 2004:49);

b) [We need] to attend to issues of identity and engagement which lie at the heart of interculturality.

(Liddicoat, Eisenchlas, Trevaskes, 2003:19).

c) We have a long way to go on some of the cultural dimensions of education internationalisation. And these cultural dimensions can be seen to underpin our national economic competitiveness and social openness as well as enabling opportunities for personal growth. (Gallagher, 2002:4);

The development of the ‘intercultural dimensions’ in the internationalisation of higher education depends, in the first instance, on making explicit both the theoretical principles which underlie intercultural teaching and learning, and how these are intended to guide curriculum design that promote effective intercultural communication within the contexts of international education (cf. Liddicoat, Papademetre, Scarino, Kohler, 2003). The centrality of language and culture specific discourse-construction is always foregrounded in the literature as follows:

To become aware of one’s own worldview is to realize that one is construing in a particular cultural way. It is to find one’s own “meaning-making” meaningful, an activity that exists on a meta-level, above the basic differentiation of cultural categories. (Bennett, 1993:25)

In developing such ‘intercultural dimensions’, a critical awareness of the interdisciplinary scholarship on ‘the intercultural’ may provide an educational space for self-reflection and engagement with ‘one’s own “meaning-making” and the way(s) one ‘construes’ it, by resorting to one’s own language and culture. What follows is a pathway for becoming familiar with the diachronic signposts that have provided the fields contributing to intercultural education with the interdisciplinary approach needed in conceptualising the ‘intercultural’. The ‘ intercultural’ An overview In her 2002 review/critique article --- ‘In search of the intercultural’ ---, Claire Kramsch examines various attempts to address ‘the intercultural’ in the context of language, culture, and intercultural communication teaching and learning. She foregrounds the fact that:

There is hardly a term that raises more hopes for international understanding and peaceful transaction among people, yet is more difficult to define than ‘intercultural communication’… Whether it is called international, cross-cultural, or intercultural, communication between people of different languages and cultures has been an obsession of the last century… (p.275).

In contextualising such an ‘obsession’, Kramsch, then, traces the historical context of the development of this ‘term’ as follows:

With the advances in industrialization and democratization, and the ascendancy of the social sciences in the 20’s and 30’s, the humanists’ notion of high Culture, as the major staple of national pride, was slowly replaced by the sociologists’ and anthropologists’ notion of culture as a country’s everyday beliefs, customs, artefacts and institutions. This small c culture was seen as the basis for national communities and identities… (p.276).


After WWII, in the spirit of tolerance and respect for other cultures inherited from the Enlightenment, cross-cultural communication was deemed a universal safeguard against the excesses of narrow-minded nationalism… Since WWII, the rise of multinational corporations, the advent of global information technologies and a global economy, large scale migrations and the increasingly multicultural nature of industrialized societies have raised an interest in intercultural communication. Culture has become less and less a national consensus, but a consensus built on common ethnic, generational, regional, ideological, occupation-or-gender-related interests, within and across national boundaries… Now what we have is ‘a scramble of differences in a field of connections’ (Geertz 2000:250). (p.276) The desire to make sense of and cope with differences and connections in worldviews, interactional patterns, and discourse preferences of people who didn’t use to come into contact with one another, but now increasingly do, both in real or virtual environments, is what makes the concept of intercultural communication so timely but so difficult to define… (p.276).

There are multiple meanings and educational uses of ‘intercultural’ by researchers and educators involved with the various interdisciplinary fields of studying intercultural communication and interaction around the world. These fields of study and research include: anthropology, communication studies, culture studies, education, linguistics {biolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics}philosophy, psychology, and sociology, among others (see bibliography). For the last two centuries, at least, each field of inquiry has been contributing to the development of interdisciplinary perspectives on human communication and interaction. The tacit agreement across these fields is the fact that all learning --- no matter the field, the discipline-specific theories and applications, and the content of teaching and learning --- involves language, culture, communication and learning how to communicate and interact with fellow humans. According to the research in these fields of study, the acquisition of any ‘knowledge’ is mediated by language in any of its variable forms of representation – be it mathematical formulas, theories in physics, analyses in economics, etc.; its variable socio-cultural use – as exemplified in social registers, professional discourses, etc.; its variable manifestations of institutional authority – as represented through certificates, degrees, awards, etc.; and its variable professional contexts of practice in any human society. In any of these variable contexts of mediated and mediating learning, the relevant concepts associated with study and research in intercultural communication and interaction become fundamental. As Paige has observed,

…culture learning is not exclusively the domain of language educators. On the contrary, the field is highly interdisciplinary in nature: contributions to the knowledge base have come from psychology, linguistics, anthropology, education, intercultural communication, and elsewhere. Moreover, anthropologists, intercultural communication scholars, and psychologists, in particular, have studied cultural phenomena quite apart from their relationship to language learning…A substantial amount of important writing on culture learning exists, much of which is completely unrelated to language education. (Paige, et al, 2003:5).

Intercultural teaching and learning In the broader context of teaching and learning, Paige (1993) articulates the challenge posed for both educators and learners by intercultural education. For educators the challenge is that:

Intercultural education is a highly specialized form of instruction designed to prepare persons to live and work effectively in cultures other than their own. Its curricular content and instructional methodologies have developed over the years in response to the needs of learners and the demands intercultural experiences place upon them. Professional intercultural educators know that communicating and interacting with culturally different others is psychologically intense. The process of adapting to a new culture requires learners to be emotionally resilient in responding to the challenges and frustrations of cultural immersion. It also requires sojourners to be capable of


utilizing their own culture-learning skills to master appropriate target-culture behaviors and acquire the insider’s knowledge of the culture. Intercultural education, if it is to be effective, must help learners develop these culture-learning skills and enable them to manage their emotional responses. It must therefore incorporate cognitive, behavioural, and affective forms of learning into its structure. (Paige, 1993:1).

For learners the challenge is that:

Intercultural education is intense for a number of reasons. Its content can be difficult to grasp, its process demanding. First, it requires learners to reflect upon matters with which they have had little firsthand experience. Second, unlike more conventional approaches to education, which tend to emphasize depersonalized forms of cognitive learning and knowledge acquisition, it includes highly personalized behavioural and affective learning, self-reflection, and direct experience with cultural differences. Third, “learning-how-to-learn”, a process-oriented pedagogy, replaces learning facts, a product-oriented pedagogy, as a major goal. Fourth, intercultural education involves epistemological explorations regarding alternative ways of knowing and validating what we know, i.e. the meaning of truth and reality. In the intercultural framework, human reality is viewed as socially constructed, a function of perception and of culture-group memberships, and something which varies considerably across human communities. In this vein, learners study the impact that culture, race, ethnicity, gender, politics, economics, and other factors have on the perceptions of the world which individuals and groups come to hold. Finally, these inquiries lead logically to the idea that cultures are social inventions which address, in vastly different ways, how basic human needs are met and how meaning in life is derived. Cultures possess their own internal logic and coherence for their members and, hence, their own validity. Making judgements about them is hazardous when the criteria for evaluation come solely from another culture. Inevitably, learners struggle with these ideas. ( Paige, 1993:3).

Whether one perceives oneself as an educator or learner, or both, “intercultural education involves epistemological explorations”, and as a consequence, active engagement with some of the thinking which informs an interdisciplinary notion of the ‘intercultural’ is necessary. To this end, what follows is an “epistemological exploration” of some interdisciplinary perspectives that are relevant to intercultural teaching and learning because they have as their primary focus the study and analysis of human communication as manifested through language and culture ‘knowledge acquisition’ and how such knowledge is enacted. Perspectives are presented below from two mutually-informing fields of study and research: (a) linguistics; and (b) intercultural communication, both of which are themselves interdisciplinary in an epistemological sense. Epistemological exploration of the ‘intercultural’: perspectives from linguistics and intercultural communication From linguistics: Linguistic, cultural, and intercultural competence (This discussion is adapted from Liddicoat, Papademetre, Scarino, Kohler, 2003)

A starting point for understanding the epistemological discourse informing ‘intercultural competence’ in the context of intercultural teaching and learning could be an examination of the notion of communicative competence. In sociolinguistics and anthropological linguistics, the contexts in which the notion communicative competence originates, communicative competence can be understood broadly as ‘what a communicator needs to know in order to be able to communicate appropriately within a particular communicating and interacting community’. (Hymes, 1986, 1987; Saville-Troike, 1989, 2003; Liddicoat, et al, 2003).

The development of the notion of communicative competence started with attempts to define language competence, which moved beyond a view that language competence consisted solely of a native speaker’s ability to form any and all of the grammatical sentences of a language (cf. Chomsky, 1965). This view of language competence is now regarded as inadequate because it includes only knowledge of grammatical


rules and says nothing about the socio-cultural conditions of use in which those rules are applied in order to communicate and to interpret linguistic messages. As it has been subsequently argued (cf. Saville-Troike, 2003), when humans acquire their first language, they acquire culturally specific rules of language selection and interpretation relevant for their primary socialisation into the communicating and interacting community into which they have been born and of which they are members. This has meant a rethinking of the nature of linguistic and cultural competence in two main ways: first, such competence needs to be seen as more than a simple construct which explains selection and interpretation, perception and production in the same way. Second, it needs to move beyond grammatically based understandings of competence so to include variable socio-cultural contexts even within one language and culture. (cf. Byram, Zarate, 1994; Kramsch, 1998; Liddicoat, Crozet, Lo Bianco, 1999).

The emphasis on communicative competence in sociolinguistics and anthropological linguistics has led researchers in the area of applied linguistics to introducing the terms ‘intercultural (communicative) competence’ (cf. Buttjes, Byram, 1991; Crozet, Liddicoat, Lo Bianco, 1999; Liddicoat, 2002b), ‘transnational communicative competence’ (Baumgratz, 1987), or ‘cultural competence’ (Nostrand, 1991). The terms are basically interchangeable and seek to re-conceptualise language competence to include socio-cultural understanding of what ‘a communicator needs to know in order to participate in a communicating and interacting community’ no matter the language and culture in question.

The need for an individual to develop intercultural communicative competence, therefore, is to conceptualise linguistic and cultural communicative competence from a variable perspective even within what may be regarded as ‘a native-speaker-norm’. (Byram, 1989; Crozet, Liddicoat, 1999; Kasper, 1997; Kramsch, 1999; Saville-Troike, 2003; Liddicoat, et al, 2003).

In addition, various researchers have been continually arguing that there is a need for different models of communicative competence for perception and production when learning ‘a second language’ (Swain, 1985). In terms of perception, learners need to know how to interpret what native speakers are doing in their communication and to have an understanding of the native language norms, which allow for messages to be interpreted appropriately in their socio-cultural contexts. (cf. Crozet, Liddicoat, 1999, 2000; Kasper, 1997; Saville-Troike, 2003). For production, however, the situation is more complex, and it may be more effective for learners to know how to produce language which is interpretable by native speakers, but which at the same time acknowledges the learners’ place as members of one or more of the world’s languages and cultures. Such acknowledgement foregrounds identity and representation aspects in intercultural communication, where a relation and connection to co-existing cultural frames of reference signal multi-membership as a universal element of communication and interaction among people across languages and cultures. (cf. Liddicoat, Eisenchlas, Trevaskes, 2003; Papademetre, Scarino 2000). Kramsch (1998) argues that learners need to develop a native-speaker like competence in understanding the pragmatic force associated with linguistic structures (cf. pragma-linguistic competence, Thomas (1983)). However, learners do make choices about whether or not to adopt native speakers’ understandings of imposition, social distance, and relative rights and obligations in involving these linguistic structures (cf. socio-pragmatic competence, Thomas (1983)). This shift of focus means redefining the nature of linguistic and cultural competence within the intercultural context of learning one or more of the world’s languages and cultures. It means moving away from psycho-linguistically determined models with their emphasis on the development of linguistic structures and emphasising more socio-culturally determined models of language which regard communication and interaction as multi-levelled and multi-layered (cf. Firth,Wagner, 1997; Brody, 2003; Liddicoat, 1997b; Liddicoat, et al, 2003). The emphasis of this new focus in conceptualising intercultural communicative competence is placed on the multiple and diverse social, cultural and linguistic contexts of daily communication and interaction. (Buttjes,


Byram,1991; Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 2003; Liddicoat, 2002b). This emphasis reflects a multi-perspective view of intercultural competence in any educational context of teaching and learning because it includes all aspects contributing to any communicative interaction between any communicators, no matter whether one or many codes or modes of language are available to them for use. Many educators argue further that the focus on effective intercultural communication should be placed on the ‘interculturality’ of each communicator and how it contributes to intercultural teaching and learning. (cf. Byram, Zarate, 1994; Kramsch, 1998; Liddicoat, Crozet , Lo Bianco, 1999; Papademetre, 2000; Liddicoat, et al, 2003). Furthermore, in view of the fact that in a teaching and learning context a learner’s ‘non-native speaker’ status and identity is an inseparable part of his/her status and identity within a given ‘native’ educational community, this status and identity needs to be recognised and valued by teachers and learners as an integral part of intercultural competence, which the learner is constantly developing and negotiating. ( Byram, 1999; Liddicoat, Eisenchlas, Trevaskes, 2003; Kramsch, 1997, 2000; Valdmann, 1992; Pauwels 2000; Papademetre, Scarino, 2000). These considerations mean that for intercultural teaching, learning, and its assessment, educators should seek a specifically intercultural understanding of the status and acquisition of knowledge in their particular disciplines, i.e. in their epistemologies. This means

i. Taking into account individual ‘inter-linguality’ and ‘inter-culturality’ in any attempt to explore the nature of intercultural competence and its relation to intercultural education locally and internationally.

ii. Developing a self-reflective/reflexive stance towards human ‘knowing’ and ‘knowledge’.

Introspection on the process of acquiring ‘knowledge’ --- engendered through intercultural learning— engenders, in turn, understanding of the variable ways our own individual ‘interculturality’ affects how we see the world, how we communicate about the world, and how we reflect upon seeing and communicating in the world. (cf. Liddicoat, et al, 2003).

To date, the interdisciplinary fields of socio-cultural linguistics, and applied linguistics --- in their connections with research in languages and cultures teaching and learning --- have consistently argued that the epistemological discourse associated with understanding intercultural communicative competence is fundamental to researching and studying all aspects of intercultural communication from ‘knowledge acquisition’, through language and culture, to its enactment in human interaction. For,

In order to describe what people do in social interaction with each other, analysts have no other recource but discourse itself --- the discourse of their discipline, laid out on the page as disciplinary truth. And that, as James Clifford (1988) would say, is the ‘predicament of culture.’ (Kramsch, 2002:282)

Thus, the suggestion has been offered that educators (cf. Kramsch, 1999) should:

…. be alerted to the work done in language and culture on the linguistic side of the fence. For, without attention to what language does in discourse, how it does it … and how it gets evaluated, [we] will not gain the skills to adequately reflect and analyse communication practices. (Kramsch, 2002:280)

From intercultural communication: Intercultural communication competence In the interface of acquiring culture ‘knowledge’ with language ‘knowledge’ in the context of intercultural teaching and learning, Smith, Paige, and Steglitz (2003) argue as follows:

Intercultural communication is an academic field. Certainly, the domain of intercultural training has long been considered to be culture as opposed to language… In spite of numerous efforts to integrate the language and culture components, it has generally been felt that language preparation, at least in


the early stages, is so demanding that the cultural element must become secondary. Moreover, language educators, with rare exception, do not view the teaching of culture as central to their work. While culture has rarely been the province of language education, it has always been the central objective of the intercultural trainer. Interculturalists discuss in more general and pragmatic terms the issues of language use and style, i.e., how people interact, frame logical arguments, and “get to the point.” We explore, in depth, culture learning and adjustment, the forming of intercultural relationships, the role of affect and emotion in intercultural contact, and general intercultural phenomena. Yet anthropology also lays claim to the study and analysis of cultural systems and institutions; sociolinguistics, in turn, has carved for itself a key role in identifying the interdependence of language use and the frameworks of social and cultural meaning; and cross-cultural psychology has explored cultural differences in cognition, perception, and culture shock as a problematic phenomenon. The question remained, “what is specifically ours?” The answer is twofold. First, while our field has incorporated theories from all of these disciplines (including most recently the areas of critical theory, diversity, and multiculturalism), intercultural communication brings a specific perspective to the examination of cultural issues that uniquely frames these phenomena. From an intercultural communication perspective, the focus is not on understanding cultures per se, or even on the interface of the individual with a given culture, but on the impact cultural values, beliefs, perceptions, and social relationship patterns have on the relational experience that results from interaction between people as it occurs within a cultural context. Second, more than almost any other group, intercultural trainers have examined the multiple ways in which culture can be taught. Faced with the real world problem of preparing people with such diverse needs as Peace Corps volunteers, business professional, international students, and career diplomats to function quickly and effectively in cultures other than their own, trainers have developed instructional designs which have been tested and become increasingly more refined during the past 30 years. Over the years, intercultural training has incorporated experiential education, cooperative learning, and adult education principles to the teaching of culture and cultural issues. Its focus on culture-general as well as culture-specific knowledge and its strong commitment to developing the skills of learning how to learn about culture are two contributions of the field that are particularly well suited to the second language classroom. (Smith, Paige, Steglitz, 2003:90).

Exploring further the discourse of ‘definitional language’, intercultural communication researchers also foreground the fact that:

A survey of the literature reveals that there is no one agreed upon definition of intercultural communication. Efforts to define it have focused on: (1) the “necessary and sufficient conditions” for a communication event to qualify as intercultural, such as two or more persons from different cultural backgrounds communicating (Samovar & Porter, 1991, p.20); (2) the intrapersonal and interpersonal processes that need to take place in order for effective intercultural communication to occur, for instance, visible adaptive behaviour on the part of the communicators reflecting their awareness of the other’s foreignness (Ellingsworth, 1983); (3) the qualities of the interaction between people from different cultures that define successful intercultural communication, for example, when mutual understanding or coorientation has been reached (Szalay, 1981); and (4) the processes that lead to coordination in an encounter between individuals from different cultures (Cronen, Chen, & Pearce, 1988); and on the identity assumptions of the people “who identify themselves as distinct from one another in cultural terms” (Collier & Thomas, 1988, p.100). These various definitions do not simply emphasize different aspects of the overall phenomenon of intercultural communication; they reflect profound differences in the way culture, communication, and the culture-communication-communicator relationships are conceptualized. The selection of any given definition informs educational practice and should be based on the requirements of the situation as well as the trainer/educator’s personal preference and creativity. We offer a definition of an intercultural communication perspective that brings to the discussion of the intercultural training and pedagogy our assumptions about the nature of culture and intercultural communication. These assumptions are central to developing guidelines for understanding the choices educators make in developing their curriculum. This understanding serves as a basis for knowing why certain theoretical perspectives and training strategies are adopted. It also gives educators the guidelines in which to creatively develop their own strategies and cultural designs.


The intercultural perspective is difference-based, face-to-face interactive, processual, holistic, humanistic, phenomenological/socially constructed, developmental, and contextual. A more detailed discussion of each of these elements and their impact on intercultural communication pedagogy follows. (Smith, Paige, Steglitz, 2003:93-94) (emphasis in the original).

Since interculturalists also suggest that “if intercultural education is to be effective,..it must therefore incorporate cognitive, behavioral, and affective forms of learning into its structure” (Paige, 1993:1), engaging in intercultural communication requires understanding of:

… why people behave as they normally do in the face of cultural difference, how they are likely to change in response to education, and what the ultimate goal is toward which our efforts are expended. In short, we should be operating with a clear model of how intercultural sensitivity is developed. (Bennett,1993:21).

Such form of learning, it is suggested, requires :

…a formal developmental model built upon prevailing concepts in the field of intercultural communication, a model which goes beyond earlier attempts to conceptualize underlying assumptions and delineate stages. This greater specificity will allow trainers and educators to diagnose stages of development for individuals or groups, to develop curriculum relevant to particular stages, and to sequence activities in ways that facilitate development toward more sensitive stages. (Bennett, 1993:24)

In the resource: Models of intercultural learning and intercultural development, part 2: Intercultural development , Milton Bennett’s ‘developmental model of intercultural sensitivity’ is presented and explored in a paper written by Michael Paige. Interdisciplinary conceptualisations of ‘the intercultural’ In order to appreciate how all ‘epistemological explorations’ contributing to this field of inquiry “reflect profound differences in the way culture, communication, and the culture-communication-communicator relationships are conceptualized” (Smith, et al, 2003:93), a critical examination of the issue of discoursing the ‘intercultural’ from within its own construction of epistemology follows.

In her 2002 review/critique article --- ‘In search of the intercultural’ ---, Claire Kramsch provides her own epistemological exploration in the process of reviewing four books on ‘intercultural communication’1 as follows: In the social sciences, and in communication studies in particular, there is currently a proliferation of introductory textbooks, practical guidebooks, theoretical primers and popularizers, and methodology books on intercultural communication. Making use of research in such fields as social psychology, social and cultural theory, communication studies, interactive sociolinguistics, language policy and applied linguistics, scholars from a variety of disciplines have applied themselves to defining what the nature of intercultural communication might be and how it might be taught. (p.277).

[However], The problem is that, in order to describe what people do in social interaction with each other, analysts have no other recource but discourse itself --- the discourse of their discipline, laid out on the page as disciplinary truth. And that, as James Clifford (1988) would say, is the ‘predicament of culture.’ (p.282)

According to Kramsch, of the four books reviewed, Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach (Ron Scollon, and Suzanne Wong Scollon, 2000) succeeds most in this endeavour --- gaining ‘the skills to adequately reflect and analyse communication practices’--- because it


…offers laypersons in the field of sociolinguistics an introduction to discourse analysis and concrete applications for conducting their professional lives. The first five chapters provide a clear and readable recapitulation of the major tenets of functional discourse analysis on the utterance level: speech acts, the ethnography of speaking, politeness phenomena and face-work, conversational inference, cohesion, frames and scripts, turn-taking and rhetorical strategies, with abundant examples taken from invented and anecdotally collected data…. Chapter 12, ‘Using a discourse approach to intercultural communication’ is a new and welcome addition to the second edition of the book. It synthesises three principles (with corollaries) for the study of IC [intercultural communication]: IC is social action, not representation of thought or values, i.e. it has to be seen as an ecological phenomenon, based on a tacit habitus, that positions the participants and socializes them into members of communities of practice while differentiating them from other non-members; Social action takes place through communication; All communication is embedded in history, i.e. in contradictions and complications. It is characterized by interdiscursivity, intertextuality, and dialogicality. [This book] is not about ‘cross-cultural’ communication, which the Scollons define as the abstract comparison of communication systems of different groups, but about people in social interaction with each other, hence the authors’ preference for the term ‘intercultural’ that they take to mean ‘interdiscursive’, and the subtitle of the book: A Discourse Approach. (p. 281)

However, echoing ‘the uncertainty principle’ operative in the discourse of quantum physics and philosophy (Heisenberg, 1958), Kramsch reminds us once again that:

The problem is that, in order to describe what people do in social interaction with each other, analysts have no other recource but discourse itself --- the discourse of their discipline, laid out on the page as disciplinary truth. (p.282)

Therefore, Kramsch argues, the book Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach may succeed in offering us,

An awareness of the workings of discourse across any kind of human boundaries, … how this awareness can lead to greater understanding of the boundaries,… how to find a way of acknowledging differences in individuals’ worldviews while working together toward a common goal. But doesn’t this common goal already presuppose a common goal-oriented culture? (p.282).

For, Kramsch maintains, it can be further argued that in our interdisciplinary endeavours we conceptualize “culture-communication-communicator relationships” (Smith, et al, 2003:93) using

… a discourse that is not necessarily shared by others. For example, the notion that a people’s culture offers them ‘opportunities’ and ‘challenges’, or that intercultural communication is about ‘individuals communicating with other individuals’ is indicative of a dominant US American way of talking about individualism and commitment to improving the world. (p.277).

This “profound” (Smith, et al, 2003:93) attitude, value and belief in “improving the world” must be self-examined from within the field of intercultural communication study and research in view of the ethics the intercultural communication project has ‘selected’ for itself and has articulated through its ‘definition’ that: “The intercultural perspective is difference-based, face-to-face interactive, processual, holistic, humanistic, phenomenological/socially constructed, developmental, and contextual.” (Smith, et al, p.93). Kramsch voices her concerns about ‘discoursing the intercultural’ by constructing its epistemology in culture-and-language-specific terms, reflecting culture-and-language-specific value judgements, as follows:

The search for intercultural understanding has been fuelled by the tenacious belief in the universal value of information. Communication, and reason, as well as of individual interest and profit as the


common goal in a global economy…. However, {since 9/11}… not all individuals are equally interested in intercultural dialogue and in working towards a common goal imposed by others… The universalist claims of ‘intercultural communication’ might be premature in a world that is increasingly interconnected and increasingly fragmented. The term culture that has replaced nation in the multinational corporate world of a globalized economy seems innocuous enough. It can preserve local cultural niceties while building common global interests. It can maintain the illusion of local autonomy while pursuing global goals. It can lead one to believe that all languages and cultures are equal and that all conflicts are only a ‘communication’ problem within an other wise established consensus on ultimate political and economic goals…. To realize how much intercultural communication itself is typical of a certain Anglo-Saxon culture, discourse and worldview, proponents of intercultural communication would have to confront the inequalities among cultures, the inevitability of conflict, and the tragic dimensions of human action. The concept of intercultural communication can be used to gloss over the increasingly deep divide between the have and the have nots, between those who have access to Western discourse and power and those who don’t, and the ‘discourses of colonialism’ vehiculated by English as a global language (Pennycook 1998). (Kramsch, 2002:282-283 ).

Kramsch, subsequently, evokes Bourdieu’s (1993:9) “assessment of the possibility of intercultural communication among immigrants and autochthons in forced cohabitations with one another.”(p.283). Kramsch translates/interprets Bourdieu’s assessment as follows:

To understand what happens in those places like city ghettos or low cost housing units or public schools, which brings together people which everything separates, obliging them to live together even though they ignore or misunderstand one another, or fight with one another in more or less covert or overt ways, with all the resulting pain and suffering, it is not enough to account for each of the participants’ separate viewpoints. One must also confront them as they are in reality, not in order to relativize them, by letting the cross-cultural perspectives reflect each other ad infinitum, but on the contrary in order to bring to the fore, through their simple juxtaposition, the results of the clash between different or opposed worldviews, i.e. in certain cases, the tragic nature of the clash between incompatible points of view, without the possibility of concession or compromise because they are all equally founded in social reason. (p.283)

In the universal context of la condition humaine, Kramsch concludes that: The tragic is not incompatible with business and with the achievement of common professional goals, but it can imbue them with a sense of vulnerability and even mortality that might bring about a dose of necessary humility in the search for intercultural understanding. It might also help us realize that the concept of intercultural communication, as it is currently used, can be easily highjacked by a global ideology of ‘effective communication’ Anglo-Saxon style, which speaks an English discourse even as it expresses itself in many different languages. Perhaps one antidote to the globalizing tendencies of the ‘intercultural’ is to discover the uniquely personal and creative sources of the free human ‘Subject’, struggling to define him or herself against both the free market ideology (la domination des marches) and the tyranny of the community (les pouvoirs communautaires) (Touraine 1997), in dialogue with other subjects within and between democratic societies – equal but different. Such a resignifying of the term ‘intercultural’ is made theoretically possible by Ron and Suzanne Scollon {in their book} because of the solid discourse foundation they give the term. But it leaves open the question as to which form of ‘democracy’ is best able to guarantee both the right and the capacity of individuals to preserve their cultural identity while participating in global encounters. (p.283-84).

In this interdisciplinary field of inquiry, more and variable voices from within keep examining and critiquing the epistemologies that researchers construct while endeavouring to ‘construe ‘meaning-making” (Bennett, 1993:25). For example, the issue of ‘power’ in intercultural communication and interaction is also addressed:

Competence in the relevant language and culture can undoubtedly be valuable potentials for effective and successful intercultural communication and understanding. But what we do want to question is their underlying theoretical underpinnings and their political consequences, as well as


their institutional foundations… The misunderstanding-oriented approach fails to recognise, or perhaps more correctly, is reluctant to acknowledge, that communication is not simply a matter of exchanging objective meanings and hence of understanding; rather, it is a socially and jointly constructed (inter)action of which power is an indissoluble part. (Shi-xu, Wilson, 2001:77)

Evoking again the ‘uncertainty principle’ so prevalent in the epistemology of philosophy and its relationship to particle physics, we, as engaged and engaging researchers and educators, need to keep self-reflecting on the fact that there is an epistemological uncertainty in ‘discoursing the intercultural’. In our conditioned discursive thinking about ourselves, our conceptualising involves cultural constructs that make apparent their own linguistic constructedness; and this is a characteristic of the human way we inhabit discourse, constantly aware of the instability of our own discourses. This, self-referentially, may reflect our “recognition of one’s own finitude, the consciousness that actual speech does not suffice to exhaust the inner conversation that impels us toward understanding.” (Grondin, 1994:124; see also Gadamer, 1976).

Philosophical and epistemological positioning for intercultural teaching and learning Understanding one’s own linguistic, socio-cultural, political, ethical and educational constructs, values and beliefs, and their formation due to one’s own enculturation based on the interrelation of language, culture, and learning has continuous relevancy in the ongoing project of intercultural teaching and learning across any curriculum that aspires to ‘internationalisation’. Recognising that such dependent formation of epistemological constructs, values and beliefs, influences selection-making when designing a curriculum for primary, secondary, and tertiary level of education, is a corollary. {Liddicoat, et al, 2003: ‘Chapter 3: A framework for designing curriculum for intercultural language learning’). For,

The selection of any given definition informs educational practice and should be based on the requirements of the situation as well as the trainer/educator’s personal preference and creativity. (Smith, et al, 2003:93)

Intercultural education provides for the development of a reflective stance which understands and engages with the variable ways in which human ‘knowing’ remains integral to human language and culture. Consequently, this stance engenders a philosophical-cum-epistemological voice through which each and every of the world’s languages and cultures can contribute towards engendering ‘knowledge’ that involves variably-constructed social, political, and ethical values and beliefs. ( Papademetre, Scarino, 2000; Scarino, Papademetre, 2002). Intercultural teaching and learning, as a result, engages teachers and learners with the multiple socio-cultural and linguistic memberships that each human engages with daily during one’s lifetime, no matter the geographical location around the globe, no matter the perceived or proclaimed ‘mono-cultural’, ‘multi-cultural’, ‘cross-cultural’, ‘trans-cultural’ educational environment. (Paige, 1993). Every human being, as a recognised member of a human society, is subject to socio-cultural, linguistic, political, ethical and educational rules. All human societies devise such rules based on gender, age, marital status, and all other variable aspects relevant to human initiation to a human society as determined through the formation of constructs, values and beliefs that mark the individual as a recognized, recognisable, and recognising member of the rule-based collective. (Carrithers, 1992; Geertz, 1973, 1983, 2000; Hymes, 1986, 1987; Gudykunst, Kim, 1992; Gumperz, 1982a, b; Tajfel, 1982). In the context of intercultural learning, every teacher and learner can claim a variable linguistic, and socio-cultural identity on the basis of one’s own multiple memberships in one’s family contexts, work/study contexts, and everywhere-else contexts; in other words, the interrelated contexts of one’s own ‘intra-culturality’ that combine to create a person’s unique socio-cultural identity. Each person present in the intercultural classroom could contribute his/her combined intra-cultural identity when interacting with similarly variably-constructed-and-combined intra-cultural identities. (Papademetre, 2003).


Teaching and learning in such a classroom is simultaneously an individual, collective, intrapersonal, and interpersonal process that allows reflection on the variable ways enculturation --- i.e. upbringing on the basis of the interrelation and interdependence of language, culture, and education --- affect how we humans see the world, how we communicate about the world, and how through our thinking, articulated through our language, we reflect upon our interacting and communicating with that world.

In all our knowledge of ourselves and in all knowledge of the world, we are always already encompassed by the language that is our own… In truth we are always already at home in language, just as much as we are in the world. (Gadamer, 1976:62-63, quoted in Roy & Starosta, 2001:9)

Notes 1 Jandt, F.E. (2001) Intercultural Communication: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Young Y.K. (2001) Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Shirato, T. and Yell, S. (2000) Communication and Culture: An Introduction. London: Sage

Scollon, R. and Wong Scollon, S. (2000) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell


REFERENCES Part 1: Internationalisation of higher education Altbach, P. G. & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalisation and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal

of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5-25. Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee’s (AVCC). (2002). Provision of Education to International

Students: Code and Guidelines for Australian Universities. Author. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M.

Paige (Ed.) Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003). International higher education: Models, conditions, and issues. In T. S. Tullao, Jr.

(Ed.), Education and globalization (pp. 213-272). Manila: PIDS/PASCN. Bickley, M. & Fyfe, S. (2002, September-October). Internationalisation of the business curriculum using the

experiential simulation ‘Bafa-Bafa’ to promote cross cultural understanding. Paper presented at the 16th Australian International Education Conference, Hobart, Tasmania.

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

Experiences in the Netherlands. The Hague: The Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education.

Callan, H. (1998). Internationalization in Europe. In Scott, P. (Ed.) The globalization of higher education.

Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) & Open University Press. Callan, H. (2000). The international vision in practice: A decade of evolution. Higher Education in Europe,

25(1), 16-23. Clyne, F. , Marginson, S. & Woock, R. R. (2001). International education in Australian universities:

Concepts and definitions. Melbourne Studies in Education, 42 (1), 111-127. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2001). The National Report on

Higher Education in Australia (2001), Author. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2002). Striving for quality:

learning, teaching and scholarship. Author. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2003). Engaging the world

through education: Ministerial statement on the internationalisation of Australian education and training. Author.

Devos, A. (2003). Academic standards, internationalisation, and the discursive construction of “the

international student”. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(2), 155-166. de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: A comparative study of Australia,

Canada, Europe and the United States. Amsterdam: European Association of International Education (EAIE).

de Wit, H. (1998). Rationales for internationalisation of higher education. Retrieved 12th September, 2003

from: http://www.ipv.pt/millenium/wit11.htm. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A

historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.


Engberg, D. & Green, M. F. (2002). Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence in comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on Education (ACE)

Evans, T. & Tregenza, K. (2002, December). Academics’ experiences of teaching Australian ‘non-local’

courses in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane.

Gallagher, M. (2000, September). The emergence of entrepreneurial public universities in Australia. Paper

presented at the IMHE General Conference of the OECD, Paris. (Occasional papers series 00/E). DETYA.

Gallagher, M. (2002a). Internationalising education: Address to the sixth annual national teaching forum of

the Australian universities teaching committee. Retrieved 17th September, 2003 from http://www.autc.gov.au/forum/mgspeech.htm.

Gallagher, M. (2002b). On the cusp – a new phase in the internationalisation of Australian education. Notes

for discussion at the 16th Australian International Education Conference, Hobart. Gribble, K. & Ziguras, C. (2003). Learning to teach offshore: Pre-departure training for lecturers in

transnational programs. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(2), (205-216. Haigh, J. M. (2002). Internationalisation of the curriculum: Designing inclusive education for a small world.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26(1), 49-66. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural

development inventory. International journal of intercultural relations, 27(4), 421-443. Harman, G. (2002, September). Australia as a major higher education exporter. Paper presented at the

Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER) 15th Annual Conference, Vienna, Austria. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1). Hutchings, K., Jackson, P. & McEllister, R. (2002). Exploiting the links between theory and practice:

Developing students’ cross-cultural understanding through an international study tour. Higher Education Research and Development, 21(1), 56-71.

KcKinnon, K. R., Walter, S. H. & Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking: A manual for Australian universities.

Canberra, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and Checkpoints. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for

International Education (CBIE). Knight, J. (1997). Internationalization of education: a conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.)

Internationalisation of higher education in the Asia-Pacific countries (pp. 5-(19). Amsterdam: European Association of International Education (EAIE).

Knight, J. (1999). Internationalization of higher education. In Quality and internationalisation in higher

education (pp. 13-28). Paris: OECD. Knight, J. (2002a). Trade in Higher Education Services: The Implication of GATS. London: The

Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved 20th November, 2003 from http://www.columbus-web.com/en/partj/

Knight, J. (2002b). Developing an institutional self-portrait using the Internationalization Quality Review

Process guidelines. http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/events/IQRP-SelfPortrait.pdf


http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/events/IQRP-SelfPortrait.pdf

Knight, J. (2003a, November) Internationalisation: Developing an institutional self-portrait. Paper presented at Ethnography of the University (EOTU), University of Illinois. Retrieved 23rd February, 2004 from: http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/events/Illinoisnovfinal.pdf.

Knight, J. (2003b). Needed: Updated internationalisation definition. International Higher Education, 33, 2-3 Knight, J. (2003c). Internationalisation of higher education practices and policies: (2003) IAU survey report.

International Association of Universities. (IAU), Paris. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, approaches and rationales. Journal of Studies

in International Education, 8(1), 5-31. Knight, J. & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: historical and

conceptual perspectives. In de Wit (Ed.) Strategies for internationalisation of higher education. Amsterdam: European Association of International Education (EAIE).

Knight, J., & de Wit (Eds.) (1999). Quality and internationalization in higher education. Paris, France:

OECD. Kudo, K. (2000). Intercultural contact and adaptation of international Asian students in Australian

universities. The Otemon Journal of Australian Studies, 26, 159-176. Leask, B. (1999, October). Internationalisation of the curriculum: Key challenges and strategies. Invited

paper presented at The State of the Art in Internationalising the Curriculum International Perspectives, IDP Education Australia (1999) Australian International Education Conference.

Leask, B. (2001). Bridging the gap: Internationalising university curricula. Journal of Studies in International

Education, l5(2), 100-115. Leask, B. (2002a, November). Tying Knots or bows? Measuring the development of a generic capability

(international perspectives) in students. Paper presented at the Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Brisbane.

Leask, B. (2002b, July). Crossing the bridge from both sides – strategies to assist international and

Australian students to meet each other half way. Paper presented at the 17th NLC Annual Conference, Launceston, Tasmania.

Leask, B. (2004). Internationalisation outcomes for all students using information and communication

technologies (ICT). Journal of Studies in International Education. 8(4) (in press) Leeman, Y. & Ledux, G. (2003). Preparing teachers for intercultural education. Teaching Education, 14(3),

279-291. Liddicoat, A. J. (2003). Internationalisation as a concept in higher education: perspectives from policy. In A.

J. Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas & S. Trevaskes (Eds.) Australian perspectives on internationalising education (pp. 13-26). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Liddicoat, A. J., Eisenchlas, S. & Trevaskes, S. (2003). Australian perspectives on internationalising

education. Melbourne: Language Australia. Luong, L., Crockett, K., Lundberg, D. & Scarino, A. (1996). Report on internationalisation of the

curriculum. Adelaide: University of South Australia. Manning, K. (2003). Managing internationalisation in Australian universities (Working papers series).

Victoria University: School of Management.


Marginson, S. (2002). Nation-building universities in a global environment: The case of Australia. Higher Education, 43, 409-428.

Marginson, S. (2003, November). Markets in higher education: National and global competition. AARE

Radford lecture [revised December (2003)]. NZARE/AARE Joint Conference, Auckland. Retrieved 17th March, 2004 from http:// instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/anthr362/ Radford%(20lecture%20final%20revised.pdf.

Morey, A. I. (2000). Changing higher education curricula for a global and multicultural world. Higher

Education in Europe, 25(1), 25 – 39. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (1999). Quality and internationalisation

in higher education. Paris: Author. Otten, M. (2000). Impacts of cultural diversity at home. In Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M.,Teekens, H.,

Wächter, B. & Nilsson, B. Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE).

Paige, R. M. (2003). The American case: The University of Minnesota. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 7(1), 52-63 Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural

sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Hammer and Bennett intercultural development inventory. International journal of intercultural relations, 27(4), 421-443.

Paige, M. R. & Mestenhauser, J. A. (1999). Internationalising Educational Administration. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 500-517. Poole, D. (2001). Moving towards professionalism: The strategic management of international education

activities at Australian universities and their faculties of business. Higher education, 42, 395-435. Ramburuth, P. (1999, September). Managing language and learning diversity in higher education:

enhancing the graduate experience. Paper presented at the Sixth International Literacy and Education Research Network (LERN) Conference on Learning, Penang, Malaysia.

Reich, L. R. (2002, June). Developing intercultural perspectives by means of an international course. Paper

presented at the international symposium Intercultural Teacher Education, The Challenges of Diversity: Institutional Obstacles and Possibilities, Botkyrka, Sweden.

Reichert, S. & Wächter, B. (2000). The globalisation of education and training: Recommendations for a

coherent response of the European Union. Directorate-General for Education and Culture, European Commission.

Rizvi, F. & Walsh, L. (1998). Difference, globalisation and the internationalisation of curriculum. Australian

Universities’ Review, 41(2), 7-11. Ryan, J. (2000). A Guide to Teaching International students. Oxford Centre for Staff Development (OCSD),

Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Saiya, L. & Hayward, P. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: Final report (2003).

Washington, DC: American Council for Education. Surian, A. (1996). Education for global citizenship: Examples of good practice in global education in

Europe. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.


Teichler, U. (1998). The role of the European Union in the internationalisation of higher education. In Scott, P. (Ed.) The globalization of higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) & Open University Press.

van Damme, D. (2001). Quality issues in the internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 41,

415-441. van de Wende, M. C. (2001). International policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher

Education Policy, 14, 249-259. Vidovich, L. (2002) (December). ‘Acceding to Audits’: New quality assurance policy as a ‘settlement’ in for

Australian higher education? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane. Retrieved 20th January, 2004 from http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/vid02168.htm.

Vincenti, V. B. (2001). Exploration of the relationship between international experiences and the

interdisciplinary work of university faculty. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 42-63.

Vogel, T. (2001). Internationalisation, interculturality, and the role of foreign languages in higher education.

Higher education in Europe, 26(3) 381-389. Walters, D. & Adams, T. (2001). Global reach through a strategic operations approach: An Australian case

study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(4), 269-290. Wächter, B. (2000). Internationalisation at home – the context. In Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Teekens,

H., Wächter, B. & Nilsson, B. Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE).

Ward, C. (2001). The impact of international students on domestic students and host institutions. New

Zealand Ministry of Education. Retrieved 18th November, 2004 from: http:// http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=5643&indexid=6671&indexparentid=6663

Welch, A. & Denman, B. (1997). Internationalisation of higher education: Retrospect and prospect. Forum of

Education, 52(1), 14-29. Westerheijden, D. F. & Leegwater, M. (Eds.) (2003). Working on the European dimension of quality: Report

on the conference on quality assurance in higher education as part of the Bologna process, Amsterdam, 12-13 March 2002. Ministry of Education Culture and Sciences, Zoetermeer. Retrieved 5th January, 2004 from: http://www.bologna-berlin (2003).de/pdf/Amsterdam_Results.pdf

Whalley, T. R. (1997). Best practice guidelines for internationalizing the curriculum. Douglas College, for

the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and the Centre for Curriculum, Transfer and Technology, British Columbia.

Woodhouse, D. (2001, September). Globalisation: Implications for education and for quality. Presentation to

the AAIR Conference, Rockhampton, Australia. Retrieved 5th January, 2004 from: http://aair.org.au/(2001)Papers/Woodhouse.PDF.


Part 2: The ‘Intercultural’ Baumgratz, G. (1987). Esquisse d’une conception pédagogique de l’enseignement des langues étrangères

visant la compétence de communication transnationale, les conséquences pour le rôle et la compétence du professeur et les perspectives de la formation continue. In G. Baumgratz & R. Stephen (Eds.), Fremdsrachenlernen als Beitrag zur internationalen Verständigung (pp. 64-75). Munich: Iudicium

Bennett, J.M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In

Education for Intercultural Experience, R.M. Paige (Ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bourdieu, P. (1993). La misere du monde. Paris: Seuil. Brody, J. (2003). A linguistic anthropological perspective on language and culture in the second language

curriculum. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Buttjes, D., & Byram, M. (1991). Introduction. D. Buttjes & M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating Languages and

Cultures: Towards an Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education (pp. 1-12). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (1989). Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (1999). Questions of identity in foreign language learning. J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat, & C.

Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 91-100). Canberra: Language Australia.

Byram, M., & Zarate, G., (1994). Définitions, objectifs et evaluation de la compétence socio-culturelle.

Strasbourg: Report for the Council of Europe. Carrithers, M.(1992). Why Humans Have Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clifford, J. (1988). The Predicament of Culture. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Collier, M.J. & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: an interpretive perspective. In Y.Y.Kim &

W.B.Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cronen, V., Chen, V., & Pearce, W.B. (1988). Coordinated management of meaning: A critical theory. In

Y.Y.Kim & W.B.Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Crozet, C., & Liddicoat, A.J. (1999). The challenge of intercultural language teaching: Engaging with culture

in the classroom. In J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat, C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 113-126). Canberra: Language Australia.

Crozet, C., & Liddicoat, A.J. (2000). Teaching culture as an integrated part of language: Implications for the

aims, approaches and pedagogies of language teaching. In A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures. Melbourne: Language Australia.

Crozet, C., Liddicoat, A.J., & Lo Bianco, J. (1999). Intercultural competence: From language policy to

language education. In J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 1-20). Canberra: Language Australia.

Edwards, J. (1997).; Multicultural and Intercultural Handbooks. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 18(2), 155-161.


Ellingsworth, H.W. (1983). Adaptive intercultural communication. In W.B.Gudykunst (Ed.) Intercultural

communication theory: Current perspectives. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA

research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 3:285-300. Gadamer, H-G. (1976). Philosophical Hermeneutics. (D.E.Linge, trans.).Berkeley: University Press. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, C. (2000). Available Light. Princeton: University Press. Grodin, J. (1994). Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics. N.Haven:Yale University Press. Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers. An approach to intercultural

communication. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gumperz, J.J. (1982a) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: University Press. Gumperz, J.J. (1982b) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning.

London: Arnold. Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy. New York: Harper & Row. Hymes, D.H. (1986). Models of interaction and social life. In J.J. Gumperz & D.H. Hymes (Eds.), Directions

in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hymes, D. (1987). Communicative competence. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar & K.J. Mattheier (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society (pp. 219-229). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Jandt, F.E. (2001). Intercultural Communication: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartford

(Eds.) Beyond Methods: Components of Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 113-136). New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Kim, Y.Y. & Gudykunst, W.B. (Eds.) (1988). Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage. Kim, Y.Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of ommunication and cross-cultural

adaptation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Kramsch, C.(1995). The applied linguist and the foreign language teacher: Can they talk to each other. ARAL, 18 (1), 13-14 . Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the non-native speaker. PMLA,112(3). Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Kramsch, C. (1999). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through Drama and Ethnography (pp. 16-31). Cambridge: University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive construction of self in L2 learning: Vygotskyian perspectives. In

J.Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2002). In search of the intercultural. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6/2:275-285. Kramsch, C. (2003). Teaching along the cultural faultline. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in

Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Liddicoat, A.J. (1997). Interaction, social structure and second language use: A response to Firth and Wagner.

Modern Language Journal, 81, 3:313-317. Liddicoat, A.J. (2002). Static and dynamic views of culture and intercultural language acquisition. Babel,

36,3:4-11, 37. Liddicoat, A.J., Crozet, C., Lo Bianco, J. (1999). Striving for the Third Place: Consequences and

implications. In J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat, C. Crozet (Eds.) Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 1-20). Canberra: Language Australia.

Liddicoat, A.J., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A., Kohler, M. (2003). Report on Intercultural Language

Learning. Canberra: DEST. Nostrand, H. (1991). Basic intercultural education needs breadth and depth: The role of second culture. In E.

Silber (Ed.) Critical Issues in Foreign Language Instruction. New York: Garland. Paige, R.M. (Ed.) (1993). Education for the Intercultural Experience. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press. Paige, R.M., Jorstad, H., Siaya, L., Klein, F., Colby, J. (2003). Culture learning in language education: A

review of the literature. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. In D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Papademetre, L. (2000). Developing pathways for conceptualising the integration of culture-and-language. In

A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.) Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures, Melbourne: Language Australia.

Papademetre, L., and Scarino, A. (2000). Integrating Culture Learning in the Languages Classroom: A

Multi-Perspective Conceptual Journey for Teachers. Melbourne: Language Australia. Papademetre, L. (2003). Intra-and-inter-cultural acculturation in ‘the knowledge-base’ of culture language

teacher education. Paper presented at the National Conference of AFMLTA, Brisbane, July. Papademetre, L. (2003). Culture-language ‘know-ing’ and en-acting: linguistics in teacher education and

training. Paper presented at the National Congress of the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia, Griffith University, Brisbane, July.

Pauwels, A. (2000). Globalisation and the impact of teaching languages in Australia. A.J. Liddicoat & C.

Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures (pp. 19-26). Melbourne: Language Australia. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge. Roy, A. & Starosta, W.J. (2001). Hans-Georg Gadamer, Language, and Intercultural Communication.

Language and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), .6-20.


Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. (Eds.) (1988). Intercultural Communication. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth. Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. (1991). Communication between cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Saville-Troike, M. (2003). Extending communicative concepts in the second language curriculum: A

sociolinguistic perspective. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

Scarino, A., Papademetre, L. (2002). Developing professional ‘standards’ for teachers of languages and

cultures: who prescribes and who ascribes in the profession. Paper presented at the AILA International Conference, Singapore, Dec.

Scollon, R. & Wong Scollon, S. (2000). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers. Shirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and Culture: An Introduction. London: Sage. Shi-xu, Wilson, J. (2001). Will and power: Towards radical intercultural communication research and

pedagogy. Language and Intercultural Communication, 1(1). Smith, S,L., Paige, R.M., Steglitz, I. (2003). Theoretical foundations of intercultural training and applications

to the teaching of culture. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange & R.M.Paige (Eds.). Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible

output in its development. S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Szalay, L.B. (1981). Intercultural communication – a process model. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 5, 133-146. Tajfel, H. (Ed.) (1982). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: University Press. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. Touraine, A.(1997). Pourrons-nous vivre ensemble? Egaux et differents. Paris: Fayard. Valdmann, A. (1992). Authenticity, variation, and communication in the foreign language classroom. C.

Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and Context: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Language Study (pp. 79-97). Lexington, MA: Heath.



3. A SET OF PRINCIPLES OF INTERCULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE This resource invites consideration of a set of principles for working with the ‘intercultural’ in relation to one’s specific teaching and learning programs.1. The rationale for considering this set of principles is that the ‘intercultural’ should not be considered as something to be ‘added’ to teaching and learning in the disciplines, and as such be seen as something that would further ‘crowd’ their curricula. Rather, this set of principles provides an orientation to teaching and learning itself, an ‘intercultural’ stance which is implied by the kinds of personal and professional interaction characteristic of the contexts for which we are preparing students at UniSA. This resource may be used for individual reflection or for designing workshops on the ‘intercultural’ in a particular discipline. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS The resource can be used to stimulate reflection on current practice by, for example,

• Reading it/discussing it/talking about how it might engage you with ‘the intercultural’ in your teaching

• Talking about key ideas with students • Applying it to what you already know • Re-evaluating previously held positions • Developing an intercultural stance • Recognising the developmental nature of intercultural competence.


A SET OF PRINCIPLES OF INTERCULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING Two assumptions underlie the following set of principles for intercultural teaching and learning: That (1) an ethical dimension and (2) a developmental dimension permeate all endeavours in education.

One must make moral judgement regarding how research endeavours affect other cultures… Hans-Georg Gadamer’s notion of praxis underscores the need to set a moral ground in all our communication research, including intercultural communication. This means that all intercultural research involves a moral core. (Roy & Starosta, 2001:17)

Alternative conceptions research has documented students beliefs indicating that they enter with conceptual configurations that are culturally embedded; are tied to the use of language; are connected to other concepts; have historical precursors; and are embedded in a cycle of expectation, predication, and confirmation or rejection. For students as for scientists, it appears that a course of learning is not a simple process of accretion, but involves progressive consideration of alternative perspectives and the resolution of anomalies. (Confrey, 1990)

INTRODUCTION Intercultural learning develops in learners the knowledge for recognising, valuing, and responding to linguistic and cultural variability through processes of inferring, comparing, interpreting, discussing, and negotiating meaning. It extends beyond the development of declarative knowledge based on the presentation of cultural facts, and do’s and don’ts in cross cultural interactions. Intercultural learning engages with all aspects of human ‘knowing’, communication and interaction. Going beyond ‘cross-cultural education’, intercultural learning requires not only observation, description, analysis, and interpretation of phenomena in the context of human communication and interaction, but also requires active participation in explaining, and thus understanding, human nature self-reflexively. This self-reflexive interaction in understanding human communication and its variable contexts of interaction is a dynamic, progressive process that engages teachers and learners in negotiating human interaction by reflecting on one’s own intra-and-intercultural identity. Reflection is integral to intercultural learning. Teachers and learners need opportunities, as part of their interactions, to develop their capability for reflecting on their successes, failures, uncertainties, future developments, and further extensions and applications of ‘knowledge’ for intercultural communication. Learning to be an intercultural communicator/interactant also requires the development of a sense of responsibility for oneself as a participant in a global endeavour to develop an intercultural stance, based on mutual respect in valuing negotiation as a shared means in communicating and interacting among fellow humans. Developing an intercultural stance is characterised by the following set of principles. This set of principles is seen as operating simultaneously, and by applying it in designing programs to promote effective ‘internationalisation’ of education, an educator engages directly with intercultural development across the curriculum.

• Connecting the intracultural with the intercultural • Constructing intercultural ‘knowing’ as social action • Interacting and communicating • Reflecting and introspecting • Assuming responsibility

Each principle in this set is presented and discussed below. Further elaboration is presented in resource: Reflections on practice, (b) Implications of the set of principles for pedagogy.

Principle: Connecting the intracultural with the intercultural


In every human society, every individual can claim a variable linguistic, and socio-cultural identity based on one’s own multiple membership in a variety of social domains {e.g. family, work/study domain of membership}. Every individual has his/her own variable linguistic and cultural identity – so-called ‘intraculturality’ – when interacting and communicating with other individuals, with their own variably constructed identities, i.e. among other ‘intraculturalities’ within a given society.

Intercultural teaching and learning engages simultaneously the individual and collective, intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions of ‘knowing’. This engagement allows consideration of the variable ways our individual ‘intraculturality’ affects how we see the world, how we communicate about the world, how we see ‘knowledge’ and ‘knowing’ in that world, and how we connect all aspects of such ‘knowing’ in our intercultural interactions.

Knowledge of the interrelation and interdependence of one’s own language, culture, and learning in the construction of concepts, values and beliefs contributes to ways of perceiving one’s world variably and diversely across languages and cultures on the basis of constantly re-enacting one’s intra-cultural system of seeing, interpreting, and understanding the world interculturally.

One’s own variable linguistic and socio-cultural identity – so-called ‘intraculturality’ – acts as an individual’s base for interacting and communicating with other variably-constructed identities --- i.e. other ‘intraculturalities’ --- within our own society at any level, and about any aspect. By inter-relating an ‘intracultural’ basis for constructing concepts, values and beliefs to any ‘other intracultural’ basis, we can contribute to perceiving interculturally the world’s diversity, and by comparison, to re-viewing variably our professional enculturation and its interdisciplinary context. By en-acting one’s own intra-cultural system of seeing, interpreting, and understanding the world through one’s interdisciplinary context, we engage with ‘the intercultural’.

Principle: Constructing intercultural ‘knowing’ as social action

Constructing one’s own socio-cultural, political, linguistic, ethical knowledge, values and beliefs, on the basis of one’s own enculturation and socialisation is a developmental goal of intercultural teaching and learning across any curriculum that aspires to ‘internationalisation’. A consequence of this goal is the recognition that such dependent formation of knowledge, values and beliefs influences decision-making when constructing and teaching an intercultural curriculum. An individual’s ability to interact and communicate successfully within own diverse contexts of culture and language is fundamentally based on learning that ‘knowing’ is social action within the complex system that is ‘society’.

One’s intra-cultural ‘knowing’ as social action can provide an experience-based, personalised habitat of interdisciplinary education for the individual learner/teacher to negotiate and establish shared or new meanings within one’s parameters of disciplinary ‘knowledge’ in the broader context of human communication and social interaction.


Principle: Interacting and communicating As a socio-culturally constructive process of mediating ‘knowledge’, teaching and learning are simultaneously linguistic and socio-cultural acts towards the construction of knowledge within its linguistic, cultural, historical, and institutional setting, as determined by intra-group and inter-group relations. Through intra-and-inter-group interaction and communication, a conceptual framework of relationships is developed that interprets experience congruent with the cultural system through which a given socio-political context of education has been developed.

Interacting and communicating interculturally means continuously developing and fine-tuning an understanding of the reciprocal relationship between one’s own system of social and linguistic ‘knowing as action’ and all other such systems of knowing that are articulated through the world’s languages and cultures. It is a continuous dialogue that fosters negotiation of meaning and ways of knowing, and encourages engagement with variable perspectives which, in turn, are recognised, accepted, rejected, communicated, and further compared and elaborated as new ‘knowledge’ and contexts are extended, elaborated, added, and developed further.

Negotiating, accommodating to, distancing from, or agreeing with another individual’s use of ‘knowledge’ is meaningful in communication in terms of what it displays about the social and cultural identity each communicator is claiming in a particular interaction. As such, ‘knowledge’ can be used to claim and reject identities, to signal relationships, and to display memberships to a host of variable socio-cultural and linguistic contexts. Principle: Reflecting and introspecting

Intercultural learning provides for the individual the development of a reflective stance towards understanding that continuous engagement with the variable ways of human knowing remains integral to human understanding of that knowing. Consequently, this stance finds expression through an individual’s voice, depending on this individual’s language, culture, and education. In turn, this stance contributes towards engendering ‘knowledge’ that involves variably-constructed social, cultural, political, and ethical values and beliefs.

Reflection is integral to intercultural teaching and learning in the context of ‘internationalising’ education. Teachers and learners need opportunities as part of their interactions in education to continue developing their capability for reflecting on their successes, failures, uncertainties, future developments, and further extensions and applications of ‘knowledge’ on intercultural communication and interaction.

Development of critical engagement, self-reflection and sensitivity towards any aspect of interaction and communication between ‘self’ and ‘others’, that one can negotiate and discuss in private and in public internationally, remains a goal in intercultural education. Principle: Assuming responsibility

Being involved with teaching and learning to be an intercultural communicator requires a sense of responsibility in developing intercultural sensitivity as a participant in international interactions. Valuing negotiation as a shared means in communicating and interacting among fellow humans, intercultural communicators recognise and demonstrate respect for one’s sense of responsibility. Intercultural communicators recognise inequality in intercultural interactions and identify themselves as having a disposition to ethical knowing and recognising and its function in all social spheres of communication and interaction, intraculturally and interculturally. The individual responsibility in intercultural teaching and learning is towards nurturing an ever developing intercultural sensitivity when communicating across languages and cultures, using multiple perspectives to create meaning, based on diverse communicative needs, aspirations, resources, and stages of personal development. An intercultural sensitivity does not necessarily imply a bilingual, or polylingual ability. Bilinguality, or polylinguality may provide interlinguistic insights that enrich intercultural sensitivity, but there is no direct cause-and-effect relationship.


ADD further principles to complement this set and explore the connections to the implications for pedagogy

NOTE 1. A workshop exploring this set of principles was first presented by members of Research Centre for Languages

and Cultures Education at the invitation of the Division of Education, Arts, and Social Sciences, UniSA, November 6, 2003. The set of principles have been adapted from: (a) ‘Chapter 3: Framework for designing curriculum for intercultural language learning’. In Liddicoat, A.J., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A., Kohler, M. Report on Intercultural Language Learning. Canberra: DEST, 2003; (b) Report on Standards in Teaching Languages and Cultures. A.Scarino, L.Papademetre, J.Dellit. Prepared for Curriculum Policy Directorate of the SA Department of Education, Training and Employment, December 2003.

References

Roy, A. and Starosta, W.J. (2001) ‘Hans-Georg Gadamer, Language, and Intercultural Communication’. In Language and Intercultural Communication, Vol.1, 1, pp 6-20

Confrey, J. (1990) A review of research on student conceptions in mathematics, science and programming.

In C.B. Cadzen (Ed.) Review of Research in Education. Vol. 16, pp 3-56 Washington DC American Education Research Association



4. MODELS OF INTERCULTURAL LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCE The resource provides ways of understanding the intercultural in international education. The resource comprises two parts. Part 1 is the paper Internationalisation as education written by Anthony Liddicoat. Part 2 is the paper The intercultural in teaching and learning: a developmental perspective written by Michael Paige. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS The resource can be used to stimulate reflection on current practice by, for example

• Reading it /discussing it/talking about how it might influence your pedagogy; • Talking about key ideas with students; and • Applying it to what you already know • Re-evaluating previously held

More specifically, you might consider the relevance of the ‘intercultural dimensions’ of internationalisation to your own teaching. For example:

• How does your own perspective compare to the ‘nature of internationalisation’ and ‘interculturality’ discussed by Anthony Liddicoat?

• To what extent does the Bennett model provide a rationale for ‘developing intercultural competence’ which could inform your practice?

Note Both papers were presented at a university-wide seminar on: The intercultural in teaching and learning at the University of South Australia, 21 June 2004. Anthony Liddicoat is Associate Professor, Head of School in the School of Languages and Linguistics, Deputy Director of the Centre for Applied Language, Literacy and Communication Studies at Griffith University and President of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations. His research interests include: language issues in education, conversation analysis and language planning. In recent years his research has focussed on ways on improving the teaching of culture as a part of language teaching and his work has contributed to the development of Intercultural Language Teaching methodology. He has published many books and papers in this area. Michael Paige is Professor of International and Intercultural Education in the Department of Educational Policy and Administration – University of Minnesota, and Visiting Research Professor at the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education – University of South Australia. April – July, 2004. Over the course of his 35-year career, Michael has worked as an international and intercultural educator in the U.S., Turkey, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Kenya, Hong Kong, and Japan. In addition to his current stay at UniSA, he has been a Senior Fulbright Scholar at Kenyatta University (Nairobi, Kenya. 1993-94) and Visiting Professor at Nagoya University (Nagoya, Japan. 2003-04) At the University of Minnesota, Professor Paige directs the M.A. and the Ph.D. programs in Comparative and International Development Education. He is currently supervising a three-year research project on culture and language learning strategies under the auspices of the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). He has published widely in this area.


Internationalisation as education Anthony J. Liddicoat Centre for Applied Language Literacy and Communication Studies and School of Languages and Linguistics Griffith University Introduction Internationalisation is a mainstay of current university discourse on education, however, current understandings of internationalisation as an educational concept remain highly problematic (Eisenchlas, Trevaskes, & Liddicoat, 2004; Liddicoat, 2004). The nature of the problem includes the extent to which universities actually engage with internationalisation and also what is meant by internationalisation, both as it is explicitly articulated and as it is actually implemented. Much of the inconsistency results from the ways in which internationalisation has been pursued in the Australian context. Internationalisation is both a response to changed models of educational funding and educational policy and also a response to the increasing globalisation of economic and social life:

Internationalisation is not merely a matter of recruiting international students, though the presence of international students is an enormous resource for the university. The aim of internationalisation is to produce graduates capable of solving problems in a variety of locations with cultural and environmental sensitivity (Aulakh et al., 1997:15).

This view proposes two separate dimensions to internationalisation: student recruitment and educational objectives. While both dimensions of internationalisation are important and to a degree inseparable, this paper will concentrate primarily on the second dimension: that of educational objectives. For Francis (1993):

Internationalisation is a process that prepares the community for successful participation in an increasingly interdependent world... The process should infuse all facets of the post-secondary education system, fostering global understanding and developing skills for effective living and working in a diverse world. (Francis, 1993: 5)

Francis proposes an educational approach which includes global understanding, and the development of skills for dealing with diversity. The view of internationalisation given here is, then, one that centres on the development of interculturality and pluralism through education as a whole. In examining the Australian context, internationalisation as an educational concept seems to be based on three main themes, which are found in the approaches of most, if not all, Australian universities (Liddicoat, 2004): 1. internationalising the student body by recruiting students from overseas; 2. internationalising the curriculum; 3. internationalising students’ educational experiences through overseas exchanges The first part of this paper will investigate each of these themes as sites for education and examine the ways in which Australian universities collectively construct international education through their responses to these themes. In the second part of the paper, the notion of interculturality will be taken up as a way of responding to educational objectives commonly articulated by universities in the context of internationalisation. Approaches to internationalisation Internationalisation of the student body Attracting students from overseas has formed an important part of the strategic plans of most universities and is seen as essential for expanding the pool of potential students beyond the local catchment. Australian universities acknowledge the economic advantage of attracting international students, but at the same time they also publicly de-emphasise the economic aspects of internationalisation in favour of the educational benefits derived from an internationalised student body:


International students make a vital contribution to enriching the quality of the intellectual and social life of the university. You add to the diversity of ideas expressed in the classroom, and to the range of cultural activities that are experienced outside it. (University of South Australia, 2002)

The educational argument being made is that the presence of international students adds to the intellectual life of the university in non-trivial ways. The presence of a diverse student body creates in and of itself an educative effect because interactions are inevitably occurring which project students beyond their existing cultural context. However, current research seems to indicate that such interactions are not taking place and that mere co-location does not equate with impact (Volet & Ang, 1998). In order for students to benefit from the opportunity to learn about other cultures during university study and to develop an understanding of the culturally positioned nature of their own behaviour, universities need to take a more active role in encouraging intercultural experiences both in and out of class. Currently, however, the support offered by the university for internationalisation of the student body is aimed primarily at providing the what is needed for overseas students to integrate into the Australian education system: language support, study skills, cultural orientation, etc. The target here is often expressed almost in terms of assimilation as the existing languages and cultures are often treated as a negative in needs of remediation rather than as core elements of the identity, experience and self-concept of the learners involved. There is little, if any, emphasis placed on the interculturality of the students’ participation, how such interculturality is to be acquired and how the students’ first culture perspective can be adopted and/or adapted in existing teaching and learning contexts. The internationalisation of the student body is moreover not simply a question of recruiting students from diverse sources. If the university is to function as a linguistically, culturally and academically diverse community which prepares learners for a linguistically and culturally diverse world, then the a central part of the educational work of the university must be involved with the development of the knowledges and capabilities of all students to participate actively and positively in such diversity. This means that work in internationalisation needs not only to deal with the newly arriving students from other places, but also with local students who bring their own language, culture and identity to the learning context and who equally need to be able to respond productively to the cultural contexts in which they now find themselves. Internationalisation of teaching and learning To date, universities have viewed the internationalisation of teaching and learning from two directions:

1. internationalised curriculum; 2. internationalised teaching practice.

Of the two, it is the internationalisation of the curriculum which has made the most progress. A very diverse range of activities has been undertaken as ways of internationalising the curriculum which frequently are made up of ad hoc activities aimed at modifying program content and unit content or administrative structures (e.g. combined or double degrees) (IDP Education Australia, 1995). Such developments are usually asystematic and equate exposure to particular content with the development of an international perspective, effectively assuming that a perspective is a loose collection of (unintegrated) factual knowledges. The core problem in internationalising curriculum is that it remains unclear exactly what is meant by “international”. Policy documents, both from governments and universities, tend to assert internationalisation without defining it and internationalisation tends to be seen as an outcome rather than as an educative process. An integrated view of internationalisation as an educational objective would orient to the preparation of students to function in the globalised world, acting and communicating about their disciplinary knowledge across national, linguistic and cultural boundaries. An international/intercultural approach to education is also characterised by multidirectionality, and this is most especially important where the curriculum content is dealing with localised, specificities, whether this be mediating Australian content to international students or mediating international content to Australian students. Reciprocity, equality and mutuality are the building blocks of internationalised education. These characteristics are prerequisites for combating monoculturalism and cultural imperialism.


[T]he contradiction in globalised education [is thus far one] in which the economy was global but educational subjectivities were ethno-specific. International education brought different cultural groups into contact on an unprecedented scale, but the commodity was like a McDonald’s hamburger, a uniform Anglo-American-Australian product. Australian universities essentialised their own cultural tradition as the only possible higher education. There was no sharing of cultures, except by accident. International students gained skills in Anglo-American markets and access to global knowledge in business, but their original cultural sets were undermined (Alexander & Rizvi, 1993).

Internationalised teaching involves more than a change in curriculum. It also involves a change in teaching practice, and this has been acknowledged by universities. The modern university classroom is recognised to be a diverse environment and internationalised teaching is primarily expressed as the development of an awareness of what this means. This awareness focused on a recognition that different students have different cultural norms and different expectations of education, avoiding stereotypes and linguistic modification (cf. Ballard, 1987; Ballard & Clanchy, 1991). What is currently lacking in universities’ approaches to internationalised teaching is the development of an intercultural dimension in teaching. Such a dimension would involve engagement with and valuing of differences, rather than simply stopping at awareness of such differences. Internationalisation of student experiences A third approach to internationalisation in education involves the possibility of study by Australian students in another country. In Australian universities, this dimension of internationalisation seems to be the least well developed, although it is usual for universities to offer some form of exchange programs for their students. Exchanges are promoted for a number of reasons including opportunities for studying different content, personal growth and enhancing career opportunities. However, many of the benefits are not strictly benefits of an internationalised education. The internationalised dimension of such exchanges is that they provide opportunities for Australian students to experience living and studying in another country and, through this, gain insights into the country and its people. The discourse of student exchanges frequently conflates the idea of internationalisation with linguistic and cultural difference. This conflation is problematic for two key reasons:

1. many exchanges are between universities in Australia and other English-speaking countries 2. most Australia students are not in a position to take up an exchange in a country in which English is

not the usual medium of instruction. Australian students, other than those who study languages, lack of the necessary language skills for participating in an exchange program involving linguistic and cultural differences and therefore lack opportunities for linguistic and cultural development.

Universities’ approaches to student exchanges reveal a fundamental problem in internationalisation in general: Australian university students, and in some cases university staff as well are not in a position to participate in internationalisation as a cross-linguistic phenomenon and internationalisation must necessarily be narrowly focused on opportunities for internationalisation through English. The nature of internationalisation The current approach to internationalisation in Australian universities sees internationalisation primarily in terms of attracting students from other countries to study in Australian institutions. As such, it is not an educational program so much as an economic one. While it is focussed most strongly on attracting students from overseas rather than on examining the appropriateness of existing institutional practices in developing broader educational objectives, internationalisation runs a series risk of not only failing to achieve, but also actively undermining its own educational objectives. The central dangers inherent in Australian universities’ approaches to internationalisation include:

1. privileging knowledge constructed and communicated in English over knowledge constructed and communicated in other languages.

2. privileging Western cultures of teaching and learning over other cultures of teaching and learning.

3. aiming at assimilation of others to Australian academic norms. 4. privileging applications of acquired knowledge in Australian contexts.


5. equating disciplinary competence with ability to communicate in English in assessment practices.

6. constructing international education as remediation of linguistic and cultural difference. The core failure in most internationalisation work in Australia is the failure to see that internationalisation affects the whole university. An internationalised university is one which is pervaded by an internationalised culture of research, teaching and learning, and service, which affects all members of the university community. Internationalisation and interculturality Universities are cultural contexts and the acts of teaching, learning and communicating are cultural acts in each of the disciplines taught at the university. Given this, an important starting point for developing an internationalised perspective in education begins with seeing the culturally and linguistically constructed nature of learning in each academic discipline. Sfard (1998) describes two dominant metaphors for learning: the acquisition metaphor in which knowledge is treated as a commodity and learning is treated as gaining possession of that commodity and the participation metaphor in which learning is conceptualized knowledge construction through changing roles and identities within communities of shared practice. The acquisition metaphor constructs learning as a relatively neutral activity in which the mind is filled with knowledge as if it were a container and the learning problem resides in the ability of the learner to absorb and hold information. The participation metaphor sees knowledge as actively constructed and relies on the possibility of establishing shared practice. This metaphor makes the cultural nature of learning much more apparent. Learning is a process of personal knowledge construction and meaning–making. It is both a cognitive constructive process (intra-individual) and a socioculturally constructive process (inter-individual). As a cognitive constructive process, learning involves reorganising and restructuring, as well as interpreting information in saliently meaningful ways. This involves assimilating new knowledge to old knowledge and consequently restructuring the individual’s conceptual map. As a socioculturally constructive process, learning is socially situated and mediated towards the construction of knowledge, in social action, within its cultural, historical, and institutional setting. These two dimensions are not however separated, and cognitive restructuring is done within a culturally conditioned context of what constitutes valued knowledge and of which connections are useful or important. Previous experiences of learning, whether formal or informal not only construct knowledge, but also construct ways of seeing things as knowable and/or relevant for attention. Within this view of learning, teaching and learning are simultaneously linguistic and sociocultural acts. In different cultures, different knowledges and different ways of organising knowledge are valued. Learning is a dialogue between input and the learner’s pre-existing conceptualisation of the world develop through his/her experiences in a culturally constructed universe. Such dialogicality treats the content of learning, not as given, but rather as emergent, nondeterministic, and contingent (Bakhtin, 1986). This means that even the intra-individual level of cognition is influenced by external factors and cognition is a socially-shared, co-constructed phenomenon (Wertsch & Bivens, 1992). Teaching approaches often assume that the teacher and the learner have access to a set of shared practices: that is they assume that the class room is a community of shared practice and that issues such as what it means to teach and to learn, what counts as knowledge and what counts as a legitimate way to use knowledge are known by all members of the classroom community. The core question is then, to what extent is a particular classroom a community of shared practices? Shared practices are developed through shared experience and where participants in a group do not have shared experiences they may not have shared practices. This means that understandings of basic principles of teaching and learning and the ways in which learning can be expressed and measured may not be the same for all participants, and that even where participants shared a common language and geography, they may not share common practices (Wenger, 1998). This lack of shared practices is not simply a question of some people having “good” practices and others not. All learners coming into a classroom will already have established practices relating to learning which they value and with which they identify. Their own culturally contexted practices represent for them ways of being an educated person and ways of demonstrating competence as an educated person. The educational demand placed on the teacher then is not to replace one set of practices with another, thereby devaluing the


earlier practices but rather to assist learners to expand their repertoire of practices and develop new ways of being an educated person which span the full range of their languages and cultures. In effect, what is being proposed here is that internationalised education is a preparation for participation in a multilingual and multicultural world and that students need to be equipped by their education to function as educated people within the world they will encounter once they have left the university. This means that to be effective users of their disciplinary knowledge, they must also be effective participants in a globalised world and to be able to use and communicate their disciplinary knowledge across linguistic and cultural borders. The educated person is therefore both someone who commands disciplinary knowledge but is also interculturally competent and all education needs to recognise the cultural component of its work. Culture and interculturality in knowledge communities A discipline is more than a body of knowledge, it is a knowledge community which shares vocabularies, points of view, histories, practices, values, conventions and interests (Bruffee, 1995). Each knowledge community is influenced by the broader language and culture of the society in which it exists and also by linguistic and cultural practices developed through the exercise of the discipline over time (Liddicoat, 1997). This means that a discipline is a linguistically and culturally constructed body of knowledge which is understood and transmitted through a set of shared practices and beliefs. Students, as they learn the discipline, are socialised into the local language and culture of that discipline as it is practices within a particular social context. In developing an education approach which includes an intercultural dimension, therefore, it is important to consider aspects of the nature of culture as they relate to particular academic disciplines. There are many ways of defining culture, and these definitions often reflect the fundamental concerns of the disciplinary area in which they are created. The following quotation, developed for an educational purpose, provides a useful way to begin to think about culture within the context of internationalisation.

Most social scientists today view culture as consisting primarily of the symbolic, ideational, and intangible aspects of human societies. The essence of a culture is not its artefacts, tools, or other tangible cultural elements but how the members of the group interpret, use, and perceive them. It is the values, symbols, interpretations, and perspectives that distinguish one people from another in modernized societies; it is not material objects and other tangible aspects of human societies. People within a culture usually interpret the meaning of symbols, artefacts, and behaviours in the same or in similar ways (Banks & McGee, 1989).

This definition highlights an understanding of culture as a system within which people create, understand and share meanings and while it is not overtly stated, such a definition implies a central role for language as the vehicle through which and by which meanings are articulated and communicated. Language and culture are fundamentally linked. Culture interacts with language at a number of levels some of which can be thought of as being close to ‘pure’ culture others are closer to ‘pure’ language (see Figure 1). Culture Language world knowledge spoken/ written

genres pragmatic norms norms of

interaction grammar/

lexicon/ prosody/ pronunciation/

kinesics

culture in context culture in general text structure

culture within utterances

culture in the organisation and selection of units

of language

culture in linguistic and paralinguistic

structures Figure 1: Points of articulation between culture and language (adapted from Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999).


World knowledge is the least attached to language. It refers to the cultural knowledge we have about how the world works. Genres are top level language structures and vary as cultural perceptions about what is an appropriate text, whether written or spoken, vary. What is considered good, elegant, or logical in one language/cultural context may not be thought of in the same way in another language/cultural context. Pragmatic norms refer to norms of language use, especially to politeness. It involves knowledge of the ways in which particular utterances are evaluated by a culture. For example, French Donne-moi le livre and English Give me the book may ‘mean’ the same thing, but they cannot be used in the same contexts. The French version would be considered adequately polite in a broader range of contexts than the English version. Norms of interaction refer to what it is appropriate to say at a particular point in a conversation, and what someone is expected to say at this point. This concerns issues like: what is the appropriate and expected answer to a question such as “How are you?” What is the appropriate thing to say before eating, how acceptable it is to be silent or to be talkative. The last level concerns the ways in which we encode ideas, concepts and relationships in language, including things like appropriate registers (eg formal - informal), appropriate amounts of physical contact, appropriate personal space, etc. What this shows is that there is no level of language which is independent of culture and, therefore, which are not open to cultural variation. The definition given above from Banks and McGee (1989) is also careful to indicate that the culture itself is not to be understood solely or even primarily through the products of a culture. In the context of internationalisation, then, its is important that educational approaches do not focus solely or primarily on factual information about cultural products, whether these are understood as arts, institutions, legal and political documents, events, but rather on “how the members of the group interpret, use, and perceive them”. One useful way to begin thinking about approaches to teaching a discipline conceived as a cultural construct is to think about the culture we teach either as static or as dynamic. A static view of culture treats cultural knowledge as either facts or artefacts. Students learn information about a country or people, their lives, their history, their institutions or their customs or about the cultural icons these people have produced, such as their literature, their laws, their art, their architecture or their music. This knowledge may be mediated in a way which separates the factual knowledge from the linguistic context in which that knowledge was created and within which it is understood by members of the cultural group. The separation of culture from its mode of expression means that the culture of one society is mediated through the culture, and most especially through the conceptual system, of another. In many cases, this involves the unreflective replacement of the conceptual framework of the original culture with the conceptual system of the language through which the culture is being mediated, thereby distorting the culture under study. A static view of culture also has its own definition of cultural competence, which is largely based on the ability to recall information. Cultural knowledge is usually associated with some particular assessment task or project and the long term usefulness or use of the information is not really considered, although it is usually assumed that the information once acquired will continue to be known in the future. A dynamic approach to culture involves seeing culture as sets of practices in which people engage in order to live their lives, to understand their world and to produce and comprehend meaning. These practices are fundamentally variable. A dynamic view requires a movement away from the idea of the national culture and the idea of a monolithic ‘English culture’, ‘French culture’ or ‘Japanese culture’ and recognize that culture varies with time, place and social category and for age, gender, religion, ethnicity and sexuality (Norton, 2000). Different people participate in different groups and have multiple memberships of within their cultural group each of which can and does affect the presentation of the self within the cultural context (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The variability is not limited however to membership of sub-cultures but also to the ways in which the individual participates within his/her cultures. People can resist, subvert or challenge the cultural practices to which they are exposed in both their first culture and in additional cultures they acquire. A practices view of a disciplinary culture cannot see culture as a set of rules or predispositions which create the behaviour of members of a cultural group, but rather culture comes to be seen as a set of orientations which people use to structure and understand their social world and communicate with other people. This means culture, including disciplinary culture, is not about information and things, its about actions and understanding. In order to learn about culture, it is necessary to engage with the linguistic and non-linguistic practices of the culture and to gain insights about the way of living in a particular cultural context. Cultural knowledge is not therefore a case of knowing information about the culture; it is about knowing how to


engage with the culture. In a dynamic view of culture, cultural competence, therefore, is seen as intercultural behaviour. It is the ability to negotiate meaning across cultural boundaries (Kramsch, 1993b, 1999). Viewing culture as a dynamic set of practices rather than as a body of shared information engages the idea of individual identity as a more central concept in understanding culture. Culture is a framework in which the individual achieves his/her identity using a cultural group’s understandings of choices made by members as a resource for the presentation of the self. This reflects Sacks’ (1984) notion of ‘doing being ordinary’: who we are is an interactionally accomplished product not an inherent quality and the culture provides a reference point for this interactional accomplishment. Such a view encourages us to think of the individual as a semiotic system, that is, as a set of meaningful choices about the presentation of self. Culture provides a context in which this semiotic is to be read and choices will be understood differently in different cultural contexts (Kramsch, 1995a; 1995b). This means that for the second language user ‘doing being ordinary’ involves presenting the self within a different framework of conventions for reading the individual. A view of culture as practices indicates that culture is complex and that individual’s relationships with culture are complex. Adding an additional language and culture to an individual’s repertoire expands the complexity, generates new possibilities and creates a need for mediation between languages and cultures and the identities which they frame. This means that learning involves the development of an intercultural competence which facilitates such meditation. Intercultural competence involves at least the following:

• Accepting that one’s own and others’ behavior is culturally determined. • Accepting that there is no one right way to do things. • Valuing one’s own culture and other cultures. • Using language to explore culture. • Finding personal solutions in intercultural interaction. • Using existing culture as a resource to learn about a new culture. • Finding an intercultural style and identity.

Intercultural competence means centrally being aware that cultures are relative. That is, being aware that there is no one “normal” way of doing things, but rather that all behaviours are culturally variable (Liddicoat, 2000). Culture learning involves process for decentring from one’s existing cultural mindset and engaging in positive and creative ways with new cultural possibilities. This decentring may be considered as the development of an intermediate, intercultural set of practices (also called a third place Kramsch, 1993a; Liddicoat, Crozet, & Lo Bianco, 1999). Concluding remarks In internationalised education, this decentring is fundamental to the sorts of goals that universities set themselves and applies equally to “international” students and to domestic students. Both sets of students need to engage with cultures and languages beyond their own and both need to be prepared by their educational experiences to do so. Moreover, universities as internationalised educators need to decentre as well from their own cultural and disciplinary mindsets and to engage with other languages, cultures and bodies of knowledge in creative and potentially transformational ways. To be international, universities need to become sites of intercultural endeavour, not simply sites of multicultural presence. Internationalisation lies not so much in the assembly of diverse student and staff populations but in learning to engage with and responds to the diversities so created. An internationalised university in this sense would be characterised by:

1. Students and staff are aware that knowledge is constructed and communicated in all languages and that it has value regardless of the language in which it is constructed and communicated and have strategies for accessing such knowledge.

2. Universities acknowledge the value of diverse cultures of teaching and learning and integrate such cultures in their teaching and assessment practices.

3. Universities consider the diversity of the context of application of knowledges acquired through education and prepare all students to apply the knowledge they have gained in new and previously unknown contexts.

4. Assessment practices balance disciplinary knowledge with linguistic knowledge and are aware that students may need to reconstruct and communicate their knowledge in other languages if their disciplinary knowledge is to be useful after they leave the university.


5. Universities construct international education as a preparation for all students to function as educated people in a multilingual and multicultural world and to modify their practice in order to achieve this by providing an experience which challenges the identity and self-concept of all students through exposure the diversity.

Unless universities develop such characteristics, however, their attempts at internationalisation may be no better than economically driven instances of linguistic and cultural imperialism masked by a rhetoric of openness to the world. References

Alexander, D., & Rizvi, F. (1993). Education, markets and the contradictions of Asia-Australia relations. The Australian Universities’ Review, 36(2), 16-20.

Aulakh, G., Brady, P., Dunwoodie, K., Perry, J., Roff, G., & Stewart, M. (1997). Internationalising the Curriculum across RMIT University. Melbourne: RMIT.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Ballard, B. (1987). Academic adjustment: The other side of the export dollar. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 109-119.

Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Teaching Students from Overseas. Melbourne: Longman Chesire.

Banks, J. A., & McGee, C. A. (1989). Multicultural education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bruffee, K. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change(Jan/Feb), 12-18.

Crozet, C., & Liddicoat, A. J. (1999). The challenge of intercultural language teaching: Engaging with culture in the classroom. In J. Lo Bianco, A. J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 113-126). Canberra: Language Australia.

Eisenchlas, S., Trevaskes, S., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). Internationalisation: The slow move from rhetoric to practice in Australian universities. In A. J. Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas & S. Trevaskes (Eds.), Australian perspectives on internationalising education (pp. 141-149). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Francis, A. (1993). Facing the future: The internationalization of post secondary institutions in British Columbia. Vancouver: British Columbia Centre for International Education.

IDP Education Australia. (1995). Curriculum development for internationalisation. Canberra: DEET.

Kramsch, C. (1993a). Context and culture in language education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (1993b). Language study as border study: Experiencing difference. European Journal of Education, 28(3), 349-358.

Kramsch, C. (1995a). The cultural component of language teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(1), 83-92.

Kramsch, C. (1999). Teaching along the cultural faultline. In R. M. Paige, D. L. Lange & Y. A. Yershova (Eds.), Culture as the Core: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Culture Teaching and Learning in the Second Language Curriculum (pp. 15-32). Minneapolis: CARLA, University of Minnesota.


Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (1995b). Redefining the boundaries of language study. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Liddicoat, A. J. (1997). Texts of the culture and texts of the discourse community. In Z. Golebiowski & H. Borland (Eds.), Academic Literacy Across Disciplines and Cultures (pp. 38-41). Melbourne: Victoria University of Technology.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2000). Everyday speech as culture: Implications for language teaching. In A. J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures (pp. 51-64). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). Internationalisation as a concept in higher education: Perspectives from policy. In A. J. Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas & S. Trevaskes (Eds.), Australian perspectives on internationalising education (pp. 13-26). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Liddicoat, A. J., Crozet, C., & Lo Bianco, J. (1999). Striving for the third place: Consequences and implications. In J. Lo Bianco, A. J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the third place Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 1-20). Canberra: Language Australia.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman.

Sacks, H. (1984). On doing “being ordinary”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Interaction (pp. 413-429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4-13.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 220-237). Chicago, MI: Nelson-Hall.

University of South Australia. (2002). Introduction from the Vice Chancellor and President.2 October, 2002, from http://www.unisa.edu.au/internat/general/intro.htm

Volet, S. E., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity for inter-cultural learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(1), 5-23.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker. Retrieved 7 June 2004, from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml

Wertsch, J., & Bivens, J. A. (1992). The social origins of individual mental functioning: Alternatives and perspectives. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 14(2), 35-44.


http://www.unisa.edu.au/internat/general/intro.htm

http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml

THE INTERCULTURAL IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

R. Michael Paige Visiting Research Professor Research Centre for Languages and Cultures Education School of International Studies University of South Australia and Professor of International and Intercultural Education University of Minnesota

Introduction This paper addresses intercultural teaching and learning by foregrounding the intercultural dimension and examining it from a developmental perspective. The broader frame of reference is the global discourse on the internationalisation of higher education (Mestenhauser & Ellingboe, 1998; Knight & DeWit, 1999; Crowther, Joris, Otten, Nilsson, Teekens, & Wächter, 2000). This literature takes several forms, two of which I will mention here. One pertains to the institutional arrangements and provisions regarding internationalisation such as international students, study abroad/exchanges, the curriculum, international research projects, offshore programs, funding provisions, governance and administrative structures, strategic planning, and assessment. The other pertains to student learning outcomes that would presumably be a consequence of internationalisation. Here, intercultural competence is frequently mentioned as a necessary and desirable quality possessed by the graduates of our tertiary institutions. In general terms, this refers to one’s ability to interact and communicate effectively with persons from other cultures and in culturally diverse settings. In disciplinary terms, which I shall return to later in this paper, intercultural competence refers to a person’s capacity to recognize the cultural origins of knowledge, incorporate alternative and interdisciplinary frames of reference into knowledge construction, utilize alternative methodologies in conducting research, learn from and with persons from other cultures, apply knowledge as a professional in ways that take cultural variables into consideration, and make ethical choices that recognize the complexities of culture. Current theory suggests that intercultural competence depends on the person’s capacity to construe cultural difference, that is, to be able to see culture and make sense out of cultural data and events; this ‘intercultural sensitivity’ has distinctive and observable affective, behavioral, and cognitive patterns that occur at different points along the developmental continuum (Bennett, 1993). The purposes of this presentation are to:

1. foreground the ‘intercultural’ and examine it in conceptual and theoretical terms. 2. describe intercultural competence as a developmental phenomenon and examine the various

cognitive, behavioral, and affective configurations that characterize different levels of development. 3. identify the learning goals associated with the different levels of development, in the case where

teaching is directed specifically at intercultural competence. 4. connect the ‘intercultural’ with teaching and learning in the disciplines.

My thesis is that having an understanding of intercultural development enables us to see more precisely how the intercultural dimension can be integrated into teaching and learning within and across disciplines. With this knowledge, the selection and sequencing of learning activities can be made with the intercultural in mind, learners can be appropriately challenged and supported in their intercultural development as a function of their developmental readiness for such learning, the disciplines themselves can be understood as cultural in nature, and the plethora of learning opportunities that are available to academic staff can be placed in a logical curricular structure that builds upon the students’ prior knowledge and experience. Second, I suggest that the developmental perspective enables us to interrogate institutional arrangements and structures with respect to the ways in which they facilitate or hinder intercultural development. Put another way, the developmental perspective can be applied to different units of analysis ranging from the person to the institution. In this paper I will present a particular conceptual model, Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). The DMIS has received considerable attention since its publication both in its pure theoretical form as a conceptualisation of intercultural development, and from an applied point of


view, as a guide for intercultural education and training. Moreover, an instrument form of the DMIS, the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, 2001), has now been published and is being used widely in a number of countries in research, assessment, and international/intercultural programs.

It is important at the outset to properly characterize the DMIS. The first point to be made is that it is a conceptual model, a representation of lived intercultural experience. While recent research (Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman, 2003; Paige, 2003) suggests that it is a quite sophisticated model that can be validly and reliably measured, it has the limitations of any model; it cannot capture all of the intricacies and dynamics of intercultural development as they occur in the real world. Second, it is a model about intercultural sensitivity, as defined above, and must be understood as such. My position is that the DMIS has important implications for learning in the disciplines and can inform our understanding of teaching and learning processes. However, it is not per se a model about developing the knowledge and expertise associated with a specific discipline. The connections and applications to other forms of learning still have to be made. I will suggest, in broad strokes, some of the ways to integrate the intercultural into teaching and learning within the context of a discipline later in this paper.

The structure of the paper is as follows. The DMIS is first presented in its conceptual form. Then, I elaborate on each intercultural worldview in terms of its cognitive, affective, and behavioral structure. As part of the discussion of behavior, I will also comment on how power and privilege are manifested. The issue of power in intergroup and interpersonal relations is a matter of great significance for program and policies pertaining to multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusivity. There is considerable evidence that different intercultural worldviews support different understandings and enactments of power. I then discuss the major developmental task, major learning goals, and specific affective, behavioral, and cognitive learning goals associated with each worldview. These goals, if they are realized, support the learner’s intercultural development. At the conclusion of the paper, I attempt to link the earlier conversation about becoming interculturally competent to learning in the disciplines by taking up the following questions:

• What is culture? • How do we bring the intercultural into teaching and learning within our disciplines? • How does the intercultural sit within and across disciplines? • How “much is enough” in intercultural education? Is there space for the intercultural in the

curriculum? • What is the role of the lecturer in intercultural teaching and learning?

On the Nature of Intercultural Teaching and Learning It is important to make several points at the outset about intercultural teaching and learning, the first being that it is challenging for both instructors and students. Because it is directed toward the development of students’ intercultural competence, it is necessarily about their exposure to other cultures, to new ways of thinking, and to new forms of knowledge. These experiences can be psychologically intense and emotionally demanding. An education that is preparing learners for intercultural experiences can therefore be challenging and intense in its own right. Challenges for the Learners For one thing, intercultural learning is about the whole person. Paige (1993) states that,

Intercultural education, if it is to be effective, must help learners develop these culture-learning skills and enable them to manage their emotional responses. It must therefore incorporate cognitive, behavioral, and affective forms of learning into its structure. (Paige, 1993:1).

For another, intercultural education is a form of learning that introduces many new issues. As Paige goes on to say,

Intercultural education is intense for a number of reasons. Its content can be difficult to grasp, its process demanding. First, it requires learners to reflect upon matters with which they have had little firsthand experience. Second, unlike more conventional approaches to education, which tend to emphasize depersonalized forms of cognitive learning and knowledge acquisition, it includes


highly personalized behavioral and affective learning, self-reflection, and direct experience with cultural differences. Third, “learning-how-to-learn”, a process-oriented pedagogy, replaces learning facts, a product-oriented pedagogy, as a major goal. Fourth, intercultural education involves epistemological explorations regarding alternative ways of knowing and validating what we know, i.e. the meaning of truth and reality. In the intercultural framework, human reality is viewed as socially constructed, a function of perception and of culture-group memberships, and something which varies considerably across human communities. In this vein, learners study the impact that culture, race, ethnicity, gender, politics, economics, and other factors have on the perceptions of the world which individuals and groups come to hold. Finally, these inquiries lead logically to the idea that cultures are social inventions which address, in vastly different ways, how basic human needs are met and how meaning in life is derived. Cultures possess their own internal logic and coherence for their members and, hence, their own validity. Making judgements about them is hazardous when the criteria for evaluation come solely from another culture.

Inevitably, learners struggle with these ideas. (Paige, 1993:3). The emotional, behavioral, and intellectual struggles learner face can take very different forms as they move through the developmental continuum because, as we have seen, their understandings of culture and cultural difference change. Their openness, or conversely resistance, to learning will vary as a function of their developmental readiness. Challenges for the Educators This discussion suggests that educators themselves will face a number of challenges in their intercultural teaching. Finding a pedagogy that is responsive to the learners’ developmental questions and issues means having an understanding of their intercultural development, a plan for sequencing learning, a set of activities that address the different domains and styles of learning, and ideas about how intercultural development might be manifested within their particular discipline. One approach to intercultural teaching and learning is presented by Bennett, Bennett, and Allen (2003: 253-255), who present a pedagogical model that emphasizes balancing challenge and support around the content and process of instruction. Too much challenge (e.g., role playing on highly divisive social issues) can drive learners away, if they have not been adequately prepared and too little (e.g. numerous lectures during new student orientation on using university resources) can put the learner to sleep. In these examples, the content and process of instruction combine to either over- or underwhelm the learner. However, if challenging content such as discrimination and inequality is initially presented in a way that is not so emotionally or behaviorally confrontative, such as in readings, lectures, and discussions, students can acquire new knowledge. Gradually they can move to the more challenging affective and behavioral ways of knowing, but now they will better prepared and able to handle such activities. Where the content is less challenging, such as non-verbal communication, the learning process can be more behavioral in nature and the students can gain new skills.

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)

[The DMIS] describes a learner’s subjective experience of cultural difference…this experience is termed “intercultural sensitivity…This developmental model posits a continuum of increasing sophistication in dealing with cultural difference. (Bennett, 1993: 22) Each orientation of the DMIS is indicative of a particular worldview structure, with certain kinds of attitudes and behavior vis-à-vis cultural difference typically associated with each configuration. (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003: 423)

The DMIS (Bennett, 1993) describes the alternative ways in which a person perceives and makes sense out of cultural difference. Bennett refers to this subjective experience of difference as intercultural sensitivity, a developmental phenomenon that can be described in terms of six alternative intercultural worldviews. Three of these worldview orientations are ethnocentric (Denial, Defense, and Minimization), where one’s own culture is central to reality and is the lens or frame through which one perceives and interprets other cultures. Here, cultures are understood and evaluated on the basis of this monocultural perspective. The three ethnorelative worldviews (Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration) represent an important paradigm shift to


the view that cultures can be best understood in their own context and are thus relative to one another. They cannot be either interpreted or judged in any meaningful way from a solely monocultural perspective. Each of these intercultural worldviews represents a different level of sophistication in a person’s ability construe difference and each has a coherent syndrome of attitudes, knowledge, and behavior relevant to that particular worldview. Given the opportunity for more intercultural experience and the chance to reflect upon it, one’s worldview is likely to shift in the direction of new ways of perceiving and making sense out of cultural difference. In cognitive terms, learners are able to make more complex differentiations. The categories they employ to understand culture and cultural difference increase in number. Research suggests that intercultural development is also dynamic and complex (Paige, 2003). Persons are constantly in transition regarding their intercultural competence as they accumulate more experience and acquire more knowledge. Intercultural learning does not simply mean moving lockstep in a linear manner through a set of distinct stages, where earlier views are completely discarded as one moves forward; rather, a person’s overall intercultural sensitivity at any given point in time will be comprised of elements from more than one intercultural worldview. This is somewhat similar to the views about language and culture learning expressed by Liddicoat (2002) and Liddicoat, Papademetre, Scarino, and Kohler (2003). At the same time, however, the evidence indicates that persons tend to toward congruent and stable worldviews, hence are likely to have an anchoring or dominant intercultural orientation at any given point in time. Denial of Difference The Denial worldview is characterized by benign neglect, lack of concern, and ignorance regarding cultural difference. It is characterized by the inability to construe cultural difference. Naive observations and superficial statements of tolerance are made about culturally different others. Persons with a Denial orientation have often grown up in culturally homogeneous environments and have had limited contact with people outside their own culture group. There are two forms of Denial. The first is Denial/Isolation, which is the condition of unintentional isolation from other culture groups due to life circumstances. The second is Denial/Separation, the intentional separation from other culture groups intended to maintain the condition of isolation and thus protect one’s worldview.

The effect of isolation and separation is that persons live in relatively homogeneous communities which fail to provide either the opportunity or the motivation to learn about other cultures, become aware of cultural difference, or become interculturally competent. At this initial point in one’s intercultural development, culture is irrelevant. Denial Worldview Structure Overview: In the Denial worldview, there are few if any categories for cultural difference. To the degree that they exist at all, they are very broad (e.g., “foreigners”, “Orientals”). Cognition: Lacking categories for perceiving culture, persons with a Denial worldview are unable to recognize, much less make sense out of data that come from outside their own cultural context. Affect: The affective qualities of Denial are indifference, disinterest, and lack of fear regarding difference. There is generally a positive and benign feeling associated with Denial, which is sustainable as long as persons are not forced into contact with other culture groups. By not having to be in contact with difference, the person in Denial is not threatened. Behavior: Persons in Denial avoid interacting with people from other cultures, seek out the familiar, and often maintain a stance of aggressive ignorance (“I don’t need to know about those people.”). The enactment of power. The Denial worldview, through its indifference and lack of understanding, allows unequal power relations between groups and exploitation of culturally different others to occur. The dominant group would pay little attention to the matter. The Organization of Teaching and Learning for Denial Key developmental task. Given that the Denial worldview structure is undifferentiated and that there is little interest in other cultures, the most important developmental task for the learner is to recognize the existence


of culture. This can be accomplished in a number of ways with the proviso that these initial explorations of difference be done in a non-threatening manner. This is not the time to overwhelm learners with culture, but to stimulate their interest in it. Major teaching goals. The major teaching goals for the Denial worldview are to support learners in building awareness of difference around objective culture and to help them move beyond broad, generic categories (e.g., foreigners and Orientals) for difference. It is important at this point to promote the learners’ interest in and curiosity about objective culture. Specific learning outcomes:

1. Cognitive: Learners acquire knowledge of objective culture (e.g., art, music, festivals and holidays, food).

2. Affective: Learners develop an interest in and curiosity about objective culture. 3. Behavioral: Learners can recognize and describe objective culture

Defense against Difference Defense involves recognition combined with negative evaluation of cultural difference. Characteristics of defense include dualistic "we - they" thinking and negative stereotyping of other culture groups. Fundamental to Defense is the protection of one’s own culture. There are three dimensions of defense. The first is Defense/Superiority, which is manifested by extolling the virtues of one's own group compared to all others, exaggerating the positive aspects of one's group, and interpreting any criticism as an attack. This position emphasizes positive in-group evaluation. The second form is Defense/Denigration where other cultures are evaluated as inferior, derogatory terms are used to describe other groups, and negative stereotypes are applied to other groups. The emphasis here is negative out-group evaluation. The third form is Defense/Reversal which consists of viewing another culture as superior to one's own accompanied by feelings of alienation from one's own culture group and the tendency to denigrate it. This is sometimes referred to as “going native.” However, it is an ethnocentric state because the underlying Defense structure is maintained; only the cultures of reference are shifted. This is a negative in-group and positive out-group evaluation. Defense Worldview Structure Overview: There is recognition of cultural difference and the categories for difference are slightly more elaborated in Defense. However, the polarization of difference enables one to resist integrating new knowledge and thus maintain one’s original worldview. This orientation for the dominant group is the defense of privilege against non-dominant groups or, conversely, the defense of identity against the dominant group. Cognition: The cognitive structure is an evaluative polarization, a “we-they” dichotomy, that makes favorable or even neutral interpretations of difference impossible. Cultural data are immediately placed into this cognitive structure. Affect: Defense is characterized affectively by anxiety, fear of difference, and feeling threatened and under siege ("What is this country becoming"). Behavior: Persons with a Defense worldview employ a wide range of behaviors including: negative stereotyping, discrimination, segregation, defense of privilege, protection of identity. At its most virulent form, Defense enables dehumanization of others and physical aggression against them. The enactment of power. Defense, by means of its resistance to difference, manifests itself as exclusion rather than inclusion and, for dominant groups, in the denial of equal opportunity to other groups. Non-dominant groups have less power to exercise, but express it in many ways such as ethnic identity movements, culture revivalism, a politics of resistance, and anti-oppression activities. The Organization of Teaching and Learning for Defense Key developmental task. The most important developmental task is to mitigate polarization by emphasizing "common humanity." This is the time for learners to redefine difference in a way that will reduce their intercultural anxiety and encourage them to interact with persons from other cultures. If they can see others as being like them, it becomes much harder to sustain the polarizing Defense worldview.


Major teaching goals. The major teaching goals are to help learners reduce their anxiety about people from other cultures, develop tolerance (a non-judgmental, neutral stance toward other cultures), move beyond negative stereotyping by replacing evaluative stereotypes with neutral generalisations, develop own culture awareness, and gain culture group pride. Specific learning outcomes.

1. Cognitive: Learners gain an understanding of the accomplishments and contributions of their own group combined with objective culture knowledge of other groups (e.g., festivals and holidays, food, the arts, architecture, music) and an understanding that all human communities have their accomplishments.

2. Affective: Learners develop in-group pride, out-group tolerance, and reduction of intercultural anxiety.

3. Behavioral: Learners manage stress and anxiety, withhold judgment and make neutral statements about cultural differences, and can cooperate with people who are different.

Minimization of Difference In Minimization, people recognize superficial and visible cultural differences such as food and eating customs, but they hold to the view that basically human beings are the same. The emphasis is on similarities among people and commonalities of needs and values. This shift in worldview serves as a perceptual mechanism that makes it more comfortable to interact with persons from other cultures in a positive albeit still culturally uninformed way. This is due to the fact that commonality is defined in ethnocentric terms (“We are all alike, like us.”). There are two dimensions of minimization, the first being Minimization/Physical Universalism where the emphasis is on our physiological similarities. The second is Minimization/Transcendent Universalism which emphasizes a transcendent principle, such as a social or economic philosophy, a supernatural being, and a religion. In this form, human beings are subordinated to the principle and become, for example, “children of God” or “oppressed workers of the world.” Minimization Worldview Structure Overview: In the Minimization worldview, difference is subsumed into familiar categories. Thus, while there is a notable affective and behavioral shift, the cognitive categories for difference remain relatively the same. Subordination of difference replaces polarization. Cognition: Cultural information is perceived in a neutral, non-judgmental manner and somewhat more elaborated categories for difference begin to develop. But the construal of difference is to place it within familiar categories. (“Yes, they eat different food in different ways, but the important thing is that the family eats together.). Difference, then, is still not seen in any detail. We see others as we see ourselves. Affect: Minimization represents a major transition from feelings of fear to a positive outlook, a much more comfortable feeling about difference. There is a willingness to interact with people from other cultures. Behavior: Behaviors also shift in a significant way to a positive interaction posture, being nice (as that is defined in one’s own culture), active attempts to discover our similarities, and active support for universal principles. The enactment of power. Power along with difference is a construct that is disavowed in the Minimization worldview. Accordingly, privilege is unconsciously accepted and cultural norms are unconsciously imposed on others. The Organization of Teaching and Learning for Minimization Key developmental task. The most important developmental task for Minimization is for the learners to gain cultural self-awareness. At this point, the learners are developmentally ready to examine subjective culture, but it is important to keep the focus on their own culture because that is the lens through which they are seeing the world. Once they have explored the richness of their own culture and see themselves as having culture, they will be ready for the paradigm shift to ethnorelativism and the study of other cultures. Major teaching goals. The major teaching goals are to assist learners in developing more differentiated categories for culture and acquiring an initial understanding of subjective culture in the form of behavioral


difference. It is important to provide non-threatening opportunities for them to experience difference by interacting with people from other cultures and participating in introductory intercultural simulations such Redundancia (Saphiere, 1995), and Barnga (Thiagarajan & Steinwachs, 1990). Specific learning outcomes.

1. Cognitive: Learners acquire more knowledge about culture, with the emphasis on subjective culture categories (e.g., non-verbal behavior, communication styles, and learning styles). Learners gain cultural self-awareness (understanding of one’s group culture and one’s own idiosyncratic culture).

2. Affective: Learners develop a positive attitude toward people from other cultures, a willingness to interact with culturally different others, an interest in learning more about one’s own culture, an interest in meeting people from other cultures, and open-mindedness.

3. Behavioral: Learners behave politely (as they understand this concept) in their intercultural interactions, they develop good listening skills, and they are able to explain their own culture to outsiders.

Acceptance of Difference Persons in Acceptance both recognize and appreciate cultural differences. Culture is understood as a viable way of organizing human behavior and cultural differences in behaviors and values are accepted as normal and desirable. Difference is no longer judged by the standards of one's own group; difference is examined within its own cultural context. Cultural differences are now intriguing. The guiding principle of acceptance is cultural relativism: one culture is not inherently better or worse than another. It is simply different. Acceptance of this principle means that the person has made a paradigm shift from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. Initially, however, this is accompanied by confusion about making cultural evaluations and persons can get temporarily “stuck in relativism.” There are two forms of Acceptance. The first is Acceptance/Behavioral Relativism, defined as agreement with the view that behavior varies across culture groups and according to cultural context, and that behavioral patterns are valid for those who share and understand them. Acceptance of behavioral difference does not mean that one is necessarily comfortable about specific differences. The second is Acceptance/Value Relativism, the recognition that values and beliefs exist in a cultural context and vary across cultural communities. As with cultural behaviors, discomfort can still occur around specific value differences, particularly those that clash with one’s own culture. Acceptance Worldview Structure Overview: In the Acceptance worldview structure there is much greater differentiation and elaboration of cultural categories. This enables persons to experience culture in its own context and generates interest in learning more about it. Cognition: There is an understanding of the nature of culture and what comprises it. Cultural construal is more sophisticated and cultural distinctions are now made. Affect: There is greater curiosity and interest in cultural differences and appreciation of differences. There is also some ethical confusion signified by difficulty in making evaluations across cultures. Behavior: Persons actively seek out information about other cultures and search for intercultural opportunities (e.g., study abroad, interaction with international students). The enactment of power. The issue of power tends to be avoided. There is indecision about how to deal with power dynamics, but a willingness to examine power differentials and alternative perspectives. Cultural differences are now intriguing, but there is also confusion about making cultural evaluations. Persons can get temporarily “stuck in relativism.” The Organization of Teaching and Learning for Acceptance Key developmental task. The major task for Acceptance is to learn much more about subjective cultural differences. Although there is a large body of knowledge to acquire about culture, their desire to learn about culture is the foundation that supports them at this point in their intercultural development. They are developmentally ready for this steep learning curve. Major teaching goals. The most important teaching goal is to provide a substantial


amount of information regarding subjective culture and its categories (particularly value orientations), cultural context (situation, time, place, persons) and how it shapes cultural choices and decisions. It is also important to provide learners with opportunities to develop their culture learning skills (e.g., cultural ethnographies, interaction strategies), which can be done in part through somewhat more advanced intercultural simulations such as Bafa Bafa (Simulation Training Systems, undated). Specific learning outcomes.

1. Cognitive: Learners acquire more knowledge about subjective culture (values, beliefs), in general, and about the subjective culture of a particular group. Learners think in terms of cultural relativism.

2. Affective: Learners become intrigued with cultural difference, feel respectful of people from other cultures, and want to learn more about culture.

3. Behavioral: Learners develop their culture learning skills (e.g., ethnographic skills of observation and questioning; finding and learning from cultural resource persons) and gain the ability to make friends with persons from other cultures.

Adaptation to Difference Persons with an Adaptation worldview have acquired knowledge and developed skills that enable them to effectively interact and communicate with people from cultures other than their own. They have highly elaborated cultural categories and the ability to shift their frames of reference from one culture to another. Moreover, they have learned how to adapt to new cultural environments and they have learned how to learn about culture. There are two dimensions to adaptation. Adaptation/Cognitive Frame-Shifting is the form of Adaptation that means having the ability to shift perspective into alternative cultural worldviews or cognitive empathy. The second form, Adaptation/Behavioral Code-Shifting, refers to the internalization of more than one complete worldview and the ability to shift behavior to fit different cultural contexts. They possess an intuitive empathy or feel for alternative cultural perspectives. Adaptation Worldview Structure Overview: The Adaptation worldview is characterized by elaborated cultural categories, the ability to experience and learn culture, and the capacity to function effectively in other cultures. Cognition: There is constant attention to how persons from the other culture would be thinking about situations, i.e., cognitive perspective-taking, and the ability to shift to the other cultural frame of reference. Affect: The affective qualities of Adaptation are a strong sense of commitment to working effectively with people from other culture groups and a strong emphasis placed on being interculturally competent. Behavior: Adaptation behavior is characterized by intentionality, by active efforts to take the perspective of the other and expand one’s behavioral repertoire. The exercise of power. Persons holding an Adaptation worldview have the ability to respond to power in its cultural context and seek to develop their skills such that they can exercise power in a culturally appropriate manner. The Organization of Teaching and Learning for Adaptation Key developmental task. The most important task is for the learners to develop their cognitive and behavioral frame-of-reference shifting skills. This can be accomplished by providing them with numerous opportunities to analyse and solve problems involving complex cultural variables as well as have substantive immersion experiences with cultural difference. Major teaching goals. At this more advanced phase of their development, the major teaching goal is to build the learners’ intercultural competence. This means providing them with opportunities to analyze problems in their cultural context (cognitive frame-shifting) and apply that knowledge to problem-solving in a culturally relevant manner (behavioral code-shifting). It also means having advanced second language learning options available so that they can gain greater linguistic as well as cultural proficiency. Finally, this is the appropriate time to promote the learners’ skills in managing power differentials and combating discrimination.


Specific learning outcomes. 1. Cognitive: Learners gain culture general knowledge regarding cultural identity, cultural adjustment,

and intercultural communication. Learners also gain second language skills and culture-specific knowledge.

2. Affective: Learners become much more willing to try new cultural behaviors, to adapt to another culture, and to acquire advanced language and culture-specific knowledge.

3. Behavioral: Learners demonstrate their skills in cognitive frame-shifting, behavioral code-shifting, and stress management. Learners can make accurate cultural attributions, use their advanced culture learning skills, and study ethical issues from another cultural context.

Integration of Difference Persons in Integration have internalized more than one cultural worldview into their own, i.e., possess a bicultural or multicultural frame of reference. Their identity includes but, more importantly, transcends the cultures of which they are a part. They see themselves as persons "in process." They define themselves as persons at the margin of cultures and maintain an identity of “cultural marginality.” Persons in Integration have a strong commitment to action, but base their choices and decisions on multicultural assessments and understandings. Their ethical stance, as it were, is one of “contextual evaluation” (Bennett, 1993: 60-63) and “commitment in relativism” (Perry, 1970); decisions must be made, but they must not be made from an ethnocentric perspective. There are two dimensions of integration (J. M. Bennett, 1993). The first is Integration/Encapsulated Marginality, the experience of an identity that is apart from any given culture, accompanied by feelings of identity confusion and uncertainty. The second is Integration/Constructive Marginality, form of Integration that also signifies an identity that is not based on any one culture, but is now associated with a positive sense of identity as a constructor of culture and a facilitator of intercultural transitions. Such persons have the capacity to support intercultural encounters and transitions for themselves and for others. Integration Worldview Structure Cultural categories are highly elaborated and seen as human constructions. Through a process of ongoing self-reflection or intercultural consciousness, persons in Integration experience their own and other cultures as invention. This is a perceptual structure that enables them to their own identities as being in process and capable of reinvention. Their grounding comes from the sense of themselves as constructors of culture.

Cognition: The cognitive structure is elaborated to the degree that persons in Integration view cultural information as constructed by and constructing context. Reality is understood as something that is constructed by one’s worldview and in that regard is subjective. The Integration consists of maintaining a cognitive stance of constant self-reflection, consistently employing multiple cultural frameworks, and also creating new frames of reference.

Affect: Different affective states are associated with the two forms of marginality (J. M. Bennett, 1993). In one, Constructive Marginality, there is enjoyment about being a bicultural or multicultural person, a sense of authenticity about the multicultural self, high self-worth, and a desire to help others make their cross-cultural transitions. In the other, Encapsulated Marginality, there is more confusion about the cultural self and discomfort about the experience of marginality. These persons have extensive intercultural experience and possess potential for facilitating cultural transitions, but that potential is inhibited by their own identity uncertainty. Behavior: The behavioral characteristics of Integration include working in culturally diverse settings, doing cultural mediation and negotiation, assisting with cross-cultural conflict resolution, explaining people's cultures to others, associating with other multicultural people, and also creating new affiliation groups. The exercise of power. The exercise of power is culturally appropriate and ever mindful of context. By moving among cultures, they can and do work in the areas of reconciliation, equity, and redistribution of power. The Organization of Learning for Integration Key developmental task. For persons in Integration, the most important task is to resolve multicultural identity issues. These arise from having internalized more than one culture but not having overcome the resulting, internal cultural confusion. It is important to affirm for the learners the value of having culture and


language skills from more than one background and to acknowledge the difficulties that can result from being multicultural and multilingual. Major teaching goals. The teaching goals here are to help the learners’ develop their multicultural identity, see new ways to apply their multicultural skills, becoming more flexible in the identity constructions. It is crucial to identify or assist them in finding relevant reference groups to join, groups that can serve the function of clarifying and affirming their multicultural identity. Specific learning outcomes.

1. Cognitive: Learners gain an understanding of key concepts: multicultural identity, cultural marginality, intercultural conflict, and cultural mediation.

2. Affective: Learners gain a strong desire to help others make cultural transitions as well as a willingness to make decisions and take action in a cultural context.

3. Behavioral: Learners gain the capacity to maintain a position of constructive marginality, work as cultural bridge persons, make ethical decisions using multiple frames of reference (contextual evaluation, commitment in relativism), and help others resolve intercultural conflict.

Implications of the Developmental Perspective for Intercultural Teaching and Learning What is culture? Culture as seen from an intercultural lens and as presented in this paper is defined in a number of ways. It is first differentiated into objective culture - the world of visible cultural artefacts such as architecture and the arts, clothing, and food - and subjective culture - the less visible and profoundly important dimensions of culture that influence human communication and interaction such as values and beliefs, communication styles, conflict and conflict resolution patterns, and nonverbal communication to name several. Second, I have suggested that understanding culture means acquiring knowledge that is both culture-specific (knowledge about a particular cultural community) as well as culture-general (knowledge about intercultural experiences, transitions, communication, and interactions). Third, culture has also been described here in terms of cultural-self awareness, i.e., knowing one has a culture, knowing what it is, and knowing what that means in human relations. Fourth, culture is the context of human communication and interaction, the setting in which choices and decisions are made. Lastly, the concept of culture learning - the capacity to observe, experience, analyse, and understand culture – has been presented. This refers to strategies for learning and using culture (Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi, & Lassegard, 2002). As learners’ cultural map becomes more detailed, their capacity to see cultural data when it is presented to them will increase substantially. This capacity will be reflected in greater competence in interacting and communicating with people from other cultures. Overall, as represented in this paper, culture is seen as central to the experience of being human.

How do we bring the intercultural into teaching and learning? This paper suggests that the intercultural can be brought into teaching and learning by considering the learner’s intercultural development and making content and process decisions accordingly. That may be more obvious, however, in an intercultural communication, area studies, second language, international relations, or culture studies course than in other areas such as engineering, the natural and physical sciences, or business. I would suggest that each discipline in its own way provides opportunities for academic staff to support the students’ intercultural development. Every discipline, for example, introduces students to knowledge that originated in a particular cultural context (i.e., knowledge informed by the values, interests, and needs of the community), to new and sometimes contradictory theories, and to alternative methodologies. By making the cultural elements of disciplinary learning explicit, students can acquire understandings that are directly or indirectly related to their intercultural development. For example, they can search for the cultural context and origins of particular concepts, propositions/hypotheses, theories, and methods. They can develop their critical and comparative learning skills, such as critically analysing phenomena from multiple perspectives and comparing ideas across cultures in a culturally relevant manner. In addition, most disciplines have their applied dimension, their areas of professional practice. The world of the professions is increasingly a culturally complex one where practitioners must consider cultural context and the cultural consequences of their decisions. These are not only practical but also ethical issues where


the professional persons are responsible for the well-being of the clients and the status of their profession. This is quite evident in the literature on international development. To take one example, building a bride is a technical matter but it is also a cultural one; the decisions surrounding bridge construction (who, when, why, where) are decisions that almost always involve culture and have social and cultural consequences. Students should be examining these issues. Similarly, health care workers interact with patients who do not always share their understanding of health, wellness, and treatment modalities. The Western bio-medical model may be an imperfect fit with worldviews that define wellness in spiritual or other terms. Students should be learning about these matters. It can be argued that in today’s world, intercultural skills are essential for professionals, regardless of their disciplines. To summarize, intercultural learning in the disciplines can be accomplished by:

1. exploring alternative and sometimes contradictory theories 2. examining the cultural origins and assumptions of knowledge (concepts, propositions/hypotheses,

theories) 3. introducing alternative and interdisciplinary frames of reference into knowledge construction 4. familiarizing students with alternative research methodologies 5. learning from and with persons from other cultures 6. preparing students become intercultural competent professionals, applying their knowledge in ways

that take cultural variables into consideration 7. studying the cultural complexities of ethical decision-making and the professional code of ethics. 8. seeing the discipline and the practices associated with it as cultural.

How does the intercultural sit within and across disciplines? As suggested above, the intercultural sits within the disciplines, though in different ways and at different levels of transparency. Becoming interculturally competent is not a matter of taking a special course at the university; rather, it is something that can be infused into disciplinary learning around knowledge construction and application. Sometimes this will be directly linked to culture and other times it will be implicit. How “much is enough” in intercultural education? Is there space for the intercultural in the curriculum? These two questions are commonly asked and reflect the view that intercultural teaching and learning is additive, something to be tacked on to a busy curriculum, rather than a stance that sees intercultural development being infused into the ways we teach and learn. In the latter, a routine class assignment is an opportunity for intercultural learning. A standard lecture is a chance to do discuss the origins and cultural context of disciplinary knowledge. Put another way, intercultural teaching and learning becomes internalized into the way we teach and learn. Yes, there is cultural knowledge about our own and other communities to be transmitted to our students and some disciplines such as anthropology will have a greater role in that process than others. Yet there is almost always the opportunity, even without using intercultural terminology, to support intercultural development. What is the role of the lecturer in intercultural teaching and learning? This paper suggests that the lecturer has a very significant role in intercultural teaching and learning. The lecturer makes course content decisions, selects learning activities, determines a sequence for the course, and gives assignments to students. All of these can be informed meaningfully by the model of intercultural development that I have presented. My thesis is that as those curriculum decisions are increasingly made with intercultural learning in mind, teaching and learning will more effectively promote our students’ intercultural development.


References Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, J. M. (1993). Cultural marginality: Identity issues in intercultural training. In R. M. Paige (ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 109-135). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (2003). Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In D. L. Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core: Perspectives on second language learning (pp. 237-270). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., Wächter, B. (2000). Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: EAIE and Drukkerij Raddraaier. Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (1998, 2001). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J. & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-443. Knight, J., & de Wit (Eds.) (1999). Quality and internationalization in higher education. Paris, France: OECD. Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). Static and dynamic views of culture and intercultural language acquisition. Babel, 36, 4-11, 37. Liddicoat, A. J., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2003). Report on intercultural language learning. Canberra ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Mestenhauser, J. A. & Ellingboe, B. J. (Eds.) (1998). Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalizing the campus. Phoenix, AZ: The American Council on Education/Oryx Press. Paige, R. M. (2003). Editorial. In R. M. Paige (Guest Ed.). Special issue on intercultural development. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 383-385. Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J.C., & Lassegard, J. P. (2002). Maximizing study abroad: A students' guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Paige, R.M. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural education. In R. M. Paige (Ed.) Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 1-19). Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press. Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Saphiere, D. H. (1995). Redundancia: A foreign language simulation. Leawood, KS: Nipporica Associates. Simulation Training Systems (undated). Bafa Bafa: A cross-cultural/diversity simulation. Del Mar, CA: Simulation Training Systems. Thiagarajan, S. & Steinwachs, B. (1990). Barnga: A simulation game on culture clashes. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.


5. LEARNING FROM UNISA TEXTS: MAPPING THE CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONALISATION

DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE This resource provides a ‘map’ of the construction of internationalisation in relation to teaching and learning at UniSA. The map is generated through an analysis of texts published by the university. This map evidences the need for further development of the conceptualisation of internationalisation in order to facilitate its operationalisation in teaching and learning. The final sections of the resource reflect on how this need might be met in view of the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning discussed in the resource: A set of principles for intercultural teaching and learning. The two main texts drawn on this resource are the Information Kit produced by the Flexible Learning Centre to support UniSA staff and the information provided to students on Graduate Quality 7 (http://www.unisanet. unisa.edu.au/gradquals/poster.asp). These and the other texts drawn on in this resource represent UniSA’s ongoing process of refining its resources to implement Graduate Quality 7. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS The purpose of this resource is to enable readers to reflect on the development of the Information Kit to date and to identify further possibilities for professional learning. Specifically, the resources and tasks outlined here represent an invitation to colleagues to consider our own institutional context as a site of international/intercultural practice. This might be achieved by:

• reading the resource/discussing it/talking about how it how it may influence your pedagogy; • juxtaposing perspectives and positions promoted in the resources with your own experience of

teaching and learning; • juxtaposing conceptualisations of ‘international, ‘culture’, and ‘communication’ with the set of

principles of intercultural teaching and learning (resource: A set of principles for Intercultural teaching and learning)

• applying it to what you already know • re-evaluating previously held positions • key ideas can be talked about with students as part of course/program evaluation.


MAPPING THE CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONALISATION The analysis Focus question Given the many interpretations of ‘internationalisation’ possible, it is important to see how the concept is understood and operationalised at an institutional level. The focus question is, therefore, ‘How is the meaning(s) of ‘internationalisation’ represented in relation to teaching and learning in the texts and resources published by UniSA?’ The corpus The texts and resources gathered for the project were those published by UniSA which, explicitly or by implication, employ ‘internationalisation’ in relation to teaching and learning. Aim of analysis The analysis sought to map how the meaning(s) of ‘internationalisation’ is represented in texts and resources produced at UniSA, with a particular focus on how teaching and learning for internationalisation is understood. Process of analysis The process of analysis was informed by the assumption that the intended and understood meaning of ‘internationalisation’ at UniSA is not singular and ‘given’, but emerges through its employment in a range of texts as ‘resources’ which are produced and drawn on in activities across the university. The analysis, then, was open to the potential for multiple meanings of ‘internationalisation’ to be employed across the university, meanings which are shaped both by the producers of the texts in which they occur, by the ways in which these texts are employed by those whose practices they are designed to shape, and by how these practices are in turn understood by students. Consistent with this focus on meaning as not given in advance but emergent, the process of analysis drew on “grounded” coding procedures (Glaser & Strauss 1967). These involve iterative cycles of identifying and coding explicit and implied meanings of ‘internationalisation’, grouping/regrouping the codes to discover larger patterns of meaning, and recycling these insights back into further coding. The resulting account of ‘internationalisation’ is not a ‘list’ of meanings but a ‘conceptual map’, in which meanings and the relationships between them are identified and displayed. Units of analysis The segments of texts coded during the process of analysis do not correspond to linguistic or other categories determined prior to analysis. Rather, the significance of particular segments of texts emerges through the process of analysis itself, in accordance with the iterative coding procedures, and in the light of the analyst’s emergent understanding of how ‘internationalisation’ is represented in the texts. Focusing the analysis To identify which texts would be analysed, the corpus was organised according to its relevance to the aims of the analysis. This process was based on the assumption that the materials in which ‘internationalisation’ is


employed stand in different relationships to teaching and learning, to members of the university community and to other texts produced by UniSA. In this process, the question of whose reading informed the process was critical, and highlighted by the fact that many of the texts in this corpus were drawn from the Learning Connection’s web site (eg groups 1-2, below), where they are referenced to and from each other, and further texts, through hyperlinks. These relations are complex, involving numerous reading pathways through ‘internationalisation’, via, for example, ‘frameworks’, ‘statements’, ‘policies’, ‘strategies’, ‘resources’, ‘guides’, and ‘exemplars’. Moreover, the links between texts are not only one to one, but one to many and many to one. Through these links, then, one text may – potentially – stand in multiple relationships to other texts. For the analysis, these links raise the question of what rationale to employ in sequencing the analysis – in other words, what reading pathway to adopt in investigating how the meaning(s) of ‘internationalisation’ is represented. The pathway taken here broadly follows the sequence in which the texts are presented and hyperlinked; however, texts which are hyperlinked more than once in this sequence are only included/analysed at the first link. This approach is adopted to reflect the way a new member of staff or student might navigate the website (the analyst was new to UniSA), and thereby develop an understanding of ‘internationalisation’ in relation to teaching and learning. While other reading pathways are clearly possible, their inclusion in the analysis lies beyond the scope of the current project. Four relationships were identified as salient to the analysis of published materials, the full list of which is presented in accordance with these relationships in Appendix 1, ‘Summary of published texts gathered’. These four relationships are explained below :

1. Information for students: It is assumed that texts which are most likely to influence students’ understanding and expectations of internationalisation are those provided in relation to Graduate Quality 7 on the students’ section of the Learning Connection web site.

2. Information for staff: It is assumed that the resources which have the most potential to influence teaching and learning are those which are produced and made available to staff to inform teaching. These texts are drawn from the Learning Connection’s: staff web page. The texts divide – broadly – into two groups:

2.1 These texts appear to offer guidance to staff on how to ‘internationalise’ teaching and

learning (eg the ‘Internationalisation of the curriculum Information Kit’).

2.2 Other texts are relevant to the project because they are referenced/hyperlinked, or otherwise indicated, as explicating (eg Statement of Strategic Intent, and Graduate Quality 7) or exemplifying (eg Bachelor of Business) ‘internationalisation’.

3. Ongoing development: UniSA is undergoing change in moving to achieve these goals, a process which implies that the texts gathered as data for this project are evolving as part of the more general process of change and will continue to do so. To reflect this process, then, texts have been gathered which evidence

3.1 how ‘internationalisation’ is developing at UniSA (eg ‘Teaching and learning strategy’ and ‘Internationalisation of the curriculum Information Kit, which also appears in group 2.1);

3.2 that it will continue to do so (eg ‘Teaching and Learning framework 2010 Discussion Paper’); and

3.3 how it has developed in the past (eg ‘Workshop on Qualities…1995).


The texts included in group 3, then, while they may not currently be employed as resources by staff or students, evidence the evolving employment and understanding of ‘internationalisation’ at UniSA.

4. Beyond UniSA: Further texts, beyond those published by UniSA, reflect and inform, both actually and potentially, the direction of ‘internationalisation’ both within UniSA and in the national and international contexts.

4.1 These include published works on the internationalisation of education, included in the

resource: Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation; and

4.2 The published texts relating to ‘internationalisation’ produced by other universities as well as relevant sections in reports on these universities produced by Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), included in the resource: Learning from the AUQA audit reports.

Based on this categorisation, two texts were selected as particularly relevant to the representation of internationalisation in relation to teaching and learning at UniSA: from text group 1, the information provided to students on Graduate Quality number 7 (http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/poster.asp), and, from text group 2.1, the ‘Internationalisation of the curriculum Information Kit’.

Findings Major themes A key reference point for each text is Graduate Quality 7: “a graduate of the University of South Australia demonstrates international perspectives as a professional and as a citizen”. The analysis focused on the representation of the benefits for students of acquiring Graduate Quality 7 (see Appendix 2), and the information provided to support staff to teach this quality (see Appendix 3). Representation of the analysis of internationalisation as provided to students Appendix 2 charts how, in the information provided to students, three constructs, and the relationships between them, emerged: the ‘international’, ‘culture’ and ‘communication’. These are central to the representation of Graduate Quality 7. The meaning of each of these constructs is developed through the text as it co-occurs with other terms and structures. Thus the ‘international’ develops as the location/scope of the ‘profession’ which the graduate will enter after study at UniSA. This meaning is textualised as, for example, ‘the international community of your profession’, ‘international standards’, ‘international networks’ and ‘international profession’. ‘Culture’, on the hand, is developed in association with notions of ‘diversity’, ‘elements’, ‘perspectives’, and ‘traditions’; while ‘communication’ is represented as ‘cross-cultural communication’ and ‘culturally appropriate negotiation’. The relationship between the three constructs is developed primarily by reference to the professional practice that the graduate is expected to enter after study at UniSA. In a series of examples, the constructs are brought together to show how they can be combined in different ways in professional practice. The first two examples, of an architect and social worker, bring together the particular scope of the profession and culture in ‘an architect may need to design community facilities that suit people from a number of cultural traditions’ and ‘a social worker might need to understand the particular perspectives of a recently arrived refugee community’. While ‘communication’ may be implicit in these examples, taken for granted as part of the processes involved, it is represented in the third example, along with ‘culture’ and the ‘international’. This third example focuses on a ‘business student’ who ‘may need to be aware of culturally appropriate negotiation in setting up international networks’.



In relation to professional practice, then, the three constructs represent ‘dimensions of expertise’ which graduates will be expected to acquire through studying at UniSA. The benefit of acquiring these three dimensions of expertise is explained in relation to the students’ future professional practice ‘in other cultural and national contexts’, in which this expertise will ‘help you as a professional work more effectively with local colleagues and clients from diverse backgrounds’. Representation of the analysis of internationalisation as provided to staff Appendix 3 displays how, in the Information Kit, the same three constructs emerge as recurrent themes in the information and suggestions provided to staff. The meaning of these constructs is developed progressively though the text as a definition (Knight 1994), as learning outcomes (explained by reference to Graduate Quality 7 and its Generic Indicators), as suggested teaching, learning, assessment and evaluation practices, and as teaching qualities and strategies. The analysis centres on how these constructs are developed, with a particular focus on the suggestions for teaching and learning. The suggestions are presented in a series of lists under the main heading ‘Internationalisation at ‘Course level’, and are divided according to sub-headings that include ‘Course Content’, ‘Teaching and Learning Activities’, and ‘Assessment Practices’. In the text, the meaning of ‘international’ is developed in combination with terms which, paralleling its textualisation in the information provided to students, emphasise the nature of the discipline. These terms include international ‘standards’, ‘approaches’, ‘practices’, ‘contacts’, ‘content’, ‘issues’, ‘case studies’ ‘examples’, ‘perspectives’, ‘resources’, and ‘sources’. These in turn are represented as what we have termed ‘objects of study’; that is, they co-occur with processes in which students are represented as distinct from what is studied. These processes include, for example, ‘analyse’, ‘locate’, ‘discuss’, and ‘evaluate’, as in ‘require students to locate, discuss, analyze and evaluate information from a range of international sources’. The representation of ‘culture’ is also that of an ‘object of study’. As such, students, for example, learn to ‘analyse’, ‘explore’, ‘compare’, ‘consider’, and ‘examine’ culture represented as, for example, ‘issues’, ‘case studies’, ‘values’ ‘perspectives’, and ‘aspects’, ‘construction’, and ‘practices’, as in ‘include consideration of cultural assumptions in any analysis of possible responses to ethical and social issues related to the discipline/professional area’. Communication, however, is represented as ‘skills’ and activities and not as ‘object of study’, which would be necessary to enhance the understanding the centrality of language in communication. When represented as ‘skills’ it is primarily textualised as ‘cross-cultural communication skills’; as activities, it is not explicitly represented but implied in a range of learning experiences, including ‘intercultural work groups’, ‘international interviews’, and ‘international presentations’. Examples include ‘make assessment criteria related to cross-cultural communication skills explicit to students’ and ‘include simulations of international or intercultural interactions’. Discussion What emerges from the analysis is that the three dimensions of expertise, that of the ‘international’, of ‘culture’, and of ‘communication’, are central both to the explanation of how Graduate Quality 7 can benefit students and how it should be taught. The analysis suggests, however, that the conceptualisation of these dimensions requires further elaboration, and the relationship among them requires foregrounding if the ‘internationalisation of the curriculum’ is to enable students to benefit to the full extent from acquiring Graduate Quality 7. Text group 1: Information to students on Graduate Quality 7 In the information addressed to students, Graduate Quality 7 is explained in terms of three dimensions of expertise which students are expected to bring to their chosen professions after completing their studies at UniSA: namely,


• International dimension of expertise: an understanding of the ‘international’ location and scope of their chosen profession. This representation emphasises the ‘international’ in terms of ‘standards’, ‘best practice’, ‘networks’ and other characteristics of professions.

• Cultural dimension of expertise: the ability to, for example, ‘recognise’ and ‘value’ aspects of students’ own and others’ cultural commonalities and differences. This representation makes clear that culture(s) is something to be ‘aware’ of, to ‘understand’ and to ‘value’; this could, though, suggest that students are not necessarily themselves situated within culture – and that their own interactions are therefore not shaped by their understanding of and engagement in all aspects of socio/cultural life; and

• Communication dimension of expertise: skills in ‘negotiation’ and ‘cross-cultural communication’, which can be acquired by taking ‘broadening courses’. This represents communication as important in intercultural interaction; it may suggest, through, that communication is a ‘set of skills’ which are distinct from ‘culture’, and leaves unexplained, or presents as self-evident, the nature of these skills.

The question remains as to how students are to be prepared to combine each of these three dimensions of expertise in their professional practice, and it is this question which raises the further question of how ‘international’, ‘communication’ and ‘culture’, and the relationships between them, are being conceptualised here, in terms of: (i) the set of principles which underlie such conceptualisations; (ii) the benefits they provide for graduates’ professional practice; and (iii) the purposes of teaching and learning, as evidenced in the texts provided for staff. Text group 2.1: Information to staff in the Information Kit In this text, the three dimensions of expertise presented in the information to students tend to be presented as discrete areas of learning, without a rationale for how they are to be conceptualised in a way which would enable students to combine them in professional practice. Thus, paralleling the representations provided to students, the focus areas of teaching which underpin the ‘internationalisation of the curriculum’ are:

• International dimension of expertise: the ‘international’ here is represented as locating and positioning the social/professional lives of students in their chosen careers, in which the social comprises, for example, ‘communities’, ‘contacts’ and ‘networks’; and the professional, ‘standards’ and ‘accreditation’;

• Communication dimension of expertise: the representation of ‘communication’ here emphasises its importance as ‘skills’, and in ‘cross-cultural’ interaction; this is not explained in relation to ‘language’ or ‘culture’, raising the question of how ‘communication’ is to be understood, and its assumed relationship to the ‘intercultural’ in, for example, ‘intercultural communication’; and

• Cultural dimension of expertise: here the emphasis is on the importance of culture as an object of study, something to become ‘aware of’, to ‘value’, ‘understand’, ‘compare’ and ‘consider’; this may, however, underemphasise how learners themselves are situated in relation to, and potentially transformed by, their understanding of and engagement in culture(s).

The key question remains as to how staff are to combine each of these three dimensions of expertise in teaching and learning in order to prepare students for professional practice. The key finding from both analyses, then, is that there is a need to provide a principled rationale for the conceptualisation of, and relationship among, the three dimensions of expertise in relation to teaching and learning at UniSA. This entails shifting the current understanding and representation of the ‘international’, and ‘culture’ from ‘objects of study’ and ‘communication’ from ‘skills’ to a conceptualisation of intercultural teaching and learning that emphasises the integration of these understandings in conjunction with students’ ‘lived experience’, and the ongoing development of a ‘reflective and ethical stance’. Using the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning as an integrating framework In conceptualising a principled rationale for integrating the three dimensions of expertise – ‘international’, ‘communication’, ‘culture’-- the resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning can be


used as an integrating framework. The set of principles, intended to operate simultaneously and interactively, is as follows:

• connecting the intracultural and intercultural • constructing intercultural ‘knowing’ as social action • interacting and communicating • reflecting and introspecting • assuming responsibility.

In the following discussion, the integration of the set of principles with the understanding and representation of the three dimensions of expertise -- ‘international’, ‘culture’, and ‘communication’ – is presented to suggest a view of intercultural teaching and learning that emphasises this integration in conjunction with students’ ‘lived experience’, and the ongoing development of a ‘reflective and ethical stance’. The ‘international’ and ‘culture’ as ‘object of study’ As an ‘object of study’, knowledge of ‘culture’ in an ‘international’ context is something to be analysed and acquired by the learner. However, knowing about ‘other’ cultures in this sense, while a valuable part of intercultural learning, is not sufficient because it separates knowledge from how learners are themselves situated in relation to, and potentially transformed by, their understanding of and engagement with culture(s) (cf. principle: Constructing intercultural ‘knowing’, principle: Connecting the intracultural and the intercultural). The limitation of understanding ‘culture’, and indeed the ‘international’, only in this way, is that it does not focus on the learner as an interactant, meaning someone whose mode of engagement in any interaction both shapes and is shaped by the particular cultural setting in which the interaction is situated, and for whom success or failure in interaction is dependent on the perceptions of the members of this particular culture. The need, then, is to also understand the ‘intercultural’ in a way which prioritises the learner as interactant. (cf. principle: Interacting and communicating). ‘Communication’ as ‘skills’ ‘Communication’, as represented in the UniSA texts, describes a way of attempting to address this need. In one sense, this term can refer to training – for example, in ‘cross-cultural’ communication skills – which seeks to provide learners with the ‘skills’ to communicate ‘across’ cultures by applying knowledge about cultures. While this understanding of communication as ‘skills’, like knowing about ‘other’ cultures, may be a valuable aspect of intercultural learning and communication, it is limited in three related ways. First: while ‘communication’ in this sense provides learners with instruction on how to act with members of the ‘other’ culture, it leaves them situated within their own, without the capacity to understand and manage their interactions in response to the expectations of members of the ‘other’ culture, and therefore with limited ability to take responsibility for their actions (cf. principle: Assuming responsibility, principle: Constructing intercultural ‘knowing’). Second: ‘communication’ in this sense underemphasises language as a fundamentally linguistic phenomenon that is, a resource which comprises networks of options in interrelated phonological, lexico-grammatical, pragmatic and other systems. To use any language competently means to create meanings appropriate to particular socio-cultural contexts by making intentional and informed choices from within these systems. Crucial for competence in intercultural interaction and communication, then, is an awareness both of the options available within language as a linguistic resource, and of how choices from these options shape meaning. (cf. principle: Interacting and communicating). Third: ‘communication’ in this sense does not include an account of the role of one or more languages in intercultural communication, but assumes that communication skills include primarily mono-lingual competence. This lack of focus on intercultural communication as primarily a matter of ‘inter-linguistic’ communication leaves unaddressed both the issues of how learners’ own language(s) is related to the languages associated with other cultures, and the potential for learners to extend their capacity for intercultural communication by learning other languages. (cf. principle: Interacting and communicating).


‘Lived experience’ In addressing the need to develop competence in intercultural interaction and communication, a further aspect of teaching and learning emphasised by the principles, as a set, is the value of what might be termed the ‘lived experience’ of interacting and engaging with cultures other than one’s own; in other words, of actually doing intercultural interaction. The value of such experiences is that they can offer students opportunities to enter and, potentially, become situated within the ‘other’ culture as members. This approach to intercultural learning – associated with, for example, study abroad and exchange programs, but also realisable ‘at home’ (cf. resource: Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation: Part 1: the internationalisation of higher education) – moves beyond the limitations of ‘trained communication’ by seeking to provide students with opportunities to interact in/engage with cultures (cf. principle: Interacting and communicating) and thereby experience how they themselves are situated in relation to, and potentially transformed by, their understanding of and engagement with culture(s) (cf. principles: Connecting the intracultural and intercultural; Constructing intercultural ‘knowing’; and Interacting and communicating). As with knowing about cultures, and communicating with them, however, this way of understanding the intercultural, while valuable as one aspect of intercultural teaching and learning, does not of itself provide a rationale for integrating the ‘international’, the ‘cultural’ and the ‘communicative’ in teaching and learning. This is because it fails to acknowledge that students’ attempts to engage with/move across cultures will themselves be subject to different understandings by members of the ‘other’ cultures, and that these understandings will be informed by culturally-specific factors which may be simultaneously ‘in play’, and beyond the students’ knowledge and control. Ongoing development of a ‘reflective and ethical stance’ Of central importance for students, then, is the recognition that their success in interaction is determined not only by what they ‘do’, but by what they are understood to do by members of the ‘other’ culture and that students themselves carry responsibility for how they are understood and understand others (principles: Constructing intercultural ‘knowing’, and Assuming responsibility). In this process, students’ success in interaction is dependent, as it is in any interaction, on their ability to monitor and manage their actions in light of how they are perceived by other interactants, an ability which in turn depends on students’ capacity to recognise and respect these perceptions as culturally distinct from their own; in other words an ethical stance (principle: Assuming responsibility). The specific challenge raised by interaction with members of ‘other’ cultures, however, is that students’ ‘identity’ in the ‘other’ culture is, ipso facto, not based on shared cultural assumptions but is interculturally shaped in interaction through the reflexive interplay between students’ own and the ‘others’’ cultures. Successful interaction in this intercultural environment, then, depends on students’ ability to employ their linguistic and cultural proficiency in managing this reflexive relationship between cultures and interaction, perceptions and actions. This ability is inherent in the notion of the ‘intercultural’ as a reflective stance (cf. principle: Reflecting and introspecting), according to which students require not only linguistic and cultural proficiency but also the capacity to recognise, monitor and manage the intercultural ‘ecology’, a word which emphasises the dynamic relationship which shapes and is shaped by students’ engagement with – and identity within – the ‘other’ culture. And it is this capacity which requires the student to be able to draw on and integrate in interaction the ‘international’, ‘culture’ and ‘communication’. It is important to note, however, that this ethical and reflective stance is not something which could, as it were, be switched on and off, depending where and with whom one is interacting. If this were so it would suggest that, in a world which is essentially interconnected through the international, the cultural and the linguistic, individuals could choose whether or not be situated within it. To develop this stance, then, is a matter of coming to understand, and manage, one’s own knowledge, attitudes and skills as culturally shaped, and as a developmental aspect of intercultural learning. Becoming interculturally competent is a matter of developing new knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable one to interact and communicate effectively within and across cultures. This developmental process extends over a long period of time during which new learning builds upon and transforms earlier knowledge


and skills. Given the opportunity to reflexively engage with language and culture, learners can become increasingly more sophisticated in their understandings of cultural difference, develop new culture learning strategies, and acquire knowledge and skills relevant to diverse cultural settings. They also develop a set of attitudes characterised by openness to cultural difference and an ethical stance in which their treatment of others is informed by the recognition that both their own and others’ identities, attitudes and actions are situated within particular cultures. Intercultural competence is typically hard won because it requires learners to confront and question what may be deeply held preconceptions about themselves, and in doing so to develop a particular stance in their professional and personal dealings with others. It refers to profound, distinctive, and identifiable shifts in the learners’ intercultural worldview. Implications for intercultural teaching and learning The key implication of this way of understanding the ‘intercultural’ for teaching and learning described above, is that the internationalisation of the curriculum is not only a matter of what content, materials, skills, tasks or other items to add to or ‘include’. It is also a matter of how to integrate these aspects of the curriculum as a matter of routine teaching and learning practice, drawing on, and raising awareness of, the fact that both learners’ and teachers’ identities are themselves ‘reflexively engaged’ with others in their own lives, and, together, in relation to ‘internationalisation’. Paige (1993:3) has characterised this integration of the ‘intercultural’ dimension in teaching and learning as follows.

Intercultural education is intense for a number of reasons. Its content can be difficult to grasp, its process demanding. First, it requires learners to reflect upon matters with which they have little firsthand experience. Second, unlike more conventional approaches to education, which tend to emphasize depersonalized forms of cognitive learning and knowledge acquisition, it includes highly personalized behavioral and affective learning, self-reflection, and direct experience with cultural difference. Third, “learning-how-to-learn,” a process-oriented pedagogy (Hughes-Weiner 1986), replaces learning facts, as a major goal. Fourth, intercultural education involves epistemological explorations regarding alternative ways of knowing and validating what we know, i.e., the meaning of truth and reality. In the intercultural framework, human reality is viewed as socially constructed (Berger and Luckmann 1987), a function of perception and of culture-group membership (Singer 1987), and something which varies considerably across human communities. In this vein, learners study the impact that culture, race, ethnicity, gender, politics, economics and other factors have on the perceptions of the world which individuals and groups come to hold. Finally, these inquiries lead logically to the idea that cultures are social inventions which address, in vastly different ways, how basic human needs are met and how meaning in life is derived. Cultures possess their own internal logic and coherence for their members and, hence, their own validity. Making judgements about them is hazardous when the criteria for evaluation come solely from another culture.

Implications for learning within and across the disciplines The development of an intercultural stance, as described in this project, is integral to learning in all disciplines and across disciplines. With respect to knowledge, for example, students are inevitably exposed to the profound debates that exist within their fields of study, as well as within the paradigms that inform their respective sciences. They discover that the disciplinary canons are regularly scrutinised and refined, ways of knowing are constantly under review, and the sources of knowledge are many and varied. Moreover, staff and students often find themselves learning from and with each other in culturally diverse scholarly communities where different perspectives abound. The students’ intercultural development within the context of the disciplines, then, can be seen in terms of enhancing their capacities to work with multiple perspectives and sources of knowledge, to recognise knowledge in its cultural context, to examine the cultural dimension of knowledge applications, and to communicate and interact effectively across cultures. Such development is more likely to occur where staff recognise and attend to it in the provision of learning opportunities.


Implications for the Graduate Qualities The above analysis and discussion of internationalisation in relation to intercultural teaching and learning highlights the fact that, for the graduate entering a profession, the Graduate Qualities become part of their overall stance towards their work and life in society. This stance emphasises the value of seeing the Graduate Qualities as an integrated set in addition to considering each as a separate goal in students’ development across their experience of their UniSA program. The chart that follows demonstrates how Graduate Quality 7 interrelates with each of the other six qualities. You are invited to add to the dot points in the right hand column by considering these connections in relation to students in your particular discipline. While the chart foregrounds the international perspective, each of the qualities could serve as a reference point for integrating the others. You are invited to create further discipline specific connections by using the other qualities as reference points for integration.

Connecting with: Body of knowledge State of the art knowledge as international and intercultural and not just “made and understood in Australia”

Applying and developing the body of knowledge in relation to a range of culturally diverse contexts and purposes

Alternative epistemologies, ways of knowing within and across cultures

Connecting with: Lifelong learning Recognising that the development of intercultural knowledge, sensitivity and its application is an ongoing endeavour

Connecting with: Effective problem solver Anticipating and solving problems based on an understanding of their cultural context(s) and how this shapes different understandings of the problem

Connecting with: Autonomously & collaboratively Taking negotiating decisions with and for others based on an understanding of how they understand these decisions in their own cultural terms

Connecting with: Ethical action & social responsibility Understanding and acting upon the knowledge that every action potentially has intercultural consequences and is subject to culturally different understandings, values and interests

International perspective

Connecting with: Communicates effectively Recognising and communicating in the knowledge that all communication is understood and produced in accordance with culturally significant expectations and interests


Reference Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.

Chicago: Aldine.


Appendices Appendix 1: Summary of published texts gathered Relevance to study Texts gathered

Texts in groups 1 and 2 are sequenced according to the reading pathway explained above. 1) Addressed to students re. ‘internationalisation’ (There are overlaps between these texts and those in group 2)

Source: Learning connection: students: graduate qualities What are the graduate qualities? Graduate qualities introductory brochure, link to Graduate quality 7 Why do you need graduate qualities? How do you develop graduate qualities? What’s happening around the university? Recording student achievement Transcript 2 Publicity and promotion Graduate qualities resources Learning guides The university’s statement of strategic intent Qualities of a graduate – information for external members of university committees What people say about graduate qualities

2 Addressed to staff re. ‘internationalisation

2.1 These texts appear to offer guidance to staff on how to ‘internationise’ teaching and learning 2.2 These texts are referenced, or otherwise indicated, as explicating and/or exemplifying ‘internationalisation’ in relation to teaching and learning

Source: Learning connection: staff: internationalisation Teaching and learning resources Internationalisation of teaching and learning resources Strategies for internationalisation of the curriculum, plus links to resources (including graduate quality 7 indicators to inform curriculum development) Teaching guides Professional development workshops Further reading and resources on internationalisation (Internationalisation of the curriculum information kit – this also appears in 3.1) Related UniSA policies UniSA policies related to internationalisation The university’s broad policy framework Statement of strategic directions Statement of strategic intent Teaching and learning framework What are graduate qualities? Statement of graduate qualities

The national perspective Determination of graduate qualities Enbedding of graduate qualities Profiling of graduate qualities How do graduate qualities relate to teaching and learning: frameworks Graduate qualities and the teaching and learning framework Inclusivity framework (page not accessible) Program approval and ammendement (program approval manual not downloaded) Course and program development Guide to writing course and program statements Appendix A: making curricula more inclusive Appendix B: creating charts which map a program Appendix C: graduate qualities associated with particular teaching and learning arrangements Appendix D: assessing students Appendix E: a worked example of a written course statement What resources support the implementation of graduate qualities? Teaching guides Graduate qualities introductory brochure Exemplar projects Bachelor of business Inclusivity Code of good practice: university teaching Policy: academic promotions

103

3 These texts evidence the development of ‘internationalisation’ at UniSA 3.1 Current 3.2 Future 3.3 Past

Source: Learning connection: staff Internationalisation of the curriculum information kit Teaching and learning strategy priorities Teaching and learning strategy UniSA International Plan 2002-2005 Teaching and learning framework 2010 discussion paper… University of South Australia international management plan – 2002 and the medium term Workshop on the qualities of the University of South Australia Graduate 1995 Report on chancellor’s working group: the University of South Australia: towards the next millenium The Candy report: developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education Guide to implementing the qualities of a University of South Australia graduate in course and subject development (1996) Report in the chancellor’s working group (1995)

4 These texts represent ‘internationalisation’ beyond UniSA 4.1 Published texts 4.2 Texts produced by other universities and reports produced by AUQA

Source – Learning connection: staff: Further reading and resources (the texts linked to this page shade into those included in the literature review) RMIT Curtin UTS QUT Melbourne AUQA reports to December 2003

104

Internationa as graduate as professio

?

Appendix 2http://www

lisation manifest

attribute

nal practice

: Representation .unisanet.unisa.ed

ed

Communication as ‘cross-cultural communication’

‘Graduate Quality 7’

Culture as ‘diversity’/ ‘elements’/ ‘perspectives’ /’traditions’

The ‘international’ as the location/scope of the ‘profession’ eg

• ‘the international community of your profession’

• ‘international standards’ and ‘best practice’

• ‘international networks’ • ‘international profession’

? ?

The ‘international’ and ‘cultural’ as important for professional practice eg

• ‘working in other cultural and national contexts’ • ‘to help you as a professional work more effectively with local

colleagues and clients from diverse backgrounds’

‘We need to develop international perspectives in order to operate within the world

of internationalisation, based on analysis of u.au/gradquals/poster.asp (text group 1)

105


Appendix 3: Representation of internationalisation, based on analysis of ‘Information kit’ (text group 2.1) Internationalisation manifested

? ‘‘process of integrating international/intercultural dimension…’ as definition (Knight 1994)

?

Generic indicators

Graduate Quality 7 ‘international perspectives as a professional and as a citizen’

as learning outcomes

?

106

Communication as ‘skills’ and activities eg ‘cross-cultural communication skills’, ‘intercultural work groups’, ‘international interviews’, and ‘international presentations’

?

Discipline specific ‘interpretation and elaboration’

Generic resources for internationalisation at the course level (discipline non-specific)

The international as an object of study eg to be ‘analysed’, ‘located’, ‘discussed’, and ‘evaluated’

Cot‘‘a

?

as teaching, learning, assessment and evaluation

…into teaching’

ulture as an bject of study eg o be ‘analysed’, explored’, compared’, nd‘examined’


6. LEARNING FROM UNISA INTERVIEWS DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE: This resource presents the key themes that were generated from 13 interviews with UniSA staff. The overarching question they addressed was: “Is there anything you do in practice which others might be able to draw on in internationalising their teaching?” The information generated by the interviews was rich in breadth and depth. Many meanings of internationalisation as well as approaches to culture teaching and learning were discussed by the interviewees. The interviews were first independently analysed by two team members, who drew out the key themes and then organised them into a structure. The themes were then compared and refined into this version. The interviews are organised into (1) internationalisation themes and (2) cultural teaching and learning themes. The rationale for this structure is to represent the larger picture as the interviewees conceptualised internationalisation, and then move to their understandings of the ‘intercultural’ in teaching and learning. The key themes were also examined in relationship to the set of principles and compared to the literature, not as a form of evaluation, but rather as a search for points of congruence as well as gaps. Indeed, this analysis helped us better understand something the interviewees were collectively pointing toward but not uniformly explicating, namely that there could and perhaps should be a framework for integrating the ‘intercultural’ in teaching and learning. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS: This resource can be used as a point of reference for comparing diverse views of internationalisation in relation to the ‘intercultural’ in teaching and learning. This resource can be used to stimulate reflection on current practice by, for example:

• Reading, discussing critically, and comparing your own teaching practices to the ideas expressed by the interviewees

• Examining these themes in relation to your own professional development (e.g., seeking out the ‘intercultural’ in learning opportunities in the context of internationalisation)

• Drawing upon these themes to build the ‘intercultural’ into your existing teaching and learning practice

Note on terminology: In reading this resource, note that a range of terms are used --- eg. cultural teaching and learning, culture teaching and learning, and cross-cultural teaching and learning--- to reflect the project team’s interpretation of the usage of the interviewees. The term intercultural teaching and learning is reserved for discussion of the approach to teaching and learning based on the following resources: Learning from the literature, Part 2: the ‘intercultural’; A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning; Models of intercultural learning and intercultural development; Reflections on practice ..(b) implication of the set of principles.


INTRODUCTION As an integral part of this project, in-depth interviews with 13 UniSA staff were conducted. The overarching question to the interviewees was: ‘Is there anything you do in practice which others might be able to draw on in internationalising their teaching?’ Interviewees were asked to address this question in detail and they were also asked to provide examples from their own practice that might be useful to others. The interviews produced rich data with numerous interpretations of internationalisation in regards to teaching and learning, and many examples of practice. This analysis of the interviews attempts to summarise the key themes associated with internationalisation and its connection to the ‘intercultural’ that emerged from these discussions pertaining to teaching and learning. This resource was developed by means of a process that involved: (1) conducting and transcribing the interviews; (2) content analysis of the interviews (conducted independently by two of the project team members); (3) interpreting and organising the transcripts into themes (carried-out independently by the two team members); (4) comparing, cross-referencing, and refining the themes; and (5) examining the themes in relation to the literature. The analysis is necessarily no more than the interpretation of the two team members. Matching the analysis of the interviews to the literature demonstrated that there were many points of congruence but also some gaps. INTERNATIONALISATION THEMES The themes that emerged from the interviews are as follows:

1. definitions of internationalisation 2. internationalisation at UniSA 3. internationalisation of the curriculum as the content of university courses 4. internationalisation of the curriculum as the process of teaching and learning in university courses:

towards an international/intercultural pedagogy 5. internationalisation and the ‘intercultural’: the lived intercultural experience

Theme 1: definitions of internationalisation At the broadest level of discourse, internationalisation was characterised in a variety of ways. The most common meanings associated with internationalisation among the interviewees were:

• the presence of international students (on and off-shore) • study abroad/international mobility programs • internationalising the curriculum • off-shore academic programs • inclusivity • knowledge and skills such as cultural awareness, second language acquisition, and interaction across

cultures that will enable students to live and work more effectively in a diverse and global environment.

The breadth of these meanings among the UniSA interviewees is reflective of and consistent with the different ways internationalisation is being described in the literature (cf. resource: Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation). To the degree that there was a dominant meaning associated with internationalisation, it appeared to be ‘the presence of international students’. This meaning was discussed primarily in terms of: (a) “student accommodation” and “transition” (e.g., assisting students to adapt to the Australian university classroom environment and staff adjusting their teaching to the varying English language skills of students); and (b) in terms of the potential of international students to make contributions to the educational experiences of local students; learning from and with international students was seen as a way of valuing diversity and was viewed as an important if less commonly mentioned part of internationalisation.


Internationalising the curriculum – content and instructional processes – was also frequently mentioned by the interviewees. Their discussion focused on teaching and learning in Australian university classrooms, but there were also references to study abroad programs. It should be noted that assessment was mentioned by a few interviewees as being integral to the internationalisation effort if not an actual component of internationalisation itself. Theme 2: internationalisation at UniSA Internationalisation at UniSA was discussed with reference to key documents and resources such as Graduate Quality 7, the Information Kit, the Learning Connection, and UniSA’s staff and student support services centre. Graduate Quality 7 defines international perspectives in terms of student learning (what students will acquire from their university experience) and presents indicators of attainment (e.g., “demonstrate an awareness of your own culture and its perspectives and other cultures and their perspectives” – p. 2). The Information Kit provides examples of ways to internationalise the curriculum, among other things. (see resource: Learning from UniSA texts: mapping the construction of internationalisation) Theme 3: internationalisation of the curriculum as the content of university courses

The internationalisation of the curriculum was seen by many interviewees as a key component of the larger internationalisation process. There was the recognition that internationalisation cannot rely on mobility programs alone, as significant as they are. Rather, internationalisation must also occur at home, so to speak, and the central location of the effort is the curriculum, the content and process of instruction. Regarding the curriculum, a number of interviewees mentioned internationalisation as a matter of course content, such as using international examples, case studies, and readings in courses. In this context, the Information Kit describes ways to internationalise the curriculum including, “reference to intercultural issues in professional practice”, and “detailed and extensive international case studies” (p. 5). One of the most frequently mentioned approaches to international content in a course was the use of international case studies where students are asked to reflect on or apply their learning to different cultural contexts. The use of the internet was also mentioned by the interviewees as an approach to generating international content, by either accessing information from different countries and cultures themselves, or by getting students to do so. Theme 4: internationalisation of the curriculum as the process of teaching and learning in university courses Internationalisation of the curriculum was also discussed in terms of teaching and learning processes. The interviewees provided many ideas that they thought could be incorporated into what might be referred to as process towards a pedagogy that integrates the ‘intercultural’. Experiential activities such as cross-cultural role plays and simulations were commonly mentioned as ways to engage students with international and cross-cultural learning. On-line interactive learning processes were also mentioned; these included organising students themselves into diverse or multicultural learning communities, having them work together on projects with an international dimension, and using e-journaling and chat rooms to discuss their work amongst themselves. Some also mentioned internet searches as a useful way to bring their students into contact with international issues, settings, and knowledge. Additional ideas included conducting comparative cultural analyses, having students discuss multiple perspectives arising from different cultural contexts, using study guides to help students better understand and make the transition into the course, organising small group activities with students from diverse cultural backgrounds, and utilising international case studies (where students have to immerse themselves in the different cultural contexts being represented in the case). Theme 5: internationalisation and the ‘intercultural’: the lived intercultural experience Although it was expressed in different ways, the ‘intercultural’ was most frequently associated with the notion of a person’s lived cross-cultural experience. Many of the interviewees commented on their own cross-cultural experiences and how important those experiences have been in terms of: their teaching and


learning; their understandings of, work with, and attitudes toward international students; the ways in which they have done that work; and the work they have chosen to do in their lives. These cultural experiences were formative as they saw it. This perspective has implications, mentioned by the interviewees themselves, for staff development (e.g., providing opportunities to teach and conduct research abroad) as well as classroom practices (e.g., creating a welcoming atmosphere, integrating cultural experiences into teaching and learning).

Internationalisation as it pertains to the ‘intercultural’ was conceptualised in different ways but the common thread was the view – consistent with Graduate Quality 7 – that we are seeking to equip our students with the cultural understanding that will help them live and work in a global/international and diverse/multicultural environment, be that in Australia or elsewhere. CULTURAL TEACHING AND LEARNING THEMES In their discussion on internationalisation, the interviewees referred to the cultural dimension of teaching and learning in a number of ways using the following themes:

1. crossing cultures and making cultural transitions 2. cultural awareness: (a) culture-specific knowledge and skills (b) culture-general knowledge and skills 3. cultural self-awareness 4. cross-cultural competence 5. multiple perspectives and perspective consciousness 6. cross-cultural openness and empathy

Theme 1: crossing cultures and making cultural transitions This theme was expressed by a number of interviewees. It was connected to the fact that most students, but especially international students, undergo what for many is a very challenging transition to a new culture, a second language, and a very different academic environment. It was also mentioned that teachers themselves have an important role to play in helping students make these transitions across cultures. The term ‘accommodation’ was used frequently and meant, either implicitly or explicitly, serving as a cultural bridge for these students.

Theme 2: cultural awareness: (a) culture-specific knowledge and skills Another theme related to student learning was cultural awareness. This was expressed first as culture-specific learning where a particular culture is the reference point. Here, importance was placed on the acquisition of the knowledge and language of a specific culture group as well as understanding how one’s discipline or profession is contextualised by culture. Some of the learning activities mentioned by the interviewees were clearly designed to promote this type of learning, for example, by providing students with international case studies where they had to acquire and utilise culture-specific knowledge. Theme 2: cultural awareness: (b) culture-general knowledge and skills

A second and distinct meaning attached to the theme of cultural awareness was that of a culture-general understanding of culture and cultural experiences. Here, the focuses were: understanding culture and its importance in human interaction and communication; being sensitive to persons who are culturally different; recognising that culturally different persons have their own values and beliefs; and understanding that persons from other cultures may be experiencing the challenges of cultural adjustment. A number of comments about specific teaching practices referred to cultural awareness in this manner.


Theme 3: cultural self-awareness

Interviewees frequently commented on the importance of students being mindful that they themselves are ‘cultural,’ that they will live and work in different cultural contexts during their lives, and that those settings will often be comprised of persons from diverse backgrounds. For this theme, importance was attached to having students reflect on their own cultural identity, recognise their own cultural values, and consider how these might play out in another culture or a culturally diverse environment. Cultural self-awareness was clearly one of the learning goals related to the experiential learning activities (such as role plays and simulations) that a number of the interviewees were using in their courses. Theme 4: cross-cultural competence This theme was explained first as the ‘interaction’ or ‘people-skills’ necessary for working, communicating and interacting with persons from other cultures. It was also defined as the ability to negotiate difference by understanding more than one cultural context and also by being self-reflective. The notion of being flexible and adaptable to new cultural circumstances and persons was mentioned as another dimension of cultural competence. In a number of learning activities, students were organised into multicultural teams so that they could learn from and with each other, and develop these cross-cultural interaction skills. Theme 5: multiple perspectives and perspective consciousness This theme was frequently mentioned as a learning goal. Many interviewees felt that students needed to recognise that there are different perspectives on issues within and across cultural communities. They have developed a number of learning activities that have introduced students to different perspectives through which they were asked to do comparative cultural analysis. In one such learning activity, students had to consider how a specific issue, IT security in this instance, might be viewed and handled in different countries. (for more details see resource: Examples from practice: internationalisation as a major task within a course). Theme 6: cross-cultural openness and empathy The theme of openness and empathy emerged a number of times in the interviews as outcomes related to teaching and learning. A number of learning activities were described which would expose students to culturally different scenarios and persons. One of the goals of such activities was to promote openness to other ways of thinking and to cultural differences as well as empathy, defined as the capacity to view experience in the manner of the other. COMMENTARY ON THE INTERVIEWS Many understandings of the ‘intercultural’ in the context of internationalisation are expressed by the interviewees, that in some respects correspond to the literature of the ‘intercultural’. It can most certainly be said that the interview corpus provides us with valuable perspectives on how internationalisation may be connected to the ‘intercultural’ in the context of teaching and learning. The interviews suggest that , however expressed, the ‘intercultural’ in learning is multidimensional and complex; it consists of culture-specific and culture-general knowledge as well as cultural self-awareness, cross-cultural communication and interaction skills, and cross-cultural openness and empathy (or, as one interviewee put it, ‘a matter of the heart’). This multidimensional and complex construction, it should be noted, comes from the combined voices of the interviewees; each respondent contributed to the larger portrait of the ‘intercultural’ in general, but no single person discussed it as such. When the project team compared the interviews with the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning, the interview data indicated that there were points of congruence between a person’s lived cross-cultural experiences and some principles. First, in their own language, the interviewees suggest that students should reflect on their cultural selves in the context of the diverse settings they will inhabit, hence there is a relationship to some extent to the principle: connecting the intracultural with the intercultural in their lives. This suggestion also relates to the principle: reflecting and introspecting. Some their observations about cross-cultural communication relate to the principle: interacting and communicating. Stated somewhat less


explicitly, but implied in many of the learning activities, is the notion expressed in the principle: intercultural knowing is constructed as social action. These activities place the students in cultural settings where they both apply and construct knowledge relevant to those settings. The principle: assuming responsibility is less apparent in the interviews. Assuming responsibility means viewing one’s life and profession from an ethical perspective, taking responsibility for the on-going development of an intercultural stance. Related to the last point, interviewees also hint at the need for an integrating framework for teaching and learning across cultures within an international perspective, but do not go so far as to articulate a framework for intercultural teaching and learning, such as the one presented and discussed in these resources. In this regard, therefore, there is a somewhat of a gap between what we find in the interviews and what we find in the literature on the ‘intercultural’, the set of principles that is based upon it, and, in particular, the Models of intercultural learning and intercultural development.



7. LEARNING FROM THE AUQA AUDIT REPORTS DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE This resource presents the key themes that were generated from an analysis of the internationalisation sections of the audit reports of the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), of 12 universities. The purpose of the analysis was to ascertain how internationalisation is perceived by AUQA, as the national independent quality assurance body for Australian higher education. The reports were analysed by two team members who identified key themes. The themes were compared and refined, as reported in this document. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS This resource can be used as a point of reference for how internationalisation is understood in the context of quality assurance. It is intended that this resource will stimulate reflection on current practice by, for example:

• Reading/discussing/reflecting on it and comparing your own course/program design and delivery to the expectations expressed in the audit reports

• Incorporating these ideas into your own professional development • Reflecting on the audit/evaluation process in general and the processes established in relation to

programs in which you are involved.


INTRODUCTION The purpose of the analysis of the section reporting on internationalisation in the audit reports prepared by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) was to see how the concept is understood nationally, by Australia’s quality assurance body for higher education. AUQA is a national not-for-profit agency that operates independently of governments and the higher education sector. It regularly reviews the performance of Australian universities in relation to a number of spheres of activity, among which is internationalisation. It is responsible for:

• conducting quality audits of self-accrediting Australian higher education institutions and State and Territory Government higher education accreditation authorities on a five yearly cycle,

• providing public reports on the outcomes of these audits, • commenting on the criteria for recognition of new universities and accreditation of non-university

higher education awards, as a result of information obtained during the audits of institutions and State and Territory accreditation processes, and

• reporting on the relative standards and international standing of the Australian higher education system and its quality assurance processes, as a result of information obtained during the audit process. (AUQA, 2003).

The last responsibility points to a wider dimension in relation to internationalisation. In addition to being responsible for conducting whole-of-institution audits, including the institution’s programs for internationalisation, AUQA is also responsible for reporting on the ‘international standing’ of the higher education sector as a whole. The analysis was based on the section reporting on internationalisation in the audit reports of the following 12 universities:

Curtin University of Technology (October 2002) University of Southern Queensland (October 2002) University of Ballarat (November 2002) University of Newcastle (January 2003) Swinburne University of Technology (March 2003) University of Adelaide (March 2003) University of Canberra (June 2003) Macquarie University (July 2003) University of Queensland (September 2003) Southern Cross University (October 2003) University of Notre Dame (November 2003) RMIT University (December 2003)

THE AUQA AUDIT PROCESS Prior to seeking to summarise key themes regarding the quality assurance of internationalisation it is important to understand how the AUQA audit process works. The audit is based on a self-assessment by the particular institution, and a site visit. As stated in the AUQA Information (http://auqa.edu.au/aboutauqa/ auqainfo/body_main.shtml) AUQA will investigate the extent to which the institutions are achieving their missions and objectives.

They will assess the adequacy of the institution’s quality assurance arrangements in the key areas of teaching and learning, research and management, including the institution’s overseas activities. They will also assess the institution’s success in maintaining standards consistent with university education in Australia. (AUQA, 2003 – emphasis added)

The word ‘standards’ in education is always open to multiple interpretations. In the context of this quotation we interpret the meaning of ‘standards’ to refer to standards as in a ‘code of good practice’, rather than a


http://auqa.edu.au/aboutauqa/

notion of performance standards in the sense of student learning outcomes. The reference to standards in the responsibilities and the process described above can be seen as potentially inconsistent in relation to the principles as stated in the AUQA Information. These AUQA principles are as follows:

1. The scope for audit is the organisation’s own stated goals and objectives. 2. The audit is not a comparison of institutions or about adherence to a common set of standards. 3. The audit is based upon an institution’s self-review. (AUQA, 2003)

In seeking to highlight the fact that the audit is internally referenced to the institution itself (AUQA Principle 1 above), the notion of standards (AUQA Principle 2 above) is downplayed in this description of principles, in contrast to the discussion of standards in relation to the responsibilities and processes of AUQA. The distinction we make between standards as in a ‘code of good practice’ as opposed to performance standards represents a way of explaining the potential inconsistency. As they stand, these guiding texts remain somewhat ambiguous. Notwithstanding the emphasis on internal referencing, it also needs to be acknowledged that the audit process is necessarily evaluative in that it entails choices to be made about themes included in the audit and those excluded or identified as areas of omission. Choices imply value positions that are inevitably influential. Audit panels will necessarily bring an external frame of reference to the task, based on their experience in general, as well as the experience of working on previous audit panels. (For a theoretical discussion of criteria and standards see Sadler, 1985; for a discussion of values in making judgments, see Messick, 1989) Audits, then, are undertaken not in relation to a set of criteria established a priori by AUQA and applied to each university’s program but rather, in relation to each university’s expressed goals, purposes, quality assurance systems, procedures and the extent to which these are realised in practice. The goals, purposes, systems and procedures are generally described in the institution’s self-report and supporting documentation provided to the audit review panel. The panel considers the self-report and relevant data, and during its audit visit to the institution, verifies that there is evidence to substantiate claims made. In most cases where transnational programs are offered, members of the panel conduct a site visit, or interview staff and students through video-conferencing. In relation specifically to the quality assurance of internationalisation, the Executive Director of AUQA states:

As institutions internationalise their curricula, or their research links, or offer courses abroad or enrol foreign students, all these activities should be subject to internal QA processes. By the same token, external QA agencies must be able to assess the nature and effect of these internal processes. This is the process of ‘QA of internationalisation’ (Woodhouse, 2001)

PROCESS OF ANALYSIS A content analysis of the audit reports of 12 universities was conducted independently by two of the project team members to identify key themes. This represented the total body of reports available at the time of analysis. The individual analyses were brought together and themes were compared and refined. An additional reference point was an independent report, commissioned by AUQA, to fulfill its objective to ‘report on the relative standards of the Australian higher education system and its quality assurance processes, including their international standing, as a result of the information obtained during the audit process.’ (Martin, 2003). The identified themes were also referenced against the literature on internationalisation and the set of principles (discussed in resource; A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning). It is recognised that any analysis undertaken, like the audit process itself, involves a process of interpretation which is shaped by the knowledge, understanding and values of those undertaking the analysis. The analysis was based on and limited to the section on internationalization in the audit reports. It did not include referencing against each institution’s self-report or any other related data for it was not the intention of this analysis to replicate the audit conducted by panels. An analysis of each institution’s self-report would


have provided an indication of how it conceptualises internationalisation and a comparison between the institution’s self-report and the audit report would have added a further layer of understanding. These analyses were not undertaken. Our interest was to extract from the audit reports an understanding of the conceptualisation of internationalisation held by the AUQA auditors, given AUQA’s role as the, national, external, auditing body for higher education in Australia. Across the set of reports, it became possible to discern patterns that point towards particular conceptions. THE AUDIT REPORTS AS TEXTS The AUQA Audit Manual (AUQA 2002) states that the report has an important status within AUQA:

… the report is the public face of the audit, upon which many people form their opinion of the value and validity of the audit process. (AUQA 2002:39)

Further,

The report outlines the panel’s findings, which it has reached through its interpretation of the specific evidence it has gathered, and the extent and weight of the recommendations are determined by the observed facts. Audit reports should not contain statements that cannot be substantiated, so if the panel has gained an impression of something that needs to be said, it must also gather firm evidence on which to base its comment. Conversely, firm views are stated firmly avoiding excessive subtlety. Reports do not comment on individuals… nor appeal to irrelevant standards. Reports attempt to address all relevant areas, but without excessive detail or trying to be exhaustive. (AUQA 2002:39)

COMMON THEMES Given the internally referenced nature of the audit process, the reports do not manifest a consistent set of parameters around which each audit and its report is structured. It is possible, however, to identify common themes that emerge across the reports and whose importance to AUQA is evidenced by the recommendations, commendations and commentary in the reports. It should be noted, that some of the commentaries in the reports present valuable insights that do not always lead to a recommendation or commendation. The themes identified are:

1. Positioning the internationalisation program 2. Defining internationalisation 3. Planning for internationalisation 4. Managing offshore programs 5. Internationalising the curriculum, teaching and learning.

By far, the dominant theme is managing offshore programs. In fact, in some reports, this is the sole dimension of internationalisation that is reported upon. This is confirmed in the conclusion to the analysis of the 2002 full audit reports, where Martin (2003:31) states:

If the audit reports show a single area in which the sector faces particular challenges, it is outreach teaching in all its guises: off-shore campuses, partnerships and external delivery all present challenges for maintaining consistency of standards, of resourcing and of planning.

This can be explained, in terms of it being the site for maximum change and innovation, or a ‘global university contact zone’ (Singh and Doherty, 2004), as it has recently been called. As such, it is also, simultaneously the dominant site for potential tension, as institutions seek to address all aspects of program development, that is, teaching, learning, resourcing, assessing and evaluating in intercultural settings, where constant cultural referencing and negotiation are required.


A list of recommendations and commendations made, organised according to these five themes is provided at Appendices 1 and 2 respectively. A small number of recommendations has been omitted where they essentially constituted repetition. The recommendations and commendations are included because, taken together, they provide an indication of what matters to the audit panels in terms of areas that need to be addressed (recommendations) and areas that they consider to be praiseworthy (commendations). Discussion of themes 1. Positioning the internationalisation program The theme of positioning is manifested physically in the body of the audit reports, where in some instances, internationalisation is presented as a separate chapter, while in others it is a part of the sections on teaching and learning and research. While this may appear to be a minor issue, it points to a structural reality whereby internationalisation is generally a separate portfolio in the management structure of the university and, at the same time, a dimension that permeates teaching and learning, research, as well as the administrative, management and social ‘culture’ of the university as a whole. The nature of the internationalisation portfolio is such, therefore, that it intersects with all other portfolios. In this scenario a number of consequences were discussed in the audit reports:

• confusion related to leadership and management of internationalisation and lines of responsibility and accountability in particular spheres of development; for example, does responsibility for the internationalisation of the curriculum reside with the international portfolio or with the teaching and learning portfolio of the institution? How is the intersect managed?

• complexity surrounding committee structures established to address particular aspects of internationalisation

• potential separation between the commercial dimensions of internationalisation (residing with the international portfolio) and educational dimensions (residing with the research and teaching and learning portfolios), thereby reinforcing unhelpful dichotomies.

2. Defining internationalisation Generally the audit reports include a definition of internationalisation as one of the specific aspects to be audited. Where a definition is provided, it is generally accepted and praised. Curtin University’s definition is seen as ‘well researched’ (Curtin:45). Where one is not provided, it is sought. (Adelaide:55). Given the nature of the audit process, a definition is required as a reference point, or a means of bounding the audit. But it also points to the deeper issue of how internationalisation is conceptualised beyond being seen as a set of activities. The definitions provided generally set out various dimensions of internationalisation, that is, they address the issue of scope. One of the most comprehensive definitions is that of the University of Queensland; the definition is articulated as a set of objectives:

• Strengthening University of Queensland’s teaching and learning programs by broadening their scope, internationalising their curricula and employing quality staff with international experience and expertise.

• Fostering active and productive international research networks for the benefit of University of Queensland’s researchers and enhancement of its research programs.

• Providing high quality education, including research training, to qualified international students for their benefit and as a mechanism to enhance the educational experience of Australian students.

• Collaborating in making the research and intellectual resources of University of Queensland available to overseas researchers and institutions and to projects and communities overseas, and

• Increasing Australian students’ exposure to international issues and international education through study abroad opportunities. (University of Queensland:35)


Most definitions are couched in terms of objectives or spheres of activity. The definition provided by Notre Dame University, as a national Catholic university, includes a specific focus on interaction among people across cultures. It is as follows: ‘broadening the experience and perspectives of all students regardless of geographical origin (but

especially for local students) to encompass a wide range of learning environments, as well as aspects of social and professional interaction with people from other races and cultures…. ’

(Notre Dame:34) This is the only definition provided that specifically seeks to begin to articulate the intercultural goals of internationalisation. This observation, however, is not one that is noted in the audit reports. It appears that for the purposes of the AUQA audits, a definition that captures the scope of international activity is sufficient, and that the process does not require a definition that seeks to describe the qualitative nature of the process of internationalisation. In our view, such a definition would centre on the development of intercultural competence through the process of education as a whole. The Notre Dame definition, along with others, also highlights internationalisation for domestic students. The Swinburne definition expresses this notion as follows: In a sense every Swinburne student is an international student. (Swinburne:35) Given that international students normally refer to overseas students, this rendition would be better formulated as every student is an intercultural student where the term intercultural is applicable to both domestic and international students. The auditors, however, recommend that attention ‘to the precise meaning’ be considered (Swinburne:39). It is not clear from the report what is intended by the request for ‘precision’: whether the auditors are in fact seeking clarity about scope, or indeed about the nature of the process. A number of reports repeat the phrase that internationalisation is ‘an issue that spans the entire organisation’ (RMIT:42; Newcastle:33; Southern Cross:36 – emphasis added). While this framing seeks to indicate that internationalisation spans all aspects of university life, its rendering as an ‘issue’, a word that often connotes ‘a problem’, is infelicitous. An alternative framing would be to recognise the way in which internationalisation and the ‘intercultural’ potentially shape the culture of the institution as a whole. Again, this point was not noted in the report. Some reports also note that while a definition is available, it is little understood (Curtin:45) or not fully accepted by staff (Swinburne:35), or not fully operationalised at the level of schools, faculties or divisions. The desire for a definition, the challenge of fully conceptualising not only the scope but also the nature of internationalisation, and the difficulties in gaining full acceptance from staff for the process of internationalisation would suggest that, as institutions engage with the process of internationalisation, continuously expanding the range of activity in quantitative terms (i.e. the scope of the process), increasing attention will need to be given to ways of conceptualising the process in qualitative terms (i.e. the nature of the process). This points to the need for a conceptualising framework that captures all aspects of internationalisation and provides some sense of coherence in what would otherwise appear to be a list of fragmented objectives or activities. 3. Planning for internationalisation In all reports there is reference to the expectation that the institution have a ‘strategic plan’ for internationalisation that sets out priorities, targets, performance measures or indicators and benchmarks, which would enable the institution to assess its own progress towards meeting its own priorities. In some reports comments reflect difficulties some institutions have in setting priorities, for example:

‘The panel could not determine the priorities being applied by the University to its international activities’. (Notre Dame:34)


Comments in relation to the substance of planning pertain to growth targets in student numbers, the desired percentage of international students vis à vis total student enrolments, the relationship between on-shore and off-shore student numbers, the nature and number of targets, the level of detail of the plans, and the comprehensiveness of the plans. There is evidence across the reports that the major dimension of planning pertains to student numbers, with a somewhat reduced emphasis on aspects such as the internationalisation of the curriculum and services. With regard to the process of planning, reports refer to issues such as the dislocation between including internationalisation as a priority and yet not including it in the strategic plan. Several comments are made about the general degree of understanding of the plans, clarity about the responsibilities of the centre and those of schools, faculties or divisions, as well as structures to support the implementation of the plans. There is a strong interest in ‘closing the loop’ in the AUQA process, expressed in the audit reports as the need to monitor plans. Again, given the internal referencing that characterises the AUQA audit process, the central concern, on the one hand, is the presence or absence of a plan, its scope and its coherence vis à vis the declared goals and priorities of the institution, and, on the other hand, ensuring adherence to the plan through implementation. No qualitative commentary is made in relation to the substance of planning as an additional dimension of quality. 4. Managing offshore programs As indicated above the area which receives most attention in the AUQA audit reports is managing offshore programs (see Appendix 1) and, within this area, it is the assessment process that is accorded the major focus as integral to quality assurance. The audit reports present the reviews of a number of different models:

• partnership models where partners offer part of all of a program on the university’s behalf • offshore campus e.g. Curtin at Sarawak or RMIT in Vietnam • twinning program where the first year of a program is taught by staff of a partner organisation and

the remaining years are offered in Australia • articulation agreements where students are awarded advanced standing into the university’s program.

The major focus of the audit of offshore operations the university’s overall quality assurance process: its availability, its comprehensiveness and its actual implementation. The areas of quality implementation that are canvassed in the full set of reports, are as collated below:

• Agreement/contract - availability of a documented agreement - nature of the agreement - scope of the agreement - clarity of roles, responsibilities and mutual expectations - contract management - extent of monitoring - availability of review clauses.

• Partner relations

- availability of formal due diligence process to verify the status of the partner - partnerships management - conduct of partner reviews.

• Application of academic policies

- application of Australian university policies to offshore programs and campuses - monitoring of policy implementation.


• Accreditation - formal accreditation processes in place - Australian university vs local accreditation - nature of the approval process for offshore programs - clarity regarding the standing and ownership of the program on the part of students - availability of an approval process for course changes.

• Course and materials development - provision of teaching materials - perceived quality of materials - customisation of content.

• Marketing - responsibility for marketing - control of marketing - language of advertising - verification of translated materials - utility of promotional materials.

• Admission

- clarity of entry requirements - responsibility for enrolment decisions - compliance by agents - process in place to audit compliance with entry requirements by the Australian university.

• Program administration

- availability of documented procedures for all administrative aspects.

• Teaching and learning - clarity of responsibilities for teaching and learning - quality of teaching staff in the partner organisation - appointment and appraisal of staff in the partner organisation - induction of local staff - provision of support/or staff e.g. professional development program.

• Facilities

- availability of library facilities - availability of access to IT.

• Communication between partners

- visits by Australian university staff (academic and support staff) - frequency of visits - arrangements for reciprocal visits - planning for visits in place - extent of interaction - involvement of local tutors in visits - relationships with local staff.

• Student support

- availability of tuition support - accuracy and consistency of advice given to students.

• Assessment

- assessment procedures match the accreditation document - application of the university’s assessment policy - responsibility for assessment


- timely provision of marking schemes - moderation

• conducted regularly • proportion of total cohort included in moderation • availability of a moderation report • action undertaken based on the moderation report • audit of the moderation process

- standards • comparability between onshore and offshore student performance • process of verification in place.

• Program monitoring

- availability of annual review reports on offshore programs - quality and detail of reporting - consideration of risk management.

• Management of the program

- management structure for offshore programs/campus - availability of a joint management committee - financial management in place.

• English language standards

- overall level of English of students - where a language other than English is used as the medium for instruction:

• monitoring translation of materials • monitoring translation in teaching • conduct of assessment and moderation.

• Evaluation

- overall student satisfaction - student evaluation of teaching is in place - comparison of process and outcomes for onshore and offshore students - availability of the analysis of the results of evaluation - evaluation of various models of delivery.

• Impact

- consideration of impact of off-shore teaching on Australian university teaching - documented conditions/incentives for offshore teaching.

• Quality assurance

- availability of an overall approach to quality assurance - match between onshore and offshore quality assurance procedures.

• Research

- recognition of research opportunities. This range of areas in itself provides an indication of the complexity of offshore delivery and AUQA’s expectations regarding quality assurance. It is worth highlighting that this list is drawn from the set of reports; no individual audit report covers this range of areas. Nevertheless, it is clear the quality and consistency of teaching and assessment in off-shore programs is of major importance for AUQA. One report comments at length on the central issue of consistency of standards through a discussion of the notion of ‘equivalence’:

‘There are concerns and confusion among some staff, however, around the meanings of equivalence and the extent to which it requires programs to be ‘identical’ or ‘standardised’. Even if it were


possible to standardise the curricular and pedagogical inputs in programs offered in diverse cultural contexts, that would be no guarantee that the programs would be equivalent in quality. Indeed, a program that was not responsive to the particular learning opportunities or unresponsive to the particular cultural issues of the context in which it was located might well be seen as being of lesser quality. Therefore, it might be argued that quality in programs offered in diverse cultural contexts need to incorporate some component of responsiveness to the local context. Close monitoring of equivalent learning outcomes across contexts might be a more appropriate basis on which to base judgements of ‘equivalence’ in quality, rather than simply striving to ensure the inputs were standardised’. (RMIT:44)

This discussion emphasises the need to consider ‘cultural issues’ and ‘responsiveness to the local context’ as basic premises for quality in a way that is not captured in any of the other reports. At the same time, however, it retains a simple input/output view of teaching and learning. The notion of parity of standards in any context is complex, and particularly so in settings where the comparison involves diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of people. This is because language and culture shape the way people view knowledge, its acquisition and use, ways of knowing, ways of applying and communicating knowledge, etc. They shape inputs and outputs, but more than that, they shape interactions that are central to learning. Assessment is part of the process of learning and is similarly shaped by language and culture. (For a discussion of sociocultural perspectives on assessment see Gipps 1999) It may well be feasible to consider a system of assessment that can accommodate such cultural variation, one that yields different outcomes but equivalent in standard. While all the audit reports suggest the referencing of offshore student outcomes against those of onshore students, the RMIT review panel considers the issue with greater nuance than others, importantly, from the perspective of responsiveness to the cultural context of the offshore setting. The discussion stops at this point in the reports because it would necessitate discussion of substantive issues, rather than matters of process and internal consistency, issues which are seen to reside outside the remit of audit process. It is also the point at which a discussion of the ‘intercultural’ would be warranted, as part of discussion on ways of establishing equivalence, a task which will become increasingly necessary in such reports. This will be important both for the development of the programs themselves and for the further development of the auditing process. The challenge of achieving consistency is particularly marked where the medium of instruction is a language other than English. The 2002 institutional audit reports analysis (Martin, 2003:26) describes this as an issue that ‘is likely to be a risk management sleeper for the system’. 5. Internationalising the curriculum, teaching and learning Internationalising the curriculum and teaching and learning does not receive close or systematic attention in the audit reports. It is generally presented in counter position to discussions of strategic planning and managing offshore programs. It is named but not elaborated in the same way as strategic planning or managing offshore programs where the various dimensions are identified as areas for auditing. For example:

One university acknowledged in its submission that it had moved from ‘an opportunistic phase’ that viewed internationalisation in overseas student enrolment terms through to a strategic ‘tactically planned phase’ that not only focused on its competitive edge in attracting overseas student enrolments but also included other dimensions such as internationalising the curriculum. (Canberra:24)

One university is praised for its internationalisation strategies that will expose all students to

international experiences and enable graduates to work in a global context. (RMIT:25)

There is also praise for programs where aspects of course materials being adapted for use offshore filter back to benefit programs being offered in Australia. One audit panel sees considerable mutual benefits for staff and students in these ‘bi-directional’ opportunities.

One university is praised for its understanding of the internationalisation of education having shifted

from a focus on evaluating activities in terms of scale to appreciating that internationalisation is relevant to all facets of the University’s activities. (RMIT:42)


In the audit reports, as a whole, internationalising the curriculum, teaching and learning is conceptualised as follows:

• as a graduate quality (which may or may not be included) • as contextualising teaching and learning materials, for example by adding local examples or case

studies and additional explanation to an essentially Australian curriculum • as cultural sensitivity in delivery of courses • as maximising opportunities for international experience (Swinburne:39) • as running fora on intercultural issues (Adelaide:59) • as offering specialised internationally-focused programs (such as the BA, International Studies)

(RMIT) • as study tours and exchanges • as cultural awareness training (Newcastle:35) • as the presence of linguistically and culturally diverse staff: [one report states: many of the staff are

from other countries, so there is a high level of awareness of international issues in higher education (Newcastle:35)].

Again, this is a collation of aspects of internationalisation that emerge from the full set of audit reports. None of the audit reports addresses internationalising the curriculum in a manner that reflects its specific relation to student learning. Rather, discussion of internationalising the curriculum is seen generally as including ‘an international dimension’, that is, as an additive process, rather than an understanding that permeates the fabric of the program as a whole, what we term ‘intercultural learning’ as integral to internationalising the curriculum (see resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning). This ‘international dimension’ remains undefined in the reports. Some reports comment on staff awareness as an issue and a possible reason why internationalising of courses has not occurred widely in some universities, for example, attention is drawn to ‘the somewhat narrow view held by some staff on what constitutes internationalisation’ (Swinburne:39). Where work is seen as advanced on internationalising the curriculum, the audit panel recommends that the university ‘develop indicators to track internationalisation of the curriculum’ (RMIT). This would suggest that the audit panel is seeking to establish a frame of reference for identifying evidence of the quality of the internationalisation of the curriculum. Whether the development of indicators is the best approach to establishing evidence in the context of an audit is not an issue addressed in the report, and in any case would itself need to be evaluated. COMMENTS ON THE AUQA REPORTS Drawing these themes together, a comment made by one audit panel in relation to quality assurance and internationalisation seems apposite: notions of quality in leading international programs is a complex phenomenon which is still emerging

in the Australian higher education sector. (RMIT:42) This comment acknowledges that (1) internationalisation is a complex process, (2) that seeking to establish what constitutes ‘quality’ is also complex and (3) that quality assurance in relation to internationalisation is an area that will require further development in Australian higher education in coming years. In this context two related comments are warranted. One concerns the scope and nature of internationalisation viewed from the perspective of quality assurance. The other comment pertains to the need to articulate a qualitative dimension for internationalisation Scope and nature of internationalisation Since the audit process is self-referenced to the particular institution, the scope of each audit is bounded by the internal definitions and parameters of internationalisation. The audit panels generally identify both areas of match and mismatch between the self-report and actual practices within the institution, and also gaps, that is, parameters or areas that are not addressed. Taken together, the reports cover a comprehensive range of


areas but this is only apparent from the privileged position of reading across the set of reports. As noted above, none of the audit reports capture all the areas listed. Perhaps such a level of comprehensiveness is not needed. It could be argued, for example, that it is possible to establish quality on the strength of a small number of parameters, but then the question arises as to which ones, and how, and by whom the choice would be made. Within the principles of the AUQA audit process, it is the institution that sets the parameters; nevertheless, as noted, the panels necessarily bring their own external referencing to the task, which, in itself, may well contribute to shaping the agenda for institutional development. Setting out the scope or parameters of the audit, however, represents only one aspect of quality assurance. Establishing quality also requires a consideration of the nature or substance of internationalisation in relation to each area, that is, a qualitative dimension. This qualitative dimension remains an absence, an issue which is significant both for institutional development and for the auditing process itself. Addressing the need to articulate a qualitative dimension for internationalisation, the 2002 institutional audit reports analysis (Martin, 2003:13) describes this aspect in terms of the need for performance indicators and benchmarks, recognising,

… a lack of appropriate internal and external metrics against which to judge performance. Although the institutions are striving to establish what one termed ‘a culture of evidence’ to underpin planning and quality cycles, it appears from the reports that the task is a slow and laborious one.

While the notion of ‘a qualitative dimension’ for quality assurance that we are suggesting may be different from Martin’s notion of ‘internal and external metrics’, the intention may well be similar. Both the AUQA audit process and institutions themselves have been successful in setting out the areas for development and subsequent audit in the area of internationalisation. The area that remains to be articulated is a qualitative dimension of internationalisation. An approach to articulating this qualitative dimension could begin with embracing the ‘intercultural’ as discussed in the resources developed for the project (see resources: Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation; A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning; and Models of intercultural learning and intercultural development). Addressing the need to articulate a qualitative dimension for internationalisation When the internationalisation sections of the audit reports are referenced against the literature on the internationalisation of higher education (see resource: Learning from the literature: an orientation to internationalisation), and the set of principles (see resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning) it becomes clear that limited attention is given to the concept of the ‘intercultural’ in curriculum, teaching and learning and institutional development in general. In seeking to establish an understanding of quality in the internationalisation of higher education, attention will need to be given to incorporating the ‘intercultural’ as discussed in this project. For it is through such active engagement, that the substantive, qualitative aspects of internationalisation will begin to be addressed as an integral part of both institutional development and its ongoing quality assurance.


REFERENCES The AUQA reports Curtin University of Technology (October 2002) University of Southern Queensland (October 2002) University of Ballarat (November 2002) University of Newcastle (January 2003) Swinburne University of Technology (March 2003) University of Adelaide (March 2003) University of Canberra (June 2003) Macquarie University (July 2003) University of Queensland (September 2003) Southern Cross University (October 2003) University of Notre Dame (Nov 2003) RMIT University (Dec 2003) http://www.auqa.edu.au/qualityaudit/sai_reports/index.shtml Other references AUQA, (2003) AUQA Information. http://www.auqa.edu.au/aboutauqa/auqainfo/body_main.shtml AUQA, (2002) AUQA Audit Manual http://www.auqa.edu.au/qualityaudit/index.shtml Gipps, C. 1999. Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. In P. D. Pearson and A Iran Nejad (Eds) Review of

Research in Education. 24, pp 355-392 Washington D.C. American Educational Research Association

Martin, A.L. (2003) Institutional Audit Reports. Analysis and comment. AUQA

http://www.auqa.edu.au/aboutauqa/auqainfo/body_main.shtml Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In Linn, R. L. (ed.) Educational measurement. Third edition. Macmillan.

New York pp 13-104 Sadler, D. R. (1985) The origins and functions of evaluative criteria. Educational Theory. 35, 3, pp 285-

297 Sadler, D. R. (1987) Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education. 13,

2, pp 191-209 Singh, P. and Doherty, C. (2004) Global cultural flows and pedagogic dilemmas: teaching in the global

university contact zone. TESOL Quarterly. 38, 1, 9-42. Woodhouse, D. (2001) Globalisation: implications for education and for quality Presentation at the AAIR

Conference, Rockhampton


http://www.auqa.edu.au/qualityaudit/sai_reports/index.shtml

http://www.auqa.edu.au/aboutauqa/auqainfo/body_main.shtml

http://www.auqa.edu.au/qualityaudit/index.shtml


Appendix 1a RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE AUQA AUDIT REPORTS Recommendations are presented, grouped according to the themes identified. Defining internationalisation … That, in developing the Internationalisation Master Plan , further attention be paid to identifying an agreed definition of what is meant by the term ‘internationalisation’ at… and that this then be promulgated widely. Planning for internationalisation That … establish a systematic plan to ensure consistency and ongoing communication among all Distance Education tutors (both onshore and offshore) prior to and throughout the delivery of a course. That the promotional material for … degrees clearly state the different course structures in different location. That … determine its desired direction in respect of its international activities and finalise its incipient internationalisation plan. That the University clarify its strategy with respect to internationalisation, identifying priority objectives, targets, benchmarks and associated resource implications, and clearly specify to expected outcomes. Managing offshore programs That … provide centrally coordinated induction and support for all staff teaching overseas. That … review its management of partnerships, particularly with a view to: (a) improving mechanisms for assessing prospective partners; (b) integrating of quality assurance provisions, including periodic review, into the agreements; and (c) involving relevant academic staff in the above. That … explore opportunities for integrating and sharing evaluative information with its offshore agents. That … review the role and methods of moderators, as developed in respect of courses where the examiners are … (university) staff members, are appropriate when applied in respect of courses where examiners are not… (university) staff members. That … develop formal Moderation Guidelines… for application across all modes and study options. That … consider developing a risk identification and management process, prior to the commencement of teaching, for programs delivered in languages other than English. That … take steps to ensure that students are receiving accurate, consistent and sufficient information concerning the accreditation status of the programs in which they are intending to enroll, having regard to their local context and responsible suppositions. That … ensure that it has full control of entry of students to its on-shore off-campus programs. That … implement an effective mechanism for systematically assessing the teaching being carried out in its courses by staff of local partner organisations. That … ensure sufficient resources, including library resources, are available to students studying off campus. That … through its Academic Board, develop moderation protocols for us in arrangements where… courses are being delivered off-campus by external partners and ensure that these protocols are appropriately applied.


That the comparative progress of students in different cohorts (whether on-campus, off-campus or off-shore) be routinely monitored to ensure the equivalence of …. (university’s) teaching with that of its partners. That the University establish and implement a specific system for assuming the quality of all its programs delivered offshore, including (inter alia): a robust process of due diligence for partners and agents; quality controls for translation services, companions of learning outcomes for students in off-shore and equivalent onshore programs as one indicator of equivalent quality. That … Academic Board resolve, with urgency the accreditation status of the courses being offered through … (partner) and that the current academic and professional accreditation status of these courses be made clear to students. More generally, the Academic Board should assure itself that its decision-making processes with regard to all… courses offered off-shore are sufficiently robust. That … ensure a comprehensive framework for the quality assurance of its courses offered through … (agency) be implemented without delay. The University has recognised the need for this framework… That … clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of its own staff and the staff of off-shore partner organisations, with respect to responsibility for curriculum development and for quality assurance. That the planned development of an overall framework for quality assurance of… courses delivered off-shore be undertaken and implemented. That … the University establish robust systems for assuring itself that the terms of its agreements with off-shore education providers are being met. That … the University develop processes for the University-wide annual review of the international student academic performance. Most benefit from this would be obtained if it were part of a broader, systematic review of teaching and learning outcomes undertaken by Academic Board. That … pay special attention to reviewing the financial viability and strategic directions of its existing and any new off-shore initiatives, and that the University communicate to relevant stakeholders its planned path, scale and ultimate profile for the further development of its International Education program. That … consider establishing an internal relationship between its various business-related Masters programs in Singapore… so as to consolidate the range of electives available, thereby providing a better quality of service to students, and that … marketing materials clearly indicate, where applicable, that electives are offered subject to sufficient enrolments. That … take immediate steps to ensure that it is fully aware of all off-shore ventures in which students are enrolled with the University. That explicit consideration be given to an assessment of the educational effectiveness of the various teaching models being used in … university’s off-shore partnership programs so that this can inform future developments of off-shore programs and contribute to the University’s objective of providing an international experience for all students. That the line of responsibility, accountability and authority in the management and quality assurance of off-shore teaching programs be clarified as a matter of urgency and that… university ensures that its quality assurance procedures for off-shore partnership programs are consistently implemented. That the …. (off-shore campus) … pedagogical model be reconsidered, to place greater emphasis on he equivalence of learning outcomes, rather than standardised inputs, and to recognise the pedagogical relevance of contributions by the … (off-shore campus)-based academic staff in customising the programs for that student group.


That … ensure that it has effective mechanisms to monitor the operations of its off-shore programs, that they are well aligned with their own stated objectives, continue to meet the expectations of their partners and are in compliance with the terms of the contract… That … develop guidelines and procedures relating to the implementation of international arrangements. That following the recent establishment of pro-forma agreements to govern all future off-shore operations, it is recommended that … revise all existing agreements to conform to the new format and process. Internationalising the curriculum, teaching and learning That use… project as a blueprint for inculcating ‘attributes of a … graduate’ into its programs. That … consider the possibility of assigning multidisciplinary course teams to all courses, and that these teams have an ongoing responsibility for the courses whether they are currently being reaccredited or not. That … continue and extend its programs of education to develop a general understanding of internationalisation, and to draw attention to the meaning and significance of an internationalised curriculum. That … ensure sufficient level of English proficiency for entry of NESB international students into all programs, but particularly those in China.


Appendix 1b COMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE AUQA AUDIT REPORTS … for its thorough process for appointing international student recruitment agents. … the very thorough, rigorous and effective process of quality assurance in place in relation to courses offered overseas. … its determination to maintain educational standards when delivering to off-shore students markets, through the application of assessment and examination policies identical to those applied in Australia. … its new practice of inducting off-shore agents to help assure the quality of the recruitment process. … for providing strong backing for its exchange agreements, thereby supporting its teaching and learning goals. … the mentor program for international students at … as an effective means of supporting international students. … for the overall level of care that it displays in providing a supportive, inclusive, and nurturing learning environment for its students, both local and residential, and domestic and international.



8. REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE: (a) MANIFESTATIONS OF UNDERSTANDINGS OF INTERNATIONALISATION

DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE This resource presents a workshop designed to introduce participants to how ‘internationalisation’ can be understood in relation to teaching and learning∗. The rationale for the workshop is that it is important to understand that the internationalisation of teaching and learning is not something to be ‘added’ to teaching and learning in the disciplines, or as something that would further ‘crowd’ their curricula. Rather, it is an orientation to teaching and learning itself, a pedagogic stance which is implied by the kinds of personal and professional interaction characteristic of the contexts for which we are preparing students at UniSA. The workshop provides opportunities to reflect on the implications of this stance by focusing on six ways in which ‘internationalisation’ is manifested in teaching and learning. This rationale is reflected in the design of the workshop which focuses on teaching and learning at UniSA by examining how we describe to students the demands of the ‘global environment’ they will enter as graduates, and then comparing this description to six ways in which internationalisation is manifested in teaching and learning practice. This resource also includes the OHTs required to run workshop. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS While designed as a workshop, this resource may also be used for individual reflection. The resource can be used to stimulate reflection on current practice by, for example,

• Running it/reading it/discussing it/talking about how it how might engage with manifestations of the intercultural in your teaching

• Talking about key ideas with students; and • Applying it to what you already know – re-evaluate previously held positions.

∗ The workshop was first presented and trialled as part of the current project at the School of Psychology on 18 November 2003. The ongoing development of this resource has been informed by the findings of the project as a whole.


INTRODUCTION Internationalisation as defined in the UniSA texts on Knight’s (1994) definition of internationalisation as a “the process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institution”. A key strategy in this process is the preparation of “staff and students to function in an international and intercultural context”. An appropriate starting point for identifying the implications of this strategy for teaching and learning is UniSA’s own description of the world of professional practice for which its courses aim to prepare students. In general:

In today’s highly competitive global environment graduates need to know more than the facts (the body of knowledge) in a professional area. Employers expect graduates to have skills such as being able to adapt to new conditions, find information any time they need it and communicate effectively in a range of situations. In general you’ll be expected to ‘hit the ground running’ as soon as you start work. (Retrieved 4 November, 2003, from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/sneed/ index.htm) (see OHT 1)

In relation to Graduate Quality 7:

Your capacity to work within and across cultures – and to contribute to the international community of your profession – is likely to be a critical aspect of your working life. This will include working in other cultural and national contexts, and with colleagues and clients from cultural backgrounds different from your own. (Retrieved 4 November, 2003, from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/GQLeaflet7.doc) (see OHT 2)

Two key points are raised by this world described here: that in the interculturally complex world of their professional practice, graduates are expected to ‘hit the ground running’, and that, in this professional practice, the intercultural dimension of internationalisation is manifested in interaction. The question raised by these two points is how the intercultural is to be manifested in teaching and learning if students are to be prepared for professional practice understood in this way. Six manifestations of the internationalisation of teaching and learning We have found six ways in which the internationalisation of teaching and learning is manifested both at UniSA and internationally. This list reflects a selection from the different understandings of internationalisation which we have encountered in the literature and in practice. The value of the list lies in providing a set of familiar reference points with which to map ‘internationalisation’ against our own teaching practice. As a frame of reference in this sense, then, the six manifestations provide a starting point for thinking about how internationalisation can be understood in relation to teaching and learning across the disciplines. The six manifestations are:

• object of study; • trained communication; • language; • inclusivity; • immersion/immersion at a distance; and • reflexive engagement. (see OHT 3)

The list is not exhaustive, and the items in it are not mutually exclusive. Neither is the sequence of the items meant to suggest that one or more manifestations is superceded by the others. Rather, the six manifestations are presented here as an introductory frame for identifying the implications of internationalisation for teaching and learning. The point being emphasised here is that while each manifestation may be necessary, only when understood in combination and in relation to intercultural interaction are they sufficient to meet the needs of students.


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/sneed/ index.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/sneed/index.htm

First, as an ‘object of study’, the intercultural dimension is something to be, for example, analysed, compared, discussed, appreciated and understood, exemplified by a recommendation from UniSA Learning Connection to staff to “set tasks, assignments, activities which require students to analyse the cultural construction of knowledge and cross cultural-practices”. While valuable for developing a knowledge base which students might draw on in professional practice, the risk posed by operationalising the intercultural dimension solely in this way is that it may be treated as a phenomenon separate from how learners themselves interact in teaching and learning in preparation for the interactional demands which they will face as graduates. The danger is that teaching and learning will not focus sufficiently on the learner as an interactant whose mode of engagement in any interaction both shapes and is shaped by the particular cultural setting in which it is situated, and for whom success or failure in interaction is dependent on the perceptions of the members of the particular culture in which it is set. In addition to the intercultural as an ‘object of study’, there is a need, then, to render it in a way which prioritises the learner as an interactant. This need provides a link to the second manifestation: that is ‘trained communication’. The phrase refers to training – offered, for example, in ‘cross-cultural communication handbooks’ – which seeks to provide learners with the means to communicate ‘across’ cultures. The risk of relying on intercultural teaching and learning as ‘trained communication’ is that, while it provides learners with instruction on how to act with members of another culture, it may still leave learners situated within their own, without the capacity to monitor and manage their actions in response to the expectations of members of the ‘other’ culture. The third manifestation is ‘language’. This leads in two directions: on the one hand, to the English language proficiency of international students, where the focus of intercultural teaching and learning is on areas such as language support. On the other hand, the focus on the intercultural as concerned with ‘language’ can also reflect a view that monolingual English speaking students should be encouraged to learn a second language. The challenge posed by relying exclusively on either of these manifestations of the intercultural is that, while the emphasis on ‘Language’ in these senses may make a valuable contribution to students’ ability to achieve Graduate Quality 7, there is risk that teaching and learning may, as with the first two manifestations, underemphasise students as intercultural interactants. ‘Inclusivity’, the fourth manifestation, focuses on intercultural teaching and learning as a matter of acknowledging and celebrating differences between students, and people more generally, and of promoting ‘diversity’ and ‘equity’. This focus on the value of difference and the promotion of understanding between groups, however, while potentially a condition of students’ ability to interact with in the world of professional practice foreshadowed by Graduate Quality 7, again does not specifically address the development of students’ ability in intercultural interaction. In acknowledging this need, the fifth manifestation, ‘immersion’ is typically associated with ‘exchange programs’, in which students live in another country for a period in order to develop their understanding of its language and culture and their ability to interact with members of the culture as they interact with each other. Another version of ‘immersion’, which might be called ‘immersion at a distance’ is the ‘role play’ or ‘simulation’. As a manifestation of intercultural teaching and these learning activities seek to develop students’ ability to interact with members of diverse cultures by acting out interactions with them. Though ‘immersion’ and ‘immersion distance’ place more emphasise on the intercultural as a matter of interaction than the first three manifestations, it is still pertinent to ask whether they address sufficiently students themselves as interactants. Specifically, they may fail to acknowledge that how members of other cultures understand students’ attempts to interact with them will be informed by culturally-specific factors which may be beyond the students’ knowledge and control. Of importance for learners in becoming interculturally competent, then, is the ability to manage their success in interaction as determined not only by what they ‘do’, but by what they are understood to do by members of the ‘other’ culture. This ability is captured by the notion of the ‘intercultural’ as ‘reflexive engagement’.


In this process, learners’ success in interaction is dependent, as it is in any interaction, on their ability to integrate, monitor and manage their skills, knowledge and attitudes in light of how they are perceived by other interactants. The specific challenge raised for intercultural teaching and learning is how to prepare students to understand and manage their identity in cultures in which this identity is, ipso facto, not based on shared cultural assumptions but is interculturally shaped in interaction. An implication of this manifestation of the intercultural in teaching and learning is that the internationalisation of the curriculum should not only be a matter of what content, materials, skills, tasks or other items to add to or ‘include’. It is a matter of foregrounding ‘reflexive engagement’ as a principle of teaching and learning practice in order to develop students’ ability to recognise and (inter-) act on the fact that both learners and teachers are themselves ‘reflexively engaged’ in interaction with others in their own lives, and, together, in relation to ‘internationalisation’. (see resource: A set of principles for intercultural teaching and learning)


OHT 1 The world of the graduate:

In today’s highly competitive global environment graduates need to know more than the facts (the body of knowledge) in a professional area. Employers expect graduates to have skills such as being able to adapt to new conditions, find information any time they need it and communicate effectively in a range of situations. In general you’ll be expected to ‘hit the ground running’ as soon as you start work. (Retrieved 4 November, 2003, from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/sneed/ index.htm)




OHT2 In relation to graduate quality 7:

Your capacity to work within and across cultures – and to contribute to the international community of your profession – is likely to be a critical aspect of your working life. This will include working in other cultural and national contexts, and with colleagues and clients from cultural backgrounds different from your own. (Retrieved 4 November, 2003, from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/GQLeaflet7.doc)




OHT 3 Intercultural teaching and learning as

• object of study

• trained communication

• language

• inclusivity

• immersion/immersion at a distance

• reflexive engagement



8. REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE: (b) IMPLICATIONS OF THE SET OF PRINCIPLES FOR: (i) PEDAGOGY, (ii) DEVELOPING TASKS

AND (iii) ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCE This resource invites reflection on current practice as a starting point for designing aspects of courses and programs and developing approaches to teaching, learning and assessment. The set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning (see resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning) provide a basis for both reflection and development. This resource comprises 3 parts:

1. implications of the set of principles for pedagogy 2. implications of the set of principles for developing tasks 3. implications of the set of principles for assessment.

Part 1 provides a starting point for teasing out the implications of the set of principles proposed for teaching and learning. The set of principles provide a way of thinking about the teaching and learning process, whereby the intercultural is understood as an overall orientation or stance in relation to the course as a whole and in relation to pedagogy, rather than the inclusion of a single example, case-study or episode, engaging though any of these might be. Part 2 takes the task as the basic unit for designing the teaching, learning and assessment experiences that comprise a course. Each task constitutes a social, cultural and linguistic act. In that it requires the integration of purposes, contexts, processes of interaction, outcomes, and reflection on learning, the task can be seen as a microcosm for the course as a whole. This resource includes a set of reflections that connect directly to each of the proposed principles of intercultural teaching and learning. Part 3 provides a starting point for reflecting on the implications of the set of principles proposed for assessment. The materials in this resource are adapted from: Chapter 3: Framework for designing curriculum for intercultural language learning. In Liddicoat, A.J., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A. and Kohler, M. (2003) Report on intercultural language learning. Canberra. DEST. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS This resource can be used to stimulate reflection on the overall pedagogy and tasks and assessment experiences that comprise the requirements of a course. Of particular interest is the extent to which a course incorporates the development of intercultural understanding, through the recognition of the social and cultural construction of knowledge, of multiple ways of knowing, of the centrality of communication across cultures and languages with people who bring their own knowledge, values, ethics and discourse to the task. The resource can also be used as a basis for reviewing, fine-tuning or developing the curriculum for particular courses.


1. IMPLICATIONS OF THE SET OF PRINCIPLES FOR PEDAGOGY The text below sets out some implications that can be derived from the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning as discussed in the resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning. The additional dot points have been included to provide a space for coming up with further implications.

Principle: Connecting the intracultural with the intercultural Teaching and learning includes:

recognising individual development over time and building upon who students are as individuals with multiple identities, needs, interests, aspirations

building connections across texts, tasks and contexts inviting consideration of the way language and culture shape knowing encouraging students to explain, integrate, inquire attending to the long-term development of students’ understanding through the course and program drawing out ideas and connections in discussions

Principle: Constructing intercultural ‘knowing’ as social action Teaching and learning:

is task-oriented, focussing on students interpreting, recognising, comparing, analysing is oriented towards highlighting the relationship between language, culture, learning and knowing incorporates previous experiences of individuals and the collective includes interactive questioning to enhance making connections includes feedback

Principle: Interacting and communicating Teaching and learning:

includes tasks to facilitate a range of interactions includes interactive talk as an integral part of all tasks includes making explicit connections between language, culture and knowing draws on multiple examples from multiple contexts, exploring more than one culture, conceptual

systems, sets of values invites contributions to discussions demonstrates how to build bridges for comparison encourages development of intercultural sensitivity through negotiation


Principle: Reflecting and introspecting Teaching and learning:

involves reflecting critically on one’s own knowledge, beliefs and values as an integral part of discussions and assignments

highlights comparing, analysing and synthesising multiple perspectives involves the continuous development of one’s own understanding of the power of language and cultures

in knowing, and the power of knowing enriches the sense of intercultural sensitivity as it continues to develop through more intercultural

experiences

Principle: Assuming responsibility Teaching and learning:

involves setting personal goals in developing intercultural sensitivity fosters awareness of multiple perspectives includes self-monitoring of one’s own developing understanding involves developing awareness of the ethical issues of knowledge


2. IMPLICATIONS OF THE SET OF PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPING TASKS The text below describes considerations in designing tasks understood as the basic unit for developing a course. These considerations are connected to the set of principles. Since the task is seen as a microcosm of the course, these considerations permeate the course as a whole. A task may be seen as a contextualised, purposeful instance of using, creating and reflecting on knowledge. It focuses on: Purpose: What is the overall purpose or goal of the task? Why are students being asked to do this task?

(This usually involves reasons beyond the pedagogic purpose of university learning.) What ideas/concepts are involved in the task? How are these concepts connected? (Principle: constructing intercultural knowing as social action; Principle: connecting the intracultural with the intercultural)

Context: What are the critical features of use of the particular knowledge (facts, concepts, ideas,

discourses)? What are the circumstances of the task, its setting, the social, psychological and affective dimensions of the situation? Who are the participants and what is their relationship? (Principle: constructing intercultural knowing as social action Principle: connecting the intracultural with the intercultural)

Process of What kinds of interactions are needed to accomplish the task? What are students being interaction: asked to think about and do when interacting with others, with texts, and with technologies?

(Principle:interacting and communicating; Principle: connecting the intracultural with the intercultural)

Product: What action or product will result from the interaction? (Principle: interacting and

communicating) Reflection: What are students asked to reflect upon? eg. What connections are they asked to make among

all the above aspects? To what extent are they asked to reflect upon their own linguistic and cultural assumptions and those of other participants? How does the task relate to their own values and beliefs? How does the task relate to their identity as members of a particular academic/professional community? How does the task relate back to previous experiences and forward to up-coming experiences? What do students learn about the relationship between the nature of knowing (in their discipline and across disciplines), language and culture, through carrying out this task? (Principle: connecting the intracultural with the intercultural; Principle: reflecting and introspecting; Principle: assuming responsibility)

The sets of questions posed in relation to the various dimensions of tasks outlined above may be used as the basis for:

• Evaluating a task from a particular course and subsequently amending its description to include the dimensions outlined above.

• Using the questions to design a task.

• Using the questions to deconstruct the requirements of the task with students.

• Using the questions to develop criteria for judging student performance on the task.


From a task to the course as a whole Developing a task as an integrated experience that incorporates the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning is of value as an individual learning experience. This value is intensified when connections are constantly made across tasks, about such ideas as the social and cultural construction of knowledge, the multiple ways of knowing, the power of discourse, the potential for competing discourses, the recognition of diversity, etc. These connections need to be made in the design of the course as a whole and in the pedagogical process of mediating student learning based on the course. The reflections that follow may be used as a basis for considering the course/program as a whole: Reflection 1: How do I construct ‘knowing’ as social action in my teaching and learning? Examine critically your own course/program in relation to the following questions

(a) In regards to relationships and interconnections in ‘knowing’:

How is the meaning of ‘human knowledge’ vis-à-vis ‘discipline-content knowledge’ constructed in my program? Am I considering the contribution of multiple views and voices contributing to the discussion of my ‘discipline’s content-knowledge’? Do I consider the variable perspectives of the participants in the discussion based on their variable socio-cultural relationships?

What interconnections do I make between the social world of classroom learning and the world of applying that knowledge in the society at large?

What relationships do I actively encourage between developing learners’ meaning–making capabilities and content-learning capabilities?

How do I mediate to my learners the importance of these relationships in view of variable socio-cultural and linguistic contexts, and multiple memberships within one socio-cultural system and across such systems of knowledge?

(b) In regards to evaluating such ‘knowing’:

Do the goals, objectives, and outcomes of my program focus on a range of opportunities for discovering and imposing variable meaning-making?

Do they include a deliberate awareness of the language-and-culture-specific assumptions and biases inevitable in constructing knowledge?

Do they include comparisons across languages and cultures in responding to socio-cultural similarities and differences?

Do they include learners’ self-reflection in relation to their own values and interpretative systems in evaluating ‘knowing’ as social action?

Do they cater for the development of an intercultural identity, engendering intercultural sensitivity?

Do they engage critically with the implicit or explicit conceptualisations of the ‘world of knowledge’, ‘content-learning’, and ‘social action’ and their interrelationship ?

Do they critically examine the expression and articulation of all of the above, in relation to comprehensiveness or scope of learning --- what is included or excluded, as requirements or expectations?


(c) What do I conclude from my examination/analysis? What action(s) can I take towards improving the

statement of goals, objectives, and outcomes of my program? Reflection 2: How do I create learning contexts of interaction communication Examine your teaching material from the perspective of the kinds of interactions that they foster. To what extent is the following kind of interaction a part of your course?

I take each issue, concept, process, from within the contexts of my ‘content knowledge’ that I use in my class interactions --- (eg. ‘evolution of the species’; ‘freedom of speech’; ‘kinship and/or colour terms’; ‘illness and health’; ‘pollution and the environment’; ‘abortion’; ‘scarf wearing’; ‘material use in building bridges’; ‘labour relations in the workplace’; ‘variable wages’; ‘symbols of mathematical language’; ‘linear/two-three dimensional models’; etc. etc..).

I, then, engage variable ways of ‘knowing’ such element/aspect of learning, offering recognisable or not points of view and engage in discussion on: acceptance, rejection, impasses, comparisons and elaborations vis-à-vis interrelated ways of seeing, perceiving, interpreting, and articulating each aspect of learning in the negotiated discussion. I, then, provide a platform for further critical discussion of the issue, etc. between (i) what each learner-participant claims as his/her own belief and value and how that reflects this person’s claim on his/her own socio-cultural and educational identity; (ii) what each learner-participant rejects as ‘other’ belief and value and how that reflects this person’s

rejection of ‘another’ person’s socio-cultural and educational identity; (iii) each participant’s way of signalling his/her own inter-relationships, and inter-connections through

interaction with any human issue, etc. that ultimately displays human membership to a host of variable socio-cultural, and linguistic contexts and how such contexts inform our expression when communicating.

Reflection 3: How do I develop a reflective and reflexive stance? Examine your own linguistic and culture ‘knowledge’. To what extent to you include a reflexive dimension in teaching and learning?

First I articulate my understanding of some fundamental concepts: ‘knowledge’ in the context of human ‘knowing’; ‘teaching’, ‘learning’, in the contexts of institutional ‘knowing’. Then, I engage in discussing my understanding of the dynamic and reciprocal relationship between personal and collective intra-culturality and inter-culturality.

Then, I engage further as follows: For every course I teach, I :

Profile each one of my learners and share that information. Such profiling will provide a context for understanding and building upon who my learners are as individuals, with their own multiple identities, their own needs, interests, personalities, motivations, prior learning experiences, and aspirations towards the creation of a community of learning.

Select learning tasks that are rich in scope for developing and reflecting upon self and others, ‘knowledge’, and ways of ‘knowing’.


Draw out, through interactive talk, questioning, scaffolding, and feedback, the implicit conceptions and the explanatory systems of learners that shape how they interpret what they learn, and how they see themselves.

Draw upon resources that provide a window on diversity and variability in learning. Attend to the longitudinal progress of learners, constantly building, extending, elaborating on concepts

and processes in relation to intercultural learning. Create a culture of inquiry and reflection that aims towards the continuous development of ‘knowing’

with intercultural sensitivity. Promote continuous reflection from multiple perspectives by:

- reflecting critically on own socio-cultural and linguistic attitudes, beliefs, and values accumulated through continuous enculturation and socialisation;

- conceptualising the multiple perspectives involved in understanding the variable contexts of the interface of language, culture, and education between all language-and-culture systems;

- creating the multiple pathways for bridging learning with how-to-learn;

- modelling the processes of developing one’s own multiple perspective on the evolution and natural interaction of all forms of ‘learning’ in all societies;

- engaging comparatively with examination, analysis, and synthesis of any aspects of ‘knowledge’ and its acquisition from a universally human perspective.

• Add others …

Reflection 4: How do I take responsibility for mediating all the above in my teaching and learning? Review critically what you do in your course/program. To what extent are the following aspects a part of your evaluation?

Am I valuing negotiation as a shared means in communicating and interacting among my fellow humans who are my students? As an intercultural communicator, am I demonstrating reciprocal respect for a sense of responsibility directly and forthrightly in all my interactions with all individuals in my practice? Am I articulating clearly that I identify myself as having a disposition to ethical ‘knowing’ and its function in all social spheres of communication and interaction, intra-culturally and inter-culturally, and that I expect the same from others? Do I continuously review my enactment of my individual responsibility in intercultural teaching and learning towards developing and nurturing all principles involved in intra-with-inter-cultural communication and interaction through resourcing multiple perspectives? Do I always facilitate understanding, negotiating, and creating meaning based on diverse communicative needs, aspirations, and resources?

Reflection 5: How do I connect my intra-cultural ‘knowledge’ with my inter-cultural learning? Profile your own ‘intraculturality’ and consider how this shapes teaching and learning in your course/program. How does this apply to your students and your interactions with them?

I. My primary socio-cultural and linguistic enculturation

(i.e. my primary upbringing, primary socio-cultural, linguistic, and educational conditioning, or primary socialisation; includes my family, my teachers, my peers, my religious leaders, etc.. during my upbringing):


A. my place of birth: my place(s) of upbringing (age, duration): my place(s) of primary education (age, duration): my place(s) of secondary education (age, duration): my place(s) of tertiary education (age, duration): my ‘other variation(s)’ in upbringing:

B. ‘My-self’, as an ever-developing socio-cultural and linguistic being, I am presently engaged (i.e.

interacting and communicating) with the following multiple socio-cultural and linguistic memberships in the following socio-cultural and linguistic domains: (a) within my primary culture and language:

my family -- genetically and/or emotionally defined/perceived – in regards to: its structure {nuclear and extended, etc.}:

my position in it { eg.[grand]mother, [grand]father, daughter, son, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, cousin, in-law connection, etc..): my age and marital status:

my attitude towards family (or members of)—and on the basis of what values and beliefs about it: my connection(s) to any ‘other’ familial aspect:

(b) within any additional culture and language:

C. ‘My–self’ as a professional – current and/or over time, in one or many places -- in regards to : my qualifications and status: my attitudes towards my profession {on the basis of what values and beliefs about it} : my ‘other’ professional aspects:

D. ‘My-self’ as a member of other/additional memberships and associations– anything else in my experiences -- in regards to: my professional, leisure, hobbies, arts, sports: my preferences on food and attire, physical appearance: my overall aesthetics orientation (visual, aural, olfactory, sensual, sexual): my religious affiliations, rituals and practices: my attitudes, values and beliefs about any of the above memberships: my ‘other’ particular individualities (eg. my special interest in…, etc.}:

E. My rank-order: Do I rank the above interrelated and interrelating memberships and domains in terms of priority? In other words, what memberships do I currently consider of primary importance, and which of secondary or tertiary, and why?:

II. ‘My-self’s’ subsequent socio-cultural/linguistic and professional education (i.e. my education and personal development through professional experiences; i.e. my professional socialisation over time): As a teacher/mediator of my ‘field(s) of knowledge’, I have the following history of education and employment that is continually influencing my teaching and learning practice:

my place(s) or site(s) of tertiary education (age, duration): my place(s) or site(s) of further studies (age, duration): my ‘other variation(s)’ in education: my employment history:


III. My application: How do I apply the above variable, dynamic, interrelated and inter-relating socio-cultural/linguistic, educational and professional experiences and perspectives of mine?:

(a) within what I may consider as my ‘primary’ culture and language, or cultures and languages, in cases of

bi-or poly-linguality : in my life-long interaction, communication, and engagement with other individuals with /without similar memberships :

(b) within what I may consider as additional culture(s) and language(s) I am engaged with: in my life-long interaction, communication, and engagement with other individuals with/without similar memberships:

(c) within my teaching and learning practice (past or present):


3. IMPLICATIONS OF THE SET OF PRINCIPLES FOR ASSESSMENT The text below sets out some implications that can be derived from the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning as discussed in the resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning. The blank dot points are intended to create a space for adding further implications. Principle: connecting the intracultural with the intercultural Assessment:

requires students to connect all their interrelated knowledge to accomplish the task requires perceiving, comparing and analysing multiple concepts and ways of knowing probes students’ developing understanding of the social, cultural and linguistic construction of human

behaviour and knowledge requires students to construct their own responses rather than choosing a single, correct response

Principle: Constructing intercultural ‘knowing’ as social action Assessment:

Is designed to capture students’ cumulative learning Includes processes for gaining evidence of student progress over time (eg through portfolios or extended

projects)

Principle: Interacting and communicating Assessment:

Requires the incorporation of multiple perspectives and collective discussion Includes making comparisons Requires explicit attention being accorded to the representation and communication of knowledge Incorporates multiple examples from diverse contexts Involves the exploration of diverse conceptual systems and sets of values

Principle: Reflecting and introspecting Assessment:

Includes dimensions in tasks that require reflection on developing knowledge and its construction Includes critical reflection on one’s own values and beliefs Incorporates reflection on ways of negotiating meaning across cultures


Principle: assuming responsibility Assessment:

Includes self-monitoring and self-assessment Includes developing self-awareness of criteria and standards by which performance is judged Incorporates the ethics of knowing


9. EXAMPLES FROM PRACTICE: (a) THE INTERCULTURAL AS A MAJOR TASK WITHIN A COURSE

DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE This resource presents examples of how two lecturers at UniSA have reflected on the meaning of internationalisation for their students and disciplines, and shows how they have incorporated their thinking in the development of their courses. The first example is drawn from the work of Jill Slay in the School of Computer and Information Science and it demonstrates the development of a major task within her course: Secure and High Integrity Systems. The second example is drawn from the work of Katharine Vadura in the School of International Studies, and demonstrates a focus on internationalisation at the level of a whole course: Nationalism, Identity and Human Rights. The two resources show internationalisation in practice at UniSA. These examples were selected for two reasons. They illustrate how lecturers have interpreted and are experimenting with different responses to the challenges posed by internationalisation, and they represent disciplines which, for different reasons, might be assumed not to ‘require’ internationalisation: Computer and Information Science because it is ‘the same everywhere’, and International Studies because it is ‘already international’. The rationale for the production of this resource is, then, neither to promote the two courses as ‘templates’, nor as exemplifying the set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning (resource: A set of principles of intercultural teaching and learning), but rather, to provide insight into the process of reflection and experimentation which informed course development, and to highlight the value of this process across disciplines. Each exemplar is divided into two parts.

• The first part is the summary of an interview with a lecturer about how she understands internationalisation and how this understanding informed her development of the course.

• The second part presents three aspects of the course: an annotated overview of the course; samples from

key parts of the course; and two examples of students’ work1. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS The resource can be used to stimulate reflection on current practice by, for example,

• reading it/discussing it/talking about how it how it may influence your pedagogy • talking about key ideas with students; and • applying it to what you already know – re-evaluate previously held positions.

More specifically, you might consider the extent to which the reflections of the two lecturers are relevant to your own students and discipline:

• How does your own perspective on internationalisation compare with those represented in the summaries of interviews?

• To what extent does the course and its development provide insights which are relevant to your discipline?


SUMMARY OF AN INTERVIEW WITH JILL SLAY As part of this project, Jill Slay was interviewed in October 2003 about her understanding of internationalisation and how it informed her teaching. The overarching question addressed in the interview was ‘Is there anything you do in practice which others might be able to draw on in internationalising their teaching?’. In her response, Jill explained how her understanding of internationalisation had led her to develop the course ‘Secure and High Integrity Systems’ to include a major task based on the simulation of an international consultancy project. This summary is divided into two parts, reflecting the two major themes which emerged in the interview. The first is ‘The values and knowledge of the developer’; the second, ‘The process of development’. The values and knowledge of the developer In explicating her understanding of internationalisation of teaching and learning, Jill Slay emphasised the value of her own experience in living in other cultures as a way of helping her to understand the position of students who study in cultures new to them, and of the international context in which all graduates will work – whether in Australia or other countries. In relation to her own experience, she gave examples of how living in China has shaped her understanding

And I’ve met people who’ve never ever met a foreigner; who’ve never ever talked to a foreigner and I’ve been that foreigner for months at a time whose had to speak Chinese all the time just to make myself understood, whose always made mistakes in my Chinese… got my tones wrong. I try to buy things and I keep saying I want it and I’m saying I have it and they think ‘Stupid woman’, and they give me all these instructions in Chinese and there’s so many small things and I think ‘Give me one more month and I’ll read the instructions to this kettle and understand why this kettle doesn’t work’. OK, so I’ve been living that life since 1981. I went to Hong Kong in 1981. I’ve been gong to China on and off now for twenty-something years and I’ve lived through the fear that they live through of language overwhelming you and you look at a sign and think ‘Which way am I going? What’s happening? How do I cross the road? How do I buy a bus ticket and what does this sign on this door mean? Department of propaganda? Do I go in or do I not?’ – you translate it, you understand what each word means, you put those characters together, you think you know where you are, you’re thinking ‘Is this really a cancer hospital in the middle of the town?’.

In relation to these experiences, she stressed the value she places both on language and culture in teaching and learning, linked to an ethical stance, a ‘responsibility’. In relation to language and culture,

I think the cultural issue is such an important one that, what I try to do in my job, is – where I have responsibility for other staff – is I try to make sure… we actually force them now to have some kind of cross cultural training, we have cross-cultural workshops and we’re continually looking at the issue in teaching. And so some of the things that I believe are really important for us to do, in the places where we go and in perhaps the things I do, are actually looking at language. Looking at the language I use in my teaching, trying to simplify where necessary. That becomes a problem in this kind of a school because others would call you ‘dumbing down’: dumbing down the content. But I believe that it’s important for people to… so the kind of teaching you’ll find here is people using power point slides with dot points and that’s a major thrust. There’s some text. Some people do have readings, we rely on text books but perhaps going through those and simplifying the English, making sure that somebody who’s coming from a non English background can understand, that would be one of the major issues. What I tend to do myself, I have a study guide for everything I teach, which in some schools you actually have to have that but here it’s been a new invention so were trying to have in the school exemplars of good practice. And so for me the things I’m doing in my online and all of our teaching is all kind of web based. So every single course has to have a full presence on line. So you have to have


slides, you have to have a study guide, it has to have tutes/pracs and it has to have additional interactive material. So in doing that, I’m trying to make it catering for the person who’s from another cultural and from another culture and, to me, ‘from another culture’ primarily means it’s language, even though I know very well it’s not only language but for those who don’t have my experience at crossing cultures I aim for language. So we’re looking for things like key words, we’re looking for glossaries, we’re looking for perhaps a kind of triangulation in your teaching, you come from different perspectives and you’ve got different learning styles. All those kinds of things also I would build into my teaching.

And, in relation to her stance on internationalisation more generally, Jill emphasised that the teaching and learning of language and culture applies to all students.

Maybe 25% of the students in my class are international. I’m now thinking ‘Well, I might as well teach to the international student’, as it were. So, rather than thinking that before I was teaching to a high achieving native speaker, which is how I started as a teacher, I now think they’re not all high achievers and they’re not all native speakers, so I’m actually putting in the structure to support their learning in many, many ways.

Moreover, she stressed that this stance highlights the value of learning from other languages and cultures for both students and teachers,

So, for me, this is what I think internationalisation is about and this is what I think about being culturally aware and culturally friendly is about – but also it’s about me – if you’ve got to move beyond language…. I think its also about thinking about how students respond. The culture or the philosophy I know about: there’s Confucianism, so anyone who comes from a Confucian background I would expect to want more direction, I would still believe that they would be indoctrinated into treating me with more respect and so I try to also try to behave like a Chinese teacher to Chinese people but not trivialise it to the stage that I’m no longer Australian – well I’m British actually. So I think a good Chinese teacher is explicit, gives support, gives help. And so I try to walk a fine divining line between being Chinese and being not Chinese.

She warns, however, that ‘fear’ is a potential obstacle to developing this stance on teaching and learning,

OK, I actually think that internationalisation is not really internationalisation; in this school it is actually development of people skills, it’s actually going back to what I think was the equality of teachers in the past, the kind of people who were my teachers in England. It’s actually caring for the individual, even though I think people get daunted by the 230 people, and also people who haven’t changed cultures are scared of the foreigner, and so I’ve taught myself not to be scared of the foreigner. And in my own experience I’ve often been the foreigner, I’ve been the only white face I’ve seen in a certain town in China for 2 months, I’ve been the foreigner, the only one. So I’ve been through the experience and I know what I want, and I think what people here…what I identify, it’s not always a lack of care, but it’s fear, fear of the foreigner, a belief that they don’t have people skills, a belief that they can’t solve the problem when the problem turns up and sits in their office for 5 hours. And some of the international students have had enormous difficulties. But you know I’ve always tackled everything like the battered wife, and the potential suicide, when I’ve been the program director. I believe that true internationalisation comes out of a kind of heart which wants to like people, and to love people – if you see what I mean. And all the rest: we can make policies and procedures and we can layer things on superficially, but I don’t actually think that’s going to change anything.

The process of development Jill Slay explained that the major task on the current course replaced the previous course structure,


What we actually did is the normal pattern for this school… is that you give 12 or 13 three hour lectures and over that number of weeks onshore, and then you would have maybe a prac. and a tute each week. And I hated that model and I would like to go to problem-based learning but we’re not able to. So my whole point of compromise is I give 6 times 2 hour lectures in the first 6 weeks so I can give them the content, as it were, and then we use the next 6 weeks to take what I’ve taught them and try to apply it.

During the course, students’ learning is scaffolded in a number of ways to prepare them for and support them in doing the major task, which takes up the final six weeks. These methods of support include a preparatory task,

What I’ve started doing which I like doing is I’ve actually got… in teaching IT security, in my first assignment, I make them review trends in computer crime. So I’ve internationalised it by saying you can either get the Aust. Cert. survey, from Australia 2003, or go to America, get the Cert., or you can get the Hong Kong Cert., and so you can read it in Chinese if you want. But this is not a bi-lingual program, so you write in English. But I don’t mind if you analyse the Hong Kong one or the English one.

As well as the internationalisation of course materials,

We’re reliant on the textbook and the textbook is highly Americanised and so what I do when we get to legal things, we’ve got the American data, then I’ve gone thorough and compiled Australian stuff, Asian stuff and stuff that’s coming out of the United Nations as well. So I just try to give them the whole international perspective – there’s some textbooks like that.

And support for the students’ language needs,

I have to try to identify who I believe is going to fail for a diagnostic assessment. Then I start sending them to Learning Connection. Then Learning Connection came and gave one lecture, two actually in my class because we presented that as how to get really good marks in your group project and so were working on group skills but also the writing skills, because they’ve got to write it up – good writing, good referencing.

The major task involves students working in small groups in a simulation of a consultancy on IT security in an international context,

So in those groups, with the smaller groups within them, we just pretend ‘Here’s a company and they’ve got a big IT security problem’. I make it really extreme, so extreme you know, they’ve got no firewall, no antiviral software and there’s always a contentious issue in it. So I’ve had the defence contractor whose getting hacked into… What else do I have? At the moment it’s the hospital, the hospital who’s getting hacked into. And then you can bring in the issue of American insurance companies and I’ve already covered that in lectures… create the situation which is information warfare.

In this task, Jill explains that

I make this company and you have to write a security policy and do a security analysis of a company. Now, I’ve deliberately made everybody, I deliberately put every nationality in this company, there’s Wong, I can identify Italian, I’ve put them in there, Italian, German, Greek, every kind of name you can think of and when we deal with the legal and ethical stuff, for IT security, I say you can decide where this company is situated. But when you choose to put it, say in an Asian country, you can choose a country that you know… you can choose your own country, but when you do, you’ve got to make it consistent: you’ve got to use the legal framework of that country that you’re working in. So for me this


is what I think internationalisation is about and this is what I think about being culturally aware and culturally friendly is about but also its about for me.


SECURE AND HIGH INTEGRITY SYSTEMS (INFT3002): EXTRACTS FROM TASKS 1 & 2 Task 1

Report on the 2003 Computer Crime Survey Specifications Report: Computer Crime, Information Warfare and Security – An International comparison Write a 1000 word report (individual) drawing on the information presented in Module 1 and from other sources and discussing current trends in computer crime and information warfare and the kinds of measures that companies take to protect their IT infrastructure. The Auscert 2003 Survey gives a good start but you will have to search relatively widely to find comparative trends in other countries. You MUST include data about two cultures other than your own. It might be helpful to look at European, American and Asian sources to get a balanced picture – you will find that there is a good survey available in Chinese from HKCERT.


Task 2

GROUP PROJECT Introduction

Objectives

This is a group project and it gives you the opportunity to apply the theory gained during the course. It is worth 25% of the marks for the course. You must pass this assessment (i.e. you must score 12.5 or more marks out of 25) to pass the course. You may use textbooks, lectures notes, library and Internet resources to help you but you must follow the Harvard referencing system and acknowledge all resources used. You will get support from your tutor in workshops if you are an ML, SIT or HK student or electronically via a discussion board and email if you are an external student

The Project Your group of 3 is a small newly formed IT Security Consultancy and have recently been employed on your first case. You need to prepare a client report dealing with one of the issues listed You are asked to write a report for your client. Your solution should be presented as a formal report using Word; text should be single-spaced, 2cm margins; 3000 – 5000 words required not including appendices, graphics or references Your report should include:

1. An executive summary or abstract 2. Detailed responses to your client’s questions with discussion of his or her options 3. A Comprehensive Recommendation

You may use the format recommended in the Style Guide to present your report if this is most familiar to you – you may also choose the kind of format that you would use in your workplace if you would prefer. Submission. Submit electronically via the submission system as per details Content Your client is the CEO of a small start up manufacturing company in HK. He needs a secure information system for his company. He will want to buy Databases and will need both a web and e-


mail server and will be offering his products online. His company does not write software and will purchase all its products off the shelf Since the company is totally new he can build whatever security controls and purchase whatever new hardware you recommend. •

• • •

• •

Guide him through the process or risk analysis and management which will need to be carried out as he sets up his system Advise him whether he needs to set up a trusted system (not just a trusted operating system) Determine what operating system he might use Develop a security policy for him presuming he has a financial department, a manufacturing department, an admin section and a small permanent IT staff. Advise him why hackers might attack his system Discuss the legal and ethical issues he will need to face in protecting his data

How to start

On the course webpage you will find that many Modules have resources – eg. Resources for Module 1, Resources for Module 2.

You will find that these contain work which I have already begun on eg. Trusted systems, computer crime survey

HOW TO GET SUPPORT

Tutorials 3 and 4 will address particular aspects of the group project in detail. You can ask questions regarding the group project at any of the tutorials, on the course discussion board, or to the course email at [email protected].

All those who scored less than 5/10 for Assignment 1 should urgently consider getting help with language or writing from Learning Connection staff (or online resources )


9. EXAMPLES FROM PRACTICE: (b) THE INTERCULTURAL AS A WHOLE COURSE

SUMMARY OF AN INTERVIEW WITH KATHARINE VADURA As part of this project, Katharine Vadura was interviewed in November 2003 about her understanding of internationalisation and how it informed her teaching. The overarching question addressed in the interview was ‘Is there anything you do in practice which others might be able to draw on in internationalising their teaching?’. In her response, Katharine explained how her understanding of internationalisation had led her to develop the course ‘Nationalism, Identity and Human Rights’. This summary is divided into three parts, reflecting the three major themes which emerged in the interview. The first is ‘The values and knowledge of the developer’; second, ‘The process of development’; and third, ‘Relevance to other disciplines’. The values and knowledge of the developer In explicating her understanding of the internationalisation of teaching and learning, Katharine emphasised that this has developed though a process of questioning received views, both about what internationalisation is and how it is related to her discipline.

To look at that whole internationalisation thing, for me this is one of the things that I’ve struggled with in the sense that I see that the University seems to have one kind of paradigm or model and in the past that seems to me to have been focused on international students, teaching offshore or sending students abroad and it’s… kind of, the mechanics about it. Whereas for me, thinking about internationalising, it’s about incorporating that into the curriculum; it’s sort of dealing with all those issues which come out there and as part of that it’s more, for me I’ve found when I’ve been thinking about it, it’s had to be more than just international perspectives in a sense because what we do in international studies, you sort of assume almost, maybe wrongly at times, that everything we do has international perspective to it…. I see the international relations discipline as being quite conservative, and conservative in the sense that it has an Anglo European tradition – not that that’s a bad thing, but I think its changing now but in the past it was very much whatever wasn’t coming from that school of though was not valued as highly and therefore when you go to look at the literature and try to provide students with literature it still has very much a European Anglo perspective on the whole. But that’s not to say that there isn’t writing coming out of other parts of the world but.. I’m not going to explain this very well because its… Even though they might be writing coming from China or Middle East or something, they’re still kind of trying to conform within the constraints, or disciplinary structures that exist.

Moreover,

I don’t think international relations, within the discipline, has actually had that debate fully about internationalising the curriculum. There’s that assumed, or there’s that assumption that’s embedded in there that it is international because the things we’re talking about are international and that’s where areas like human rights even, that kind of sits more…I see a distinction between international studies and international relations because international studies for me is more interdisciplinary in itself but human rights is an area where there’s been this awareness of the intercultural dimension and quite a very conscious decision to try to look at ways of bringing this out in how we teach.


The process of development The area within international relations that Katharine selected for the focus of the course is human rights,

Human rights is a good one in a sense because human rights education itself is being really aware of this intercultural idea; they’re really aware of not just coming from a Western perspective because human rights is very heavily critiqued as having a Western orientation and there’s a great awareness of Asian values and the alternative perspectives so maybe that’s an area where they’re a little more advanced in the whole intercultural idea so any of the literature is starting to embrace these different perspectives and traditions…. I guess I breathed a sigh of relief when I came across the literature on human rights education, because I suddenly thought ‘OK, I can work within this’ because I was struggling partly seeing the other international relations paradigms being quite conservative and not inclusive in the way I wanted. And when I found that there were other people that had some really interesting and, I guess, innovative ideas of how to get the students to connect with this I thought wow – lets run with this, that’s I guess where it started. The whole design idea, I ditched the discipline…does that make sense.

In developing the course, her priorities included the need to raise students’ awareness of and engage with the ways in which different cultural perspectives shape and are shaped by international relations.

I ditched the discipline and thought OK, what is it that I actually want them to learn. And there was a whole…see it’s not only about international perspectives for me in terms of the curriculum, there are a whole lot of other questions, assessment, about…I was concerned for example that students were only doing the assignments and only reading for those assignments and forget about the rest and for me I wanted the semester to be about a process from week 1 through to week 12 or week 13: now we’re telling a story and we’re going to build on this and go through and work and integrate it all in. Ok now, I’m not sure, I think given that this week in the class we’ve been concentrating on feedback and reviewing the whole semester and everything, I’ve had some really interesting insights from the students and I suppose for me one of the ways that I thought how can I get them to engage with this, one of the ways was reflection. I need to somehow get the students to reflect on the different perspectives that are out there and to understand that they have a particular perspective that might come from their home, from their parents, from the news, from wherever, that there are other perspectives and other literature out there and other sources of information including the other students in the class and that they need to try to engage in this and learn from that… so it was like how do I try to package this in a semester in a course…

A further consideration was that the course had to be available online.

In terms of structure it was like well, we have also got a requirement that we want the students to be able to take this course externally because its a compulsory core part of the program. There’s internal and external: external for us meant flexible delivery and online delivery, so immediately I knew that I had to create a course that was actually going to be available on line and that the students would have the same or near to the same learning experiences in that environment that they would in the face to face environment which immediately is problematic because, yeah, when I went and gave a paper on this at a conference in Helsinki, Finland, one of the questions was, how do you get them to interact and communicate because intercultural communication is all about talking and if they’re in an online environment how are you going to get them to do that – so I’m thinking Yeah OK, big problem


Meeting this challenge was made easier by the potential of the subject matter to stimulate engagement and by her own stance on internationalisation.

I guess I was lucky too because of the kind of topics that I can include in human rights and nationalism and all that, you can get some really interesting debates happening and I took the approach because I’ve been doing some work: I’ve had a project on global citizenship and cosmopolitanism so my stance, my theoretical perspective is strongly cosmopolitan anyway.

It was against this background that she decided to base the course around an extended role play.

I decided that I wanted to use the idea of a simulation or a role play as an integral part of the course, and this was going to be the vehicle for getting the students to reflect and think about different perspectives, different points of view and picking up on an example, a scenario that was on the one hand, kind of relevant in the sense that it would be something that they were familiar with and was in the news but at the same time it could be fictitious in that I could bring in the different concepts that we were talking about in the different topics covered in the course.

In the role play, groups of students represent countries which are responding to an evolving international crisis.

The role play, well this was a pretty amazing thing because I had 140 enrolled at the beginning of the year and not doing things by halves, I decided, no – I want all of them to be participating in the role play at the same time. I’d done it before in a face-to-face environment where I’d had each tutorial group allocated a number of countries and at the end of this if they work on this particular scenario, at the end of the semester we get together we get together and have like a UN roundtable session in the tut group. So that was face to face, that was maximum 25 people to 30 in a group and this was like big scale, grand plan. Then there’s a whole story about how I divided them up and the scenario was about the Middle East, it focussed on the Kurds as a minority group where the Kurds in northern Iraq and Turkey had basically invaded northern Iraq and had occupied that region of Kurdish territory and then all the topics that were being covered in the course of the semester were going to add developments to the scenario – so there was the question of the human rights of the Kurds, the right for one country to invade another, given that Iraq was already occupied, and the military ethnic tensions, exploring a whole lot of different things along the way. So that was the basic premise that the scenario started off with. The students were then divided up into 13 countries. So there were 13 countries and they were each given an online discussion site for their country and the simulation itself had a general discussion forum so the idea was that they had a specific focus for the weeks that we didn’t have lectures and tutorials, they had an online task and there were 5 of these online tasks throughout the semester and the students had to participate in their country forums and then nominate one person to post on the general forum particular points of debate and discussion because I would add to the scenario for example that a refugee camp in Syria had a bomb detonated and mass loss of life and how would countries react? So they had to put themselves in the role of the other country; this was the interesting thing. Could I just ask, what was the relationship… within the scenario, what was the incentive for those 13 countries to do anything? Oh OK, that was, that’s part of the bigger picture, there was an initial question and that was ‘should the international community recognise the Turkish protectorate that had been established in Northern Iraq?’ and there was then, each country had to formulate a position statement on how they stood and, as they were meant to take the role of their country, they had to do research about the country, about the attitudes in international, cultural, all these different contexts had to be taken into account and then they had to play out that part, put themselves in someone else’s shoes. And then they had to do the position


statement and there was going to be a vote and this I called, I cant remember, I think I called it the Crisis Working Group or something like that. And these 13 countries were part of that working group and they had to vote at the end and that’s what we’ve just finished. So there was a whole lot of online interaction, there were online tasks that they had to complete. There was online interaction in the country forums where they had to figure out well, what does our country actually do or think about these minorities – about what’s the government policy, foreign policy and so on.

Relevance to other disciplines Asked about the value of this approach to course design for other disciplines, Katharine observed that

I think it is but maybe different versions or different kind of varieties of it. Even within the discipline one of the big bugs is often I teach theory or I have a strong theoretical component. How can I make theory interesting? And I think, one of my experiences out of this kind of role play type model was that you can because they need the theoretical background, they need that on which to build so it’s like a multi-layered thing: you’ve got the conceptual stuff, the theory, you’ve got the real events and you’ve got the students having to draw the threads and bring in the analysis. So is a word that might capture that, the notion of integration Maybe …of connectedness, rather than these big separate elements Yeah, because in lots of disciplines, people put things into lots of little boxes and they put them into, you know this is what I do this is my area, this is my space and they don’t necessarily – they might see that there’s potentially a connection but they don’t necessarily engage with that and therefore if the teachers doesn’t, how can the student? If the teacher doesn’t guide them into thinking along those lines then how can the student even…? The student still sees the teacher has having the knowledge and drawing, pointing them in the right direction and guiding them. I think there’s, that needs to be – not fixed – but that needs to be part of the awareness raising that I suppose for me internationalisation of the curriculum and everything is. If you don’t get the people who are doing the teaching to think and engage with this in the way that they feel comfortable, and in a way that makes sense to them and that they can see the connections with their little box and then how those little all boxes connect up, its not going to work. You know you can have top down approaches, you can have as much policy as you want, you can demand that people do this and this and these criteria and it will just be a surface thing: it will appear on the course statements but if you go into the classroom and have a look and see how it actually plays out… I don’t know it’s a big question.


NATIONALISM, IDENTITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Part 1: Overview with commentary

Nationalism, Identity and Human Rights Course details Learning resources for this course Support resources for this course Class Timetable (Semester 2 - 2003)

Course details

area/catalogue nbr(Course ID): POLI 2009 (013193)

school/campus: ACI /M contact hours: L 1 (6)—S 2 (7); Online unit value: 4.5 offered externally: No BUGE course: Yes

More information on BUGE courses

An overview of theories of nationalism; issues pertaining to nations, ethnic groups and states; constitutions, citizenship and minority rights; questions of identity and self determination; population movements and border politics; racism and the politics of division; human rights and global justice.

Textbook/s: A book of readings will be provided.

Course coordinator/s: Katharine Vadura


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/subjectinfo/subject.asp?SUBJECT=13193&x=14&y=16



http://mace.levels.unisa.edu.au/rudy/public/class_timetable.asp?course_id=013193&term_code=0320&start_date=12/08/2003&end_date=12/08/2003

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/CourseInfo/DisplayBUGE.asp

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/staff-list.asp?Name=Katharine.Vadura

Learning resources for this course

Resources specific to this course

Forms for external students Course evaluation instrument Course Information & Study Guide 2003 [link to online components of course] Help with logging on

General learning resources available through Learning Connection

Learning guides Online workshops: general topics Overview: an orientation guide for external students Register for on-campus workshops

General Library resources

Library home page Internet guides by subject Databases - access and information Library Catalogue - access and information Flexible Delivery Service Your library @ your place Ask a Librarian

Support resources for this course

Technical/computer assistance

Information Technology Services HelpDesk Download leaflets about the University's computing environment LearningFast computer software training

Administrative services

Campus Central LookUP Class Timetable (Semester 2 - 2003) Unibooks - More information about textbooks is available from Unibooks (clicking on the

Unibooks logo will take you out of the University's web site)

UniSA home | UniSAnet | search | change learning resources | change course details | package manifest CRICOS provider number: 00121B | Disclaimer | Copyright © 11 July 2003 University of South Australia Template prepared by the Flexible Learning Centre


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/ExternalForms/

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/SEI/index.asp?COURSE=13193

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learn/UniSAnet-3/?PATH=/Resources/13193/Course+Information+and+Study+Guide+2003/&default=Welcome.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/SubjectInfo/HelpWithLoggingOn.asp

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/learnres/learng

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/wkshpol/general.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/learnres/oview.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/registerit/workshops.asp

http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/

http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/internet

http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/database

http://catalogue.library.unisa.edu.au/

http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/fds/dels

http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/fds/dels/elecasklib.htm

http://www.unisa.edu.au/itsuhelpdesk/

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/learnres/compleafs/

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/learnfast.htm

http://www.unisa.edu.au/campuscentral/

http://www.unisa.edu.au/lookup/default.htm

http://mace.levels.unisa.edu.au/rudy/public/class_timetable.asp?course_id=013193&term_code=0320&start_date=12/08/2003&end_date=12/08/2003

http://www.unibooks.com.au/textbook/textbook.php3?coursecode=13193&unisa=1

http://www.unisa.edu.au/

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/unisanet/

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/subjectinfo/index.asp

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learnwizard/index.asp?COURSE=13193

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/subjectinfo/Medici.asp

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/subjectinfo/Medici.asp

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/packageManifest/index.asp?COURSE_CODE=13193

http://cricos.detya.gov.au/asp/InstitutionDetails.asp?PVID=121

http://www.unisa.edu.au/cpyright/liable.htm

http://www.unisa.edu.au/cpyright/intro/cr1.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/

Overview of online course structure (internal and external students)

Overview Commentary

• Welcome • Course Overview

o Course Outline o Semester Schedule o Course Expectations o Graduate Qualities o Assessment Summary

• Topic Guide o Divided World o Human Rights o Global Justice & Sovereignty o Nationalism o Identity o Global Challenges o ONLINE students study guide

• Assessment o Assignment 1. o Assignment 2. o Assignment 3. o Online Tasks o Seminar and Simulation Participation o Student assignment cover sheet

• Scenario & Role Play o Introduction o Instructions

Objectives Communication Tasks & Assessment

o Scenario Overview A crisis emerges

o Country Profiles Australia France Germany Kurdistan Iran Iraq Russia Spain Syria Turkey

This is the ‘Welcome to online guide’. Example 1.

Course overview folder contains documentation online in a modified version of paper format. Example 2.

Detailed online guide with linked resources and further information to direct student learning. Example 3.

This folder also includes a link to the dedicated external students online guide incorporating interactive seminars.

Assessment folder contains documentation online that is a copy of the paper format.

The scenario & role play folder contains all the material for the online simulation (Introduction Example 4), arranged in a number of folders: Instructions (Example 5 – 7), Scenario (Example 8 – 9), Country Profiles (Example 10), Discussion Forums, Position Statements, Draft Resolution, Resources (Example 11).


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Welcome.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Course Overview/Course Outline.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Course Overview/Semester Schedule.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Course Overview/Course Expectations.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Course Overview/Graduate Qualities.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Course Overview/Assessment Summary.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Topic Guide/Divided World.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Topic Guide/Human Rights.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Topic Guide/Global Justice & Sovereignty.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Topic Guide/Nationalism.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Topic Guide/Identity.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Topic Guide/Global Challenges.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learn/UniSAnet-3/?PATH=/Resources/13193%2DE/ONLINE+students+study+guide/&default=Welcome.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Assessment/Assignment 1..htm



http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Assessment/Online Tasks.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Assessment/Seminar and Simulation Participation.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Assessment/Student assignment cover sheet.doc


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Introduction.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Instructions/Objectives.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Instructions/Communication.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Instructions/Tasks & Assessment.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Scenario/Overview.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Scenario/A crisis emerges.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/Australia.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/France.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/Germany.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/Kurdistan.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/Iran.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/Iraq.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/Russia.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/Spain.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/Syria.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/Turkey.htm

United Kingdom United States of America European Union

o Discussion Forums General Simulation Discussion Australia meeting forum France meeting forum Germany meeting forum Kurdistan meeting forum Iran meeting forum Iraq meeting forum Russia meeting forum Spain meeting forum Syria meeting forum Turkey meeting forum United Kingdom meeting forum USA meeting forum European Union meeting forum

o Position Statements Instructions

o Draft Resolution Position Statement Summary

o Resources Web links About the Kurds Conflict Induced Displacement

o Online Simulation Quiz • Resources

o Selected Useful Books o Web links o UniSA Library Databases

• Notice Board & Sharing Information • PDF articles

o t1 world morality o t2 civil society 2 o t2 forced migration Castles o t2 human rights 6 o t2 human rights 7 o t2 human rights Franck o Kurds 1 o Kurds 2 o Kurds 3

• EXTERNAL ONLINE students only

Simulation discussion forums have been designed so that students are assigned to countries randomly (based on class lists) and then only have access to their country meeting room and the General Simulation Discussion. The general discussion forum is to be used for interaction between countries in preparation for the submission of position statements and final voting.

The resources folder contains material like reading lists and web links. Example 12

Discussion site for students and lecturer to post information and share resources. (Notice Board & Sharing Information)

PDF articles - Hidden folder containing journal articles which are linked to their respective topic pages.


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/United Kingdom.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/United States of America.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Country Profiles/European Union.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Discussion/index.asp?SUBJECT=13193&FR=1&DISC=6615&target=_blank















http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Position Statements/Instructions.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Draft Resolution/Position Statement Summary.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Resources/Web links.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Resources/About the Kurds.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Scenario & Role Play/Resources/Conflict Induced Displacement.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Quiz/index.asp?SUBJECT=13193&FR=1&QUIZ=925&target=_blank


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Resources/Selected Useful Books.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/Resources/Web links.htm

http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/database/database.htm



http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/t1 world morality.pdf

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/t2 civil society 2.pdf

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/t2 forced migration Castles.pdf

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/t2 human rights 6.pdf

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/t2 human rights 7.pdf

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/t2 human rights Franck.pdf

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/Kurds 1.pdf



http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learn/UniSAnet-3/?PATH=/Resources/13193%2DE/ONLINE+students+study+guide/&default=Welcome.htm

Overview of online course structure (external students only)

Overview Commentary

• Welcome • Interactive Seminars

o A Divided World o Human Rights o Global Justice & Sovereignty o Nationalism o Identity o Global Challenges

• Seminar Discussion • Assessment Summary

o Assignment 1. o Assignment 2. o Assignment 3. o Online Tasks o Seminar and Simulation Participation o Student assignment cover sheet

• Back to Course Information & Study Guide 2003

Welcome to the external students guide. Example 13

The Interactive Seminars folder contains the interactive seminars which relate to the 6 topics being covered in the lectures and seminars for the internal students. Example 14 - 15

External students will have their own seminar discussion site where they can participate – the assessment component for seminar participation will come from either participation in the seminar discussion or by participating their interactive seminar notes in the form of an informal reflective journal.

A link back to the main course information site is also located on this external students site.


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Welcome.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Interactive Seminars/A Divided World.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Interactive Seminars/Human Rights.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Interactive Seminars/Global Justice & Sovereignty.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Interactive Seminars/Nationalism.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Interactive Seminars/Identity.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Interactive Seminars/Global Challenges.htm


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Assessment Summary/Assignment 1..htm



http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Assessment Summary/Online Tasks.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Assessment Summary/Seminar and Simulation Participation.htm

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE students study guide/Assessment Summary/Student assignment cover sheet.doc



Part 2: Samples from Online Course Materials

Example 1 - Welcome

WELCOME This course, Nationalism Identity & Human Rights, is part of the International Studies program. The course is being offered both in mixed mode (lectures, seminars and online) and totally online. The Course Information and Study Guide that you find on these pages has been designed to support and assist you in your learning for this course. You will find more detailed information on these pages, links to additional reading (to supplement the material provided in the reader), useful web resources and also the all important online simulation site. It is essential that you familiarise yourself with this online tool as it comprises an assessable component of the course.

The theme of the course this year is: “the international community – inequality and division or an opportunity to bridge the gap”. This theme provides an underlying framework for analysis of the central topics of the course. There are a number of concepts which need to be understood in order to be able to analyse and critically evaluate some of the complex issues which face the international community today.

I hope that you will enjoy the semester, and find this online environment to be an interesting and stimulating one which will bring the concepts being discussed in this course to life!

Dr Katharine Vadura Course Coordinator

Example 2 – Semester Schedule

Semester Schedule Week Week

beginning

Lecture Topic

Seminar Topic

Online Task

Key date

s

1 28 July

Divided World

ONL 1: Introduction to the Scenario


2 4 August

Human Rights

SEM 1: Human rights in theory and reality

3 11 August

SEM 2: Borders, movement and human rights

4 18 August

Global Justice and Sovereignty

ONL 2: Scenario

5 25 August

SEM 3: Global justice institutions, sovereignty and related issues

Ass. 1 Case Study Due: 29/8

6 1 Sept Nationalism ONL 3: Scenario

7 8 Sept SEM 4: From nations and imagined communities to self-determination

8 15 Sept

Identity SEM 5: Understanding belonging and transnationalism

Midsemester break

(2 weeks)

9 6 October

Public Holiday

ONL 4: Scenario Presentation of Position Statements

Ass. 2 Essay Due: 10/10

10 13 Octob

Global SEM 6: International


er Challenges community and global perspectives

11 20 October

ONL 5: Scenario Final Round Table Meeting

12 27 October

SEM 7: Debrief of scenario and final analysis of issues

13 3 Nov

14 10 Nov

Ass. 3 Case Study Due: 14/11

Example 3 – A Divided World (Topic Guide)

Divided World

Lecture Week 1 A divided world? Outline

An overview of the course and the teaching and learning arrangements for the semester. An introduction to the core topics covered in the course, including a link back to the general theme - the international community: inequality and division or an opportunity to bridge the divide.

As mentioned in the lecture a couple of additional articles can be found below under ‘Resources’. Click on the article title to open the pdf file and access a full text version of the article. The first article (Bob, 2002) looks at what makes particular causes against injustice get more support than others. The second article (Hoffmann, 2002) questions the different impact that globalisation has had on international relations.


Concepts Review the following concepts to make sure that you understand what they mean:

Nationalism International community Global governance

Human rights Security Border politics

Identity Conflict

Online Task 1 Online in week 1 & 2.

An introduction to the online learning environment including an introduction to the scenario and role play. This will require you to complete a quick online quiz to make sure that all the expectations and framework of the simulation are clear. Also take the time to meet the other members of your country team online for the simulation (you will receive an email telling you which country you have been assigned to). As background read the piece on the Kurds which you will find in your Reader. Also make sure you are familiar with the scenario and developments and crises as they unfold.

Go to the online scenario and role play. [click on the folder Scenario and Role Play in the left frame]

Resources Reading (from the Reader) Divided World Youngs, G, “International Relations as we Enter the Twenty-first Century”, in Kofman E &

Youngs G, 2003, Globalization:Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., London, Continuum.

Background reading for Online Scenario & Role Play Kushner T & Knox K, 1999, Refugees in an Age of Genocide, London, Frank Cass. Ch 12 “The Kurds:

A Moment of Humanity in an Era of Restriction”, pp. 335-341, 351-354.

Additional Reading Click on the title of the article to access the pdf full text version.

Bob, C, 2002, “World Morality”, Foreign Policy, March April 2002.

Hoffmann, S, 2002, “Clash of Globalizations”, Foreign Affairs, July August 2002.

Example 4 – Simulation Introduction

An introduction to the online simulation


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/t1 world morality.pdf

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/t2 civil society 2.pdf

Welcome to the scenario and role play exercise for the course Nationalism, Identity & Human Rights. The scenario is based on the following international crisis – A Turkish Protectorate in Kurdistan. As part of the scenario, the international community has been called into action to form an emergency forum to draft a resolution responding to the question: Should international recognition be given to the Turkish Protectorate? As such, 13 countries have been called to the table and asked to present their respective position statements regarding the crisis, with a view to concluding a draft resolution, based on a majority decision, at the end of the crisis talks. Groups of students will be allocated to each of the 13 countries and in taking on the role of representative head of state, report back to the wider community (check your student email to see which country you have been assigned to).

The web site is structured in the following way:

Instructions – this folder contains essential information about the objectives of the scenario and role play, the outcomes and the tasks (assessment item) you will be expected to complete. A short quiz is also located here to help you review some of the fundamental aspects of the simulation design.

Scenario – here you will find a brief overview of the background to the scenario. It is recommended that you check this site to see if any developments have taken place that you will need to take into consideration when drafting you position statement (note: these will also be posted on the open discussion located in the Discussion Forum folder).

Country Profiles – one this page you will find a brief summary of your country information with some additional web links to help you get started in researching your country’s reaction to the crisis.

Discussion Forums – these discussion forums provide secure areas where members of a particular country group can meet to discuss tactics and share information (you will only have access to the discussion for the country to which you have been assigned). Also you can use this site to draft your position statements, and to discuss strategy for the final forum to negotiate a draft resolution. A general / open discussion forum is also located here – this is where you can talk with other country representatives, and watch out for any surprise developments.

Position Statements – as part of the simulation exercise you will be required to produce a position statement from you country’s perspective, this is where you post this statement.

Draft Resolution – this site will only become active once all the position statements have been reviewed and the moderator will then compile a draft resolution which will be posted here for discussion in week 10 for completion of a collective draft resolution in week 11. A discussion site for negotiations and final voting will be located here.


Resources – additional resources are available here to assist you in completing the tasks.

Example 5 - Objectives

What are we trying to achieve?

This online simulation exercise has been created to link the online tasks with the main topics being covered as part of this course. The scenario itself incorporates elements of ethnic conflict, nationalism, human rights concerns, and the challenge of engaging the international community in negotiation and decision making. Each student has been assigned to one of 13 countries. Check your email to see which country you have been assigned to. You will be required to work in small groups to research the background to your country’s stance on the international crisis - Should international recognition be given to the Turkish Protectorate? The outcome will be the formation of a draft resolution on the above question. The 13 countries will be asked to negotiate and come to a majority agreement on content and form of the draft resolution. The outline of the simulation is as follows:

Week 1 & 2 – online task is to become familiar with the scenario and role play, to meet other members of your country team, and to start work on background research to the international crisis – A Turkish Protectorate in Kurdistan. Week 4 – the online task will be to start working on your country position statement and to react to any unforseen developments in the scenario. Week 6 – the online task will be to continue working on your country position statement and again to react to any unforseen developments in the scenario. Week 9 – you will now be required to post your country position statement. Week 11 – a draft resolution to the crisis has been posted and your country should now react and negotiate to achieving majority agreement on the resolution to be presented to the United Nations.

Example 6 - Communication


Communication

Role play necessitates effective communication.

Discussions with Moderator

The moderator can view the discussion groups, and will intervene as necessary. Should any problems arise, please remember that you can email the moderator at any time. Click here to send an email to the moderator.

Communication within groups To communicate and collaborate within a group (country) a discussion forum has been created. This will allow you to share documents in draft form and determine the way your country will draft its position statement. This area is private to your country and the moderator.

Discussions between groups As these discussions are part of a larger emergency forum set up by the United Nations to deal with the crisis, a general discussion group has also been set up and should be used to meet other country representatives and potentially negotiate shared positions.

Example 7 – Tasks & Assessment

Tasks and Assessment

Online Tasks have been scheduled for all students for the following weeks – 1 (& 2), 4, 6, 9 11. To follow the requirements for each of these tasks go to the relevant section of the online topic guide. These tasks will be regularly updated to correspond to that week in the semester. The objectives for each of these tasks are summarized as follows:

Week 1 & 2 – online task is to become familiar with the scenario and role play, to meet other members of your country team, and to start work on background research to the international crisis – A Turkish Protectorate in Kurdistan. Week 4 – the online task will be to start working on your country position statement and to react to any unforseen developments in the scenario. Week 6 – the online task will be to continue working on your country position statement and again to react to any unforseen developments in the scenario. Week 9 – you will now be required to post your country position statement. Week 11 – a draft resolution to the crisis has been posted and your country should now react and negotiate to achieving majority agreement on the


resolution to be presented to the United Nations.

ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Online Tasks 10%

Seminar & Simulation Participation 15%

Example 8 – Overview (Scenario)

The Scenario (Note that for the purposes of the simulation exercise this scenario is fictitious.)

Background: The scenario is based on the following international crisis – A Turkish Protectorate in Kurdistan. After years of conflict, and taking advantage of the regime change in Iraq, Turkey has decided to send armed forces across the border into neighbouring northern Iraq. With this action Turkey occupied the region which had until then been known as Kurdistan. From the Turkish perspective this move would once and for all end the question of the Kurds potentially being given their own state, and creating further cross border instability. The occupied territory is being referred to as a Turkish Protectorate and negotiations have been commenced by Turkey to have the international community formally recognise this region as a part of the Turkish state. Therefore, the international community has been called into action to form an emergency forum to draft a resolution responding to the question: Should international recognition be given to the Turkish Protectorate? Your task as part of a country delegation will be to negotiate the resolution so that it can be presented to the United Nations for action.

Kurdistan and the Kurds

Since 1970s, the Iraqi Kurds have enjoyed an official autonomous status in a portion of that state called Kurdistan. By the end of 1991, they had become all but independent from Iraq. By 1995, however, the Kurdish government in Arbil was at the verge of political suicide due to the outbreak of factional fighting between various Kurdish


warlords.

Since 1987 the Kurds in Turkey Qby themselves constituting a majority of all Kurds Qhave waged a war of national liberation against Ankara's 70 years of heavy handed suppression of any vestige of the Kurdish identity and its rich and ancient culture. The massive uprising had by 1995 propelled Turkey into a state of civil war. The burgeoning and youthful Kurdish population in Turkey, is now demanding absolute equality with the Turkish component in that state, and failing that, full independence.

Since the end of World War I, Kurdistan has been administered by five sovereign states, with the largest portions of the land being respectively in Turkey (43%) , Iran (31%), Iraq (18%), Syria (6%) and the former Soviet Union (2%).

The Iranian Kurds have lived under that state's jurisdiction since 1514 and the Battle of Chaldiran. The other three quarters of the Kurds lived in the Ottoman Empire from that date until its break-up following WWI. The French Mandate Syria received a piece, and the British incorporated central Kurdistan or the "Mosul Vilayet" and its oil fields at Kirkuk into their recently created Mandate of Iraq. Northern and western Kurdistan were to be given choice of independence by the Treaty of Sevres(August 10, 1920) which dismantled the defunct Ottoman Empire, but instead they were awarded to the newly established Republic of Turkey under the term of the Treaty of Lausanne (June 24, 1923). The Russian/Soviet Kurds had passed into their sphere in the course of the 19th century when territories were ceded by Persia/Iran.

The Kurds remained the only ethnic group in the world with indigenous representatives in three world geopolitical blocs: the Arab World (in Iraq and Syria), NATO (in Turkey), the South Asian-Central Asian bloc (in Iran and Turkmenistan), and until recently the Soviet bloc (in the Caucasus, now Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia). As a matter fact, until the end of the Cold War, Kurds along with the Germans were the only people in the world with their home territories used as a front line of fire by both NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces.

The most important single features of Kurdistan society since the end of medieval times has been its strong tribal organization, with independence or autonomy being the political status of the land. The society's process of developing the next stage of societal convergence-and the creation of a political culture of interest in a pan-Kurdish polity was well under way in Kurdistan when it was decisively aborted with the parcelling out of the country at the end of the First World War. Tribal confederacies thus remain the highest form of social organization, while the political process and the elite remain to large degree tribal. Today, in the absence of a national Kurdish state and government, tribes serve as the highest native source of authority in which people place their allegiance.


Example 9 – A crisis emerges (Scenario)

The Scenario continues:

A crisis emerges …

Kirkuk:

When American and Kurdish forces liberated Kirkuk in northern Iraq recently, there was great rejoicing from some, while others watched in dismay. Over the previous 15 years Saddam Hussein had driven the Kurds out of Kirkuk, effectively giving their homes to Iraqi Arabs in an attempt to stabilise the oil rich region. Now the war is over there is bitter dispute between Iraqi Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen - who all lay claim to the strategic city and its real estate. For 25 years, the Kurds of Iraq had been waiting for this day - the fall of Baghdad and the end of Saddam Hussein. The streets in Erbil, the biggest city in Iraqi Kurdistan, erupted into euphoria.

For the Kurds, the Iraqi war was truly one of liberation. They suffered brutally under Saddam’s regime, and now their dream of real independence is in sight. Since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991, the Americans protected the Kurds with the northern no-fly zone. They built a de facto state called the Kurdish Autonomous Zone with Erbil at its centre. But most Kurds see Kirkuk, just outside the zone, as their true capital. About 100,000 Kurds were expelled from Kirkuk by Saddam Hussein in a savage ethnic cleansing program. They were marched from their homes and forced north into the Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq. Their houses were given to Iraqi Arabs. Sayid has been told that the Arab man who was in his house fled a few days ago. Thousands of other Kurds have jammed the roads to come and share in the dream of a liberated Kirkuk - a place they see as the heart of Iraqi Kurdistan. Most Kurdish families in this street were expelled from their homes.

For nearly 20 years, the Iraqi army used Kirkuk’s ancient citadel to keep a watch on the city. Now the people are coming back to examine a past that has been steeped in 5,000 years of conquest and conflict. Kirkuk is seen as the Jerusalem of northern Iraq, because of the many ethnic groups who lay claim to it. But the reality is that the Kurds are not a majority in Kirkuk any more. While Saddam was forcing Kurds out, he brought in 250,000 Arabs from southern and central Iraq to replace them. Kurds who lived under Saddam’s rule, had no choice but to change their ethnicity from Kurdish to Arab. If Kurds didn’t sign these correction papers, they had no rights to own property, register a business or a marriage.

The Kurdish forces or Peshmerga captured Kirkuk without much of a fight. The Iraqi army fled their posts. But the real conflict is about to start. Saddam kept a tight lid on the community tensions in Kirkuk, but with his regime gone, ethnic hatreds and rivalries have taken over. Many Arabs are wondering if one tyranny has been replaced by


another.

Not only are communities at war with each other, but also against themselves. A Kurdish woman worked as an agent for Saddam’s regime, informing on fellow Kurds. She claims she’s been bashed by Kurdish Peshmerga. The women have brought her here as a collaborator, to be dealt the justice of the streets.

The Americans have come in to secure the city and its vast oilfields, but not to bring order back to this lawless town. Instead, this show of force at the former Ba’ath Party headquarters is largely for Turkey. The Turks have already invaded northern Iraq and would like to take control of Kirkuk themselves. They fear Kurdish self-rule here will ignite similar aspirations among their own 12 million Kurds. The Kurds have obeyed US orders and largely withdrawn their fighters from the city, but politically, it’s a different story. The Kurdish party, the PUK, has appointed a governor of Kirkuk, Rozgar Ali.

The Kurdish administration has filled a power vacuum. They say they are putting together a town council of 24 members to reflect the ethnic diversity of Kirkuk, but it’s a process they’re in charge of.

The biggest prize in Kirkuk is oil, and it’s why the rivalry has been so intense. These oilfields will produce a third of Iraq’s output, so the Americans made it a priority to control them. For the moment, the Kurds are agreeing with their American backers. Publicly, they are saying they will accept Kirkuk as a multi-ethnic city with the oil being used for all Iraqis.

But there is one other ethnic group that claims Kirkuk as its own - the Turkmen. They dominate trade and commerce and claim to be the majority in the city. For historical and ethnic reasons, they claim allegiance to Turkey. What worries the Turkmen is the defacto control their Kurdish rivals now have over the city. The Turkmen, like the Kurds, also suffered under Saddam’s regime.

The Turkmen now feel they are being targeted by the Kurds. Turkmen leaders orchestrated demonstrations to unite the community in calling for Turkey’s protection and direct intervention. And this would inevitably start another and bloodier battle for Kirkuk. The Kurds have always made it clear that if the Turks invade, they will fight them to the death. To avert this nightmare scenario, the Americans have invited in 15 Turkish military observers to show them the Kurdish fighters have left the city. But with many armed Kurds still present, it’s a tenuous truce at best. This is where the senior members of Saddam’s Ba’ath Party resided in Kirkuk, isolated from the people living in luxury.

The Americans have brought in extra recruits to Kirkuk, but they remain outmanned and outmanoeuvred. The Kurds are deepening their control in the city. Meanwhile, the Turkmen are enlarging their own militia and Turkey is giving them the guns. Last week,


the US intercepted a Turkish convoy of arms destined for the Turkmen. Sorting out Kirkuk will be crucial for the Americans, as it will be the key to a lasting peace in northern Iraq, or the reason why deep ethnic hatreds will explode into years of conflict.

Example 10 – France (Country Profiles)

FRANCE Western Europe, bordering the Bay of Biscay and English Channel, between Belgium and Spain, southeast of the UK; bordering the Mediterranean Sea, between Italy and Spain Population : 59,765,983 (July 2002 est.) Government type : Republic Economy: France is in the midst of a gradual transition, from a well-to-do modern economy that has featured extensive government ownership and intervention to one that relies more on market mechanisms. The government has partially or fully privatized many large companies, banks, and insurers, but still retains large stakes in several leading firms, including Air France, France Telecom, and Renault, and remains dominant in some sectors, particularly the power, public transport, and defense industries. The telecommunications sector is gradually being opened to competition. France's leaders remain committed to a capitalism in which they maintain social equity by means of laws, tax policies, and social spending that reduce income disparity and the impact of free markets on public health and welfare. The government has lowered income taxes and introduced measures to boost employment but has done little to reform an overly expensive pension system, rigid labor market, and restrictive bureaucracy which discourage hiring and make the tax burden one of the highest in Europe. In addition to the tax burden, the reduction of the workweek to 35 hours has drawn criticism for lowering the competitiveness of French businesses. The current economic slowdown has thrown the government's goal of balancing the budget by 2004 off track. Disputes – International : Madagascar claims Bassas da India, Europa Island, Glorioso Islands, Juan de Nova Island, and Tromelin Island; Comoros claims Mayotte; Mauritius claims Tromelin Island; territorial dispute between Suriname and French Guiana; territorial claim in Antarctica (Adelie Land); Matthew and Hunter Islands, east of New Caledonia, claimed by France and Vanuatu

Web Links: Worldwide Governments on the WWW – France http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/fr.html International Security (country links) - http://www.isn.ethz.ch/linkslib/index.cfm?service=linkslib&Parent=258 BBC country profiles – France http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/998481.stm Nationmaster – http://www.nationmaster.com


http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/fr.html

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/linkslib/index.cfm?service=linkslib&Parent=258

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/998481.stm

http://www.nationmaster.com/

Example 11 - About the Kurds (Resources)

The Kurds

The following articles will provide you with some further background to the Kurdish issue and also touch on some of the issues and debates in relation to this ethnic minority. You should use these resources together with the ones provided on the ‘Kurdistan’ country web page. T Judah, 2002, “In Iraqi Kurdistan”, Survival, vol. 44, no. 4. M Saatci, 2002, “Nation states and ethnic boundaries: modern Turkish identity and Turkish-Kurdish conflict”, Nations and Nationalism, vol 8, no 4. Carole O’Leary, 2002, “The Kurds of Iraq: Recent History, Future Prospects”, Middle East Review of International Affairs, vol 6, no 4.

Example 12 – Web Links (Resources) WEB LINKS The following web links might be useful for preparing for tutorials and also when researching for your assignments. Worldwide Governments on the WWW A gateway to government resources from around the world.

Nationmaster.com An interesting ‘fact’ site containing information and statistical data about countries around the world. http://www.nationmaster.com BBC news A link to up to date international news and current affairs features. http://news.bbc.co.uk/ Human Rights Library Univ. Of Minnesota Useful collection of human rights resources. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/links.htm International Affairs The Virtual Library International Affairs resource.

http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/world.html


http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/resources/13193/Course Information and Study Guide 2003/PDF articles/Kurds 3.pdf




http://www.nationmaster.com/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/links.htm

http://www.etown.edu/vl/ Example 13 – Welcome (external online students guide)

WELCOME As an online student you have been given access to this special section of the online course information and study guide. This is where you will find the folder containing the interactive seminars, one for each of the following topics: a divided world; human rights; global justice and sovereignty; nationalism; identity; and global challenges. Also there is a discussion site open only to online students – please use this to informally ask questions and comment on issues raised by the seminars. This is in addition to the Notice Board Q & A site, open to all students, on the main site.

As an online student you should be participating in the following aspects of the course:

• • Interactive seminars

• • Constructing your own reflective journal

• • Discussion list

• • Readings from the Reader and the additional articles listed in the topic guide

• • Scenario and Role Play “A Turkish Protectorate in Kurdistan”

• • Complete the assessment tasks (see Assessment Summary)

Please make sure you have a copy of the Reader and also the Course Outline and Study Guide Booklet, and that you are able to navigate around the course homepage.

I hope that you enjoy the semester.

Dr Katharine Vadura Course Coordinator


http://www.etown.edu/vl/

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learn/UniSAnet-3/?PATH=/Resources/13193-E/ONLINE+students+study+guide/&default=Interactive+Seminars/A+Divided+World.htm


Example 14 – A divided world (interactive seminar) TOPIC 1: A Divided World? The way in which we look at the world has changed and continues to do so. The issues that are perceived to be more important today are seemingly global in character. The buzz word of globalisation (understood in so many different ways) has been joined by ‘international community’, ‘terrorism’ and the like on the global agenda.

What does this mean for international relations – the first reading challenges us to question what we understand by ‘international relations’ and what impact globalisation has had on international relations,

h

YtIcmt

Mp

i

Intercu

Read the first reading in the Reader: Youngs, G, “International Relations as we Enter the Twenty-first Century”, in Kofman E & Youngs G, 2003, Globalization:Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., London, Continuum.

As you read this piece reflect on the following points:

• Is it relevant to talk about the global rather than the national context?

• What is meant by a process approach to world affairs, “realities in motion”?

• Does globalisation present a more dynamic approach to analysing relations beyond just simply looking at states?

ow we as individuals and communities see our place in the world.

oungs (2003) goes on to look at two main points in relation to these questions: power & inequality; and echnology & social change. n relation to power and inequality it becomes evident that there have been a number of changes over the ourse of world history. In particular when you think about what it is that makes states powerful – military ight, economic power, and so on. Also this has raised a number of questions about the new world order at

he end of the century.

any eace’creasn

ltural te

To read further about this look at the work of Francis Fukuyama who at the end of the Cold War wrote a piece called “The End of History”. Along similar lines it is quite interesting to follow the debate relating to Samuel P Huntington’s work on the Clash of Civilizations.

people are quite critical of what they perceive to be the unfulfilled promises of ‘equality, justice and , in the context of global economic development. The role of the state in relation to these points is also ingly questioned.

aching & learning resource project – July 2004 183

•

The oIncretranstechn

over

nd d

naturIn thiwayspoweconns It is fa

MoviMy rmounthe ra

•

Intercultural

Reflect on the following points in the context of power and inequality:

Why is security of central concern to states?

Why have different understandings of identity emerged, moving away from national identity to a more global approach?

ther area where globalisation has clearly had a significant impact is in technology and social changeasingly technology is providing both individuals, corporations and the state with the means to cend borders and boundaries. The nature of security issues might have changed somewhat as ological expertise has moved forward. However

.

, the social impact, particularly of the Internet and the

of nd new identities – cutting across borders and boundaries, and importantly across state

eignty.

course has emerged: the international community – inequality ivision or an opportunity to bridge the divide.

e of information continues to challenge us also. s era of globalisation states are operating in a more integrated environment. Societies are in many increasingly divided or separated by national territorial lines. The divisions that exist today lead to r struggles, increased conflict and threats, while technology adds to this with an additional layer

ections a

rom this idea that the theme for this year’s

At this point I suggest that you familiarise yourself with thcourse outline and the structur

e e of the course, in particular

ule (your guide to

d into 6 topic areas:

and global justice

ism

s. on’t actually get an opportunity to meet face to face

this discussion forum will become our virtual meeting

the Assessment and the Semester Schedwhere and when we do what). The course is divide

1. a divided world

2. human rights

3. sovereignty

4. national

5. identity

6. global challenges

If you have any questions about the structure or expectations of the course don’t forget to use the notice board which has been set up especially for online studentAs we d

world.

ll,

ng on let’s now look at the first topic again – A Divided World? eason for starting here is a simple one. It would seem that these days we are confronted with tains of information, images and also opinions about so many different things it’s hard to list tem ange is diverse from the international / global to the national and even local. What to do with all this

teaching & learning resource project – July 2004 184

information, what are the answers to what often seem like an insurmountable number of problems and complex issues. Well my hope is that this semester through the guided seminars and through the online

aybe gain some extra insights and alternative perspectives on a number of issues.

ower at the d of the century, it seems likely that, as in the past, the world will, over the next few decades, continue to be

haracterized by progress for a minority and barbarism for the overwhelming majority.” (Ponting, 1999)

univeintern

expen

simulation exercise we will m

So – why a divided world? Recently while reading through some history books I came across the following quote. The writer was reflecting on the state of the world and his conclusion struck me as rather a provocative one …

“Given the way the world evolved in the twentieth century and the distribution of economic and political penc

One o(2002)qualit

•

•

of ‘injenormBob (2typica

•

The d

•

hope storie

Intercultural t

suffering from “compassion fatigue”?

Take a moment to reflect on this quote. In thinking about

ivide in the world and tates

Do we still get outraged by global injustices or are we

it in connection with globalisation, international relations and the state –

Should we be concerned about the dsociety between the rich and the poor (both between sand on an individual level as well)?

he cause. The global limelight can often distaut the core principles of a cause, the sheer number

e western backers needs and expectations. The result is that a cause often ‘simplifies and

rsalises its claims’, and the focus moves to globalisation as the enemy and a leader who becomes an

f the interesting articles posted under Topic 1 is called “Merchants of Morality”. In this article Bob questions what draws our attention to a particular cause – the most deserving injustice or the ‘star y’ of tustices’ around the globe clamouring for the hearts and minds of those who can make a difference is ous. 002) expresses his concern that playing the NGO game means conforming to a set of rules. This ruleslly fit with th

ational icon.
As you thought about your responses to the previous
questions what captured your imagination? What for yourepresents the ‘star quality’ of

two

a cause that captures your imagination? Is it the marketing, how the injustice is

me recent causes that have captured your ? The person?

The injustice?

pitched, the Internet, the CNN effect, the role played by the NGO in promoting the cause?

Think about soimagination? What grabbed your attention

What is the role of a ‘global civil society’?

society and asks whether this forum holds any ut the

sive and often out of reach of impoverished locals.

iscussion then moves on to the notion of a global civilfor the people on the ‘have not’ side of the human equation. The media is still quite selective abos it chooses to run – conflicts need to be relevant, important or have high death tolls, technology is

eaching & learning resource project – July 2004 185

What role does the international community play in all of this? Is it not perhaps better to have suchcommunity focussed on trying to bring an end to injustice, to establish eq

a uality, to bridge the gap. The

too far removed. In ome instances the answers seem obvious “why don’t they just do this or that”…, when in the middle of a

conflict zone or one of those international hot spots things can look a little different.

) he looks at the new world order. This article presents that globalisation has had on the international community.

• ome instances

•

•

•

to particular sets of rights.

t is left of their power and sovereignty. It seems impossible to predict the future – but we can develop a

In the next topic we will continue our journey by taking a more detailed look at Human Rights in theory and practic

counter argument to this would be that states are simply not willing to relinquish enough of their sovereignty to establish such a responsible international community. Here we also come back to the all important notion of perspective – does it all depend on where you / we are ‘sitting’ at the time. From our perspective here in Adelaide a lot of things just seems

In Hoffmann’s article Clash of Globalizations (2002

some interesting insights into different impacts Hoffmann (2002) sees the following challenges:

• States – conflicts and tensions between states

Sovereignty – challenged and eroded in s

Development – economically free trade has enhanced the divide between the rich and the poor

Power – how do we define power today

Institutions – should international institutions have more power, at the expense of state sovereignty (here we need to think about the role of the United Nations, and notions of global governance)

Internally states often face threats from communities questioning their accessThe questions which arise from this article will be dealt with in some of the subsequent topics of the course, particularly when we start to look more closely at nationalism and identity. It would appear that the more events transcend state boundaries, the more tightly states seem to hang on to whabetter understanding of what is happening and sift through the different perspectives that are presented to us.

Intercultural t 186

e.

•

•

•

•

eaching & learning resource project – July 2004

ONLINE TASKS

to meet other members of you country group.

Start yo rhints you m

e a

2. points in your own

mind you might want to write down a few points or annotate your readings.

Visit the discussion site and introduce yourself to the rest of the group.

Familiarise yourself with the online simulation, and take the opportunity

Post course related questions or comments related to Topic 1on the site.

ur eflective journal. The following are some helpful ight want to make use of:

1. look at the concepts listed for the topic and writbrief definition for each one

review the questions in the points of reflection boxes above, to clarify these

responsibility, in a globalised world to bring about some sort of change, to bridge the divide between peoples?

So does this mean that the international community has a

Example 15 – Human rights (interactive seminar) TOPIC 2: Human Rights An introduction to the world of human rights …. Or how to advance human rights in the face of deterritorialization. As we have seen the division between the rich and the poor, those who are advantaged as opposed to those who are disadvantaged continues to exist. Some would even say that the divide is growing. Quotes like “the world of international relations is still as chaotic and competitive as it was before 1948; only it has become more hypocritical”, and “… progress for a minority and barbarism for the overwhelming majority”. (Ponting, 1999) If these statements are true then it would hold that human rights should be of paramount concern to us, in our current international and domestic political and social context. In this seminar I would like to pay particular attention to three issues:

1) what are human rights? 2) are human rights universal? 3) can we create a hierarchy of rights?

I would then like to explore these issues in the context of firstly minority rights by looking briefly at the Kurdish question (this should help to clarify some of the background for the scenario and role play), and secondly by looking at the question of the movement of people across borders and the notion of forced migration. What are human rights? I would like to think about this question in the context of the role of the state and the larger international or global community. From the O’Bryne reading we can conclude a number of things about the source and nature of human rights. Two interesting points that emerge about human rights are that these rights are given to us by some universal feature of humanity – this would be looking from a global perspective; and that they are rights given to us by virtue of being members of a particular state – this would be looking from a state perspective. As an aside, when looking at the notion of citizenship, a state construction and form of acknowledging membership, citizenship is said to provide people with the ‘right to have rights’. This in human rights terms leads to the situation where states themselves have a responsibility to incorporate human rights into their legal framework. Often in the real world we see that states have the perception that human rights are binding on others – and are reluctant to look at their domestic situation through a human rights lense. In summary though, we could say that human rights reflect a universal respect for human dignity.


In the reatakes a u

1) ci2) in3) co

hu If we lookabout then many si

The discuthose peolimited. T

Intercultural

In starting to think about human rights, and what they are or mean it is often a good idea to pull the term apart, to deconstruct the meaning. Start by setting up two columns, one with the heading human and the other with the heading rights. • What does the word human mean to you? • Are we all equal? • Do we have the same human qualities? • What does the human dignity refer to? • What are rights? • Who should be responsible for establishing the rights in

our societies? From these questions are you able to develop a sense of what human rights relate to and mean?

ding (O’Byrne, p. 32) he talks about looking at rights from a Kantian perspective. This view f rights: niversal stand in relation to rights. It sets up a structure of three levels o

ghts’) vil rights: the individual within the nation state (the ‘right to have riternational rights: between states, states dealing with each other smopolitan rights: individuals and states existing interdependently in a universal state of man kind.

at the reality of the situation in relation to human rights it becomes quite important to think connections between the state and the individual and also the role of the state. For example, ituations the state can be both a protector and violator of human rights.

In looking at the case of the Kurds a number of points are

• n was debated internationally at the end of World

• –

ture allow

• t

happen with the Kurds? Has it

theings posted in the resources section of the

scenario site.

raised in relation to the question of minority rights: Why were the Kurds never granted their own state? (the questioWar 1) If a minority is granted statehood what will happen to the former majority population (as in from the original state in the case of northern Iraq the Iraqi population) as the majority would become a minority overnight? Would thisnew minority be treated well? Does human napeople to forgive and forget past repression? Human rights and nationalism often come into conflicwhen the state places particular groups ahead of all individuals. Would this happened in the past?

To help with some of these questions visit the scenario site and review the country profile for Kurdistan and look over additional read

ssion about rights is an interesting one because it raises the question of what happens tple or individuals who do not have membership within a state or whose membership is

o

wo groups come to mine – ethnic minorities and refugees (more about this group later).

teaching & learning resource project – July 2004 188

These are areas where some challenges are posed to our understanding of human rights and the question of which rights, for whom and in what situations. Are human rights universal? One of the debates surrounding human rights is whether or not they are universal. As highlighted in O’Byrne the division covers a wide spectrum of perspectives and there would appear to be many shades of grey. From a universalist point of view the issue is clear – if human rights exist then they belong to all of us: “we should have human rights not because we are human, but to make us human.” (Booth in O’Byrne, p. 41) The relativists would argue that there is a problem with cultural difference, saying that human rights reflect a western bias and focus on the rights of the individual. The ‘universality’ of human rights often is more about the nature of their implementation and this is where some people would argue that we need to be careful about western cultural hegemony. But at the same time this is different from the fundamental respect for dignity inherent in all human beings. Universality it can be argued doesn’t preclude a respect for other cultures. There are many cultures which have religious or ethical guidelines for upholding human dignity. Human rights law has been extended to include collective or community rights. For example indigenous groups were able to have their rights protected in laws drawn up in the 1970s. These groups were concerned that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not take into account the rights of people who wanted to preserve their traditional way of life. Other ethnic / minority groups have also been concerned about a fear for the identity of their own culture.

Human rights

nd theoretic

• Do• Lo

thehu

• Whun

a

ierarchy oH In thinking abcomes into plabout which ra number of aGaltung (199

eam ning that• survival –• well being• identity – freedom –•

Intercultural teach

you thing human rights should be universal? ok through the articles by Franck and Ignatieff – are re any points which would support the universality of

man rights? at points do the relativists make to argue against the

iversality of human rights?

need to be looked at from a range of perspectives which acknowledge certain biases al orientations, as well as an important historical context which applies across cultures.

f Rights

out human rights the question of which rights, if any, should be accepted unconditionally ay. This is rationalised by referring to a ‘hierarchy of rights’. In many ways the question ights should be viewed as “incontrovertible” is subject to even more questions and raises dditional issues. (O’Byrne, p.46)

4) has argued that the foundation for human rights should be based on ‘basic needs’, ld exist to serve basic human needs: human rights shou

to avoid violence – to avoid misery to avoid alienation to avoid repression

ing & learning resource project – July 2004 189

In thinhe ro

t

eveD It is pothe naand selaw raof howcitizenautho

eclaD

HumaNationeconoThe U• Ri• Ri• Fr• Fa• Fr• Ri• Ri• Ri• RiFor fu

• wa

Some• the

the

Intercult

If you had to choose what would be the basic fundamentalright that would provide the foundation for all other human rights? • security, freedom, dignity, happiness, citizenship, life,

basic needs ???

king about the hierarchy of needs it raises the need for further debate about human rights and le of the state, particularly when we look at the issue of power and enforcement.

lopment of human rights law

ssible to look at the development of human rights law from two perspectives. Firstly, the level of tion state (west) where the claims to rights have been placed under the heading of citizenship, condly the level of international legal and political relations. The development of human rights

ises the question in world politics where the state is seen as central and sovereignty is supreme, do we bring human rights to the fore? The sate provides security and is the protector of its s on the one hand, whilst on the other international developments have started to undermine the

rity of the state. In this context it is useful to look at the United Nations and the Universal ration of Human Rights. (For further information visit the UN Resource Guide for Human Rights.)

Some useful background to human rights law is provided the article by Robinson (1998) available

in

nts of the Universal online. Read the

article and reflect on the conteDeclaration of Human Rights (click here). Additional links to sources of information about human ritreaties and declaratio

ghts ns visit the Human Rights Library

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/hrlinks.html(Univ. of Minnesota) -

n rights regulations throughout history were not formerly established until after 1945. The United s Charter established recognition for a number of sets of human rights – civil and political, mic, social and cultural. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into being in 1948.

n Rights recognised the need to protect a number of rights:

thought and religion, opinion and expression

ment and residence

niversal Declaration of Humaght to freedom and equality ght to life, liberty and security eedom ofir trial eedom of moveght to asylum ght to a nationality ght to own property ght to work, standard of living, education rther information about the International Bill of Human Rights click here.

citizens, therefore there s no legal duty on states to comply with the human rights standards

interesting points to think about: UN Charter was the first treaty to push human rights to the level of a global concern Charter existed to promote human rights not guarantee them for all

ural teaching & learning resource project – July 2004 190

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/spechr.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/spechr.htm

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs2.htm

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/hrlinks.html

• the major powers were opposed to including a bill of rights in the Charter: “no great power was prepared in 1945 to be bound by international law in respect to the treatment of its own subjects”. (Robertson, 1999, Crimes Against Humanity, p.25)

• in relation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no state has ever been prepared to boast of its breach

To this end Kofi Annan has raised an interesting point: “It was never the people who complained of the universality of human rights, nor did the people consider human rights as a Western or Northern imposition. It was often their leaders who did so.” Let’s now look at this point in relation to the issue of forced migration and refugees.

The reasons why people choose to move are varied: growing inequalities, war & conflict, environmental disaster, family reunification, joining diaspora, better economic prospects. Migration itself is often looked at from the perspective of ‘push-pull’ factors - geographic proximity; economic disparities; differences in standard of living; information; historic political change; diasporas; environment; forced - refugee, smuggling and trafficking. Castles (2003) presents a useful analysis of forced migration (available online). From a human rights perspective it is interesting to look at the issue of refugees and to think about the role of the state, what level of responsibility do states in the international community have towards refugees, and should the wealthier states share more of the burden when it comes to dealing with refugees and forced migrants.


The moral dimension associated with human rights remains significant and loudly championed by NGOs, but states seem to have a different view with issues of security being advocated ahead of human rights.

•

•

•

Intercu

ONLINE TASKS

Continue work on your reflective journal. The following are some helpful hints you might want to make use of:

3. look at the concepts listed for the topic and write a brief definition for each one

4. review the questions in the points of reflection boxes above, to clarify these points in your own mind you might want to write down a few points or annotate your readings.

5. look at the discussion questions listed under the seminar topic in the topic guide.

Post course related questions or comments related to Topic 2 on the site.

Don’t forget to continue to work on the online scenario, there will be another development in the Kurdish crisis as part of Online Task 2 next week. Keep talking in your country forums and start to work on a strategy and think about how you will vote.

Visit the link to the Rights of the Refugee site and have a look through the points that are raised. http://www.hrea.org/learn/tutorials/refugees/index.html • How do states deal with forced migration? • Is the Refugee Convention a document in need of

revision? • Another source of information looking at the issue of

refugees and forced migration from a human rights perspective comes from the UN High Commission for Refugees - http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

ltural teaching & learning resource project – July 2004 192

http://www.hrea.org/learn/tutorials/refugees/index.html

http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

Part 3: Samples of students’ reflective journals from interactive seminars Online discussion and Reflective journal – while working through the interactive seminars students were asked to complete a reflective journal, at the end of each interactive seminar students were given a list of ‘tasks’ these included participating in the online discussion in relation to the topic of the particular seminar. Example of students reflective journal entry for interactive seminars 1 and 2 (see Examples 14 (Divided World) and 15 (Human Rights) in ‘Learning Materials’ file). STUDENT 1

Topic 1 : A DIVIDED WORLD Why is security of central concern to states ? If states have high security measures they are stronger to an external threat. If states unite themselves with other states (i.e. the balance of power comes into play) then united states are generally stronger and harder to penetrate than smaller states. States with weak security measures in place and highly vulnerable to invasion and being commandeered by larger states. This puts at threat their culture, territory and sometimes the citizen’s lives. Therefore, states spend billions of their GDP on security to ensure that their state is protected from invasion. This can include military spending, immigration, quarantine and customs, all which pose as an external threat if not monitored. Why have different understandings of identity emerged, moving away from national identity and towards a more global approach? Most likely due to globalisation. People of particular cultures have moved to other states and nations and discover the difficulty in defining who they are. A more global approach seeks to recognise minority groups which have immigrated to other countries and take on aspects of other cultures whilst maintaining elements of their original origin. Should we be concerned about the growing division between the rich and the poor in the world (at a state and individual level?) We should all be concerned about poverty, as it is an unjust way for people to live their lives. States engorged by poverty should be a concern to other states, if not for the fact that it is inhumane, but also for international peace and security. Generally impoverished countries are also quite unstable and can pose as a threat to the global community. The felt sense of injustice by those who are living in appalling conditions may lead to discrimination, terrorism and war. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was compiled in order to set down basic standards to prevent such a massive division, but many states continue to violate their citizens rights, or cannot afford to provide for the citizens of the state. On an individual level, we should all be concerned about the appalling conditions that our fellow humans barely survive in. A violation of human rights or even the suffering of one human is felt around the world and our actions should reflect this by doing what


we can on a personal level to assist those in need. The equality of people does not necessarily mean depriving the rich of what they have become accustomed, but ensuring that all humans have sufficient goods to survive, access to medicine and aid where necessary. Do we still get outraged by global injustices or are we suffering from ‘compassion fatigue’? Personally, I am still outraged by global injustices, but at the same time many people tire of hearing about the appalling conditions in Indonesia, despite the closeness of the state and the impact these conditions have on Australia. Many believe that the conditions of other states should not be of concern to them, as they do not directly affect them in their every day lives, however, I take a more humane approach and feel that any human injustice is of concern to all. Just because people are born into different countries, it does not mean that their rights and freedoms should become irrelevant. I believe that an inconsiderate attitude for other humans is appalling and reflects the selfish nature of man. Recent causes that have captured my imagination. What grabbed my attention? The person or the injustice? Child soldiers in Sierra Leon has come to my attention recently because of the outrageous nature of the injustices against the most innocent of the state- children. Many children were captured and forced into either side of the Sierra Leone Civil War. These children, as young as 6 or 7, are forced to kill others or face being killed themselves. It was both the nature of the injustice and the image of a 5 year old Sierra Leone child holding a rifle that captured my attention- the image certainly heightened my feelings in the situation. What is the role of a ‘global civil society’? In this case, the role of global society should have been to put an end to the war when it started, however international aid was the main source of global assistance. Rehabilitating former child soldiers after the war and integrating them back into society was the main role of international society. Does the international community have a responsibility in a globalised world to bring about some sort of change to bridge the divide between people? In my opinion, they have the duty to do so with international aid which is guaranteed to go directly to the cause (not corrupt governments of impoverished countries). The global community should be concerned about all humans and attempt to bridge any divide of injustice between societies. They should attempt to create equality in the world to avoid conflict and international instability caused by poverty stricken states- it is in their best interest.

Topic 2: HUMAN RIGHTS


1. what are human rights Universal- ie they belong to everyone with no exceptions Incontrovertible- they are innate and absolute Subjective- belong to the person whom they concern

They are universal values which are received at birth. They include the right to life liberty and the security of person. What are humans and what defines them? I would define humans as living beings, people or as men, women and children collectively. I believe that we are all born equal in a sense, but where we are born and to whom is not. Everyone is born with the same potential, but their geographical location, guardians and upbringing is what comes to define them later in life. We do not all have the same human qualities and our upbringing and country can assist in defining these qualities. For example- people born in Australia have different physical qualities to those born in China. Australian’s have paler skin and sometimes light hair, while generally those born in China have a dark complexion and dark hair. In terms of personality traits, being brought up in a war-torn environment could make someone bitter and grudging against the western world, but being brought up in a safe and loving family could give someone an affectionate and caring personality. What is Human Dignity? Human dignity, in my opinion, refers to the ego and the maintenance of it. Anything undignified would be damaging to the ego. However, dignity also refers to self-respect, poise and pride. Living without dignity can be damaging to the sense of self, as one must respect themselves in order to feel worthy. I think the ego is also a boundary in the sense that defines a person and tells them when they are being treated unjustly. In my opinion, rights are privileges or freedoms granted to people either by nature (ie. at birth) or by government statutory law. I believe that a global meeting should decide basic human rights and individual states should be responsible for the creation and implementation of citizen rights, which do not contradict human rights. THE CASE STUDY Looking at the case study, it becomes a dilemma- why were the Kurds never granted their own state? In 1991 the Kurds were practically granted statehood in the north of Iraq, but in 1995 the ruling government were furiously fighting amongst themselves due to disagreements about the various Kurdish warlords. I assume that due to the instability of the region, the Iraqui government intervened and the Kurds never gained statehood. If the Kurds were granted statehood, I think they would come to form the majority of northern Iraq. I think they would be bitter and angry that such statehood was not granted earlier and therefore, Iraquis living in the region would face discrimination as more Kurds migrated to the region. I believe conflict would escalate in the region, as the past government of the area proved- if a ruling body cannot exist harmoniously, how can its people place their faith in such a government and live in peace? I also believe that the Kurds bitterness towards Iraquis would remain an issue, as human nature doesn’t


allow us to merely forget decades of oppression- the new minority (Iraquis) would suffer the consequences of the actions of their ancestors. In relation to the seminar statement “human rights and nationalism often come into conflict when the state places particular groups ahead of all individuals” I don’t think this would be the case if the Kurds were granted their own state on Iraqi territory. I believe that the Kurds would be happy if they were granted statehood, as they would be able to form a Kurdish government and a higher rule than tribal leaders and many Kurds would migrate to the region to rediscover their culture and identity. The government would not be placing the Kurds first, but providing a region for them to live together and feel a sense of statehood. Therefore, they would become the majority and the decisions made would be for the good of the Kurds- ie the states majority.

2. Are Human Rights Universal? I believe that in theory, human rights are universal because they are granted to each human by birth, however there are many states that violate the most basic of all these rights. According to O’Brien, this is the primary and yet most contested notion of human rights. I believe that human rights should be universal, as they are essential conditions for living and form a basis for a harmonious world. The violation of these rights can result in discrimination, terrorism and even war and therefore, they should be universal. Relativists argue that human rights are only universal in certain situations- for example, you would not need rights if you lived alone. Rights and rules are introduced for the benefit of others so co-operation is possible. This is true, as one does not need standards to co-operate with themselves, however, in all other situations, human rights are essential especially when the violation of them leads to such devastating situations, such as in Sierra Leone.

3. Hierarchy of Rights I believe that if one fundamental right was to prevail, it should be the right to life, as without this right, happiness, freedom, dignity, citizenship and basic needs would be useless. The right to life would provide a basis for other essential rights such as the right to security, food and shelter. This being the most basic of all rights, it would also be essential for humans to live without persecution and in conditions which provide the tools for living such as food, water and shelter. Online Task: After reading the introduction to the role playing scenario, I have decided that, being of the state of Turkey, our group should take the stance that the Turkish Protectorate should be give international recognition. If not for the satisfaction of some of the people inhabiting our country, then for the fact that their current territorial claims do not coincide with the boarders of Turkey. Case Study: Writing my case study about child soldiers in Sierra Leone has really opened up my eyes as to the abuse of children’s rights in Afric today. Originally I thought that child soldiers


would be a topic from the past, however, reading about the recent civil war and accounts of what the children endured has made me realise exactly what is going on in the world today. Learning that around half their army is comprised of children is an appalling fact and public awareness should be raised to these issues. The appalling treatment of the children- some made the kill their own parents before being taken into training for the armies, while most are doped up on so many fear inhibiting drugs when they go into battle, they are fairly unaware of how many people they have killed. STUDENT 2 Topic 1 – A Divided world

• Nationalism: Strong feelings of belonging to a national group based on language,

culture, traditions, appearance, ethnicity etc

• Human Rights: rights which reflect a universal respect for human dignity. These

are stipulated in the Declaration of Human Rights of 1948

• Identity: Feeling of which social/ethnic groups one belongs to

• Security: To be safe from harm. In realists’ view, a matter of states being secure

from external threats (military security). In recent years, many emphasize human

security, environmental security etc

• Global governance: The techniques, institutions, rules, norms, and legal

arrangements used to manage relations between states and to facilitate

cooperation across various issues.

I re-read End of History and Clash of Civilizations when doing this topic. I am extremely

fascinated by both essays. I think Huntington’s view is quite scary – that Islam should

clash with the West. It is however interesting that he wrote this is 1993 – it has really

gained new momentum after September 11. Fukuyama’s thesis is a bit confusing at

times. He says that the liberal democracy has won, and that in general the whole world

will be moving towards this form of government and society structure.

I am not sure if he is right. I mean, for us liberal democracy is probably the best – but it

may be impossible to make it work properly in societies where for instance there is

strong tribal connections, or in a number of Asian societies where people usually agree

with the leader out of politeness and respect for authorities. It is hard to make


democracy work under such circumstances. Also, I am still in Guatemala and it becomes

more and more clear to me that democracy is 100% dependent on education in order to

make it work. Today, I visited a village and through interpreter talked to some of the

people there. There is an election here in November, and the village was full of cars with

people handing out stickers, balloons etc. My teacher told me that most of the people in

the village cannot read, and they don’t have TV or radio. People come to these villages

in nice cars, and hand out little things like stickers, t-shirts etc, and people promise to

vote for them as a thank you-gesture. Afterwards, even if they understand that the

candidate is not a good one, they feel obliged to do as they promised. Until they can

read and write and inform themselves, this is not a democracy!

I have done some reading on security as well. Security has been the central concern for

all sovereign states since forever – to protect citizens from external invasion. After the

Peace of Westphalia in 1648, sovereign states were created so that the borders

between them became clearer and it became institutionalized that they should not

invade one another. I think a state can be insecure in a number of ways. It can be

insecure from external threats (which is what realists generally see as insecure),

become invaded and possibly annexed into another state. Or they can be insecure from

internal threats

[online discussion postings]

From: Date: 06.08.2003

Time: 04:19:34

Re: injustice

Hi Angelika (and others), I think you brought up a really interesting issue – we

are so influenced by the media presentation of issues! Studying journalism, I

examined the Western coverage of the war in Iraq last semester, and it was

amazing that in the thousands of articles about the war, one single picture

grabbed the readers’ attention more than all the numbers, quotes and statistics


combined. The picture of 12-year-old Ali, who lost his arms and his whole family

in bomb explosion caused a public outcry in Britain and other countries, rallied

support from Hollywood stars as well as celebrity doctors – even British PM

Tony Blair had to publicly express his regret for Ali’s fate.

What this illustrates, I think, is that we all identify much easier with people than

with numbers or statistics. And of course, even though we read about the

numbers of people killed in war or of famine, it is extremely difficult for us to

imagine their reality until we see the picture of a suffering child or read an article

about his of her life. I agree with Sonja that it is important how news are

presented – and sadly, editors often use personal stories as a tool to influence the

readers. As she mentioned, personal suffering of Iraqi civilians were largely

absent from Australian and American mainstream media, as it would cause too

much support for the civilians. For instance, a Advertiser/News Limited reporter

covering the market place bomb in Baghdad only mentioned briefly that nine

people died, and focused his article on the ‘angry mobs’ that had gathered to

‘claim revenge’ against Western soldiers. After reading this article, it would be

very easy to think that the Iraqi civilians in general were quite bloodthirsty

people, and not feel very sorry for those who died. In comparison, a Norwegian

paper covered the same event, but this reporter chose to focus on a grandfather

who was crying over the dead body of his grandson. It was extremely emotional,

and I think everybody who read it felt sorry for the Iraqis.

This also touches on another issue – certain groups of people are seen as

‘agressors’ and therefore ‘undeserving’ by the Western media, which causes their

suffering not to be mentioned very often. Examples include Afghans under the

Taliban and Iraqis under Saddam (civilians here were not really focused on until

America was rallying for support against Saddam and Taliban, and human

rights abuses became important arguments). If any of you are interested, there is

an interesting article about this at http://www.mediaaction.org/inter-law.html


http://www.mediaaction.org/inter-law.html

(second article in top box). It is called ‘The Undeserving Victim’ and is written by

Fiona Fox.

From: Date: 06.08.2003

Time: 04:51:17

Lack of perspective

Just wanted to comment on the qoute in the seminar, whether or not we should

be concerned with the injustices in the world and why many people are not.

The gap between the ‘haves’ and have nots’ in the world is just emormous, and is

still growing. For instance, one fifth of the world’s population has almost 90 per

cent of the world’s wealth, while the bottom fifth has less than 1 per cent. Living

in Australia, we belong in the upper fifth, and yes, we obviously should be

concerned about these differences. But in the real world, many people are not –

many people don’t even know.

It is hard to say exactly why, but in my opinon, the major problem is not that we

are suffering from ‘compassion fatigue’ (the starving children in Africa is maybe

one example – it is not really news anymore). I think the major problem is that

we simply cannot imagine what is going on in other places, because it is too far

from our own reality. As mentioned in the seminar, we don’t have the right

perspective.

I find this very interesting right now, because I am living with a local family in

Guatemala this winter. Here, I constantly experience the lack of all the things I

normally take for granted: hot water, collection of garbage every week, a

working toilet, a fridge, telephone etc. And these people are not even very poor

compared to many others in the world, as they have a house, enough food and a

steady income. And interestingly enough, they cannot imagine our situation –


because from their perspective, it is impossible to imagine the way of life in

Norway or Australia, where even the kids have their own cell phones, and where

the issue generally not is ‘are there money for food?’, but ‘which restaurant do

we go to this weekend?’.

What do you guys think – is it because we lack perspective that we too often

don’t care about the injustices, or are there other reasons?

Topic 2 – Human Rights

• Human rights: rights which reflect a universal respect for human dignity. These

are stipulated in the Declaration of Human Rights of 1948

• Citizenship rights: rights given each citizens in a country by the national laws of

that country

• Universalism: Notion that all people should have the same human rights because

they are human

• Cultural relativism: Notion that human rights should not be the same in all

cultures, but have to “match” the already existing cultural norms

• Human security: Security of individuals – from oppression, environmental

degradation, etc

• Forced migration: When people have to leave their homes and flee to another

country or different area. Reasons vary.

One of the topics raised that I find very interesting, is the debate over whether or not

human rights are universal – and if al people of all cultures actually WANT the human

rights stipulated in the Declaration. Many say the human rights are Western-biased. I am

inclined to agree.

For instance, the first Article of the declaration says that “all human beings are born free

and equal in dignity and rights without distinction of any kind such as sex”. In a lot of

cultures, there is a very important distinction between the sexes. Islam is often

mentioned in regard to this. In Iran, for instance, the current citizenship rights (rights

given to a people by its government) violate women’s human rights in a number of ways.


Iranian women have unequal rights when it comes to court rules and criminal laws. They

have different rights when it comes to inheritance, marriage, divorce and most other

family laws. And because the Iranian laws are built on Islamic Sharia laws, the

differences mean that there is a cultural clash between the Declaration of Human Rights

and the Islamic religion. Actually, I think the clash has been clear from the beginning of

the Human rights Declaration in 1948, when Saudi Arabia refused to ratify the

Declaration.

Some say that Iran can and should never adhere to rules that directly challenge Sharia

laws. But many Islamic modernists argue that it was never the intention of Islamic laws

to decrease the status of women – in fact, when they were written in the 6th century, the

greatly enhanced women’s rights. They are discriminative today because of they have

remained unchanged and strictly interpreted since then. This is my view as well. I think

human rights should be universal, but in some cases there must be openings for cultural

relativism. In most cases, this will not be a problem, however. Human rights may appear

Western-biased, but in the end I believe Islam is about the same human rights. It is only

a matter of interpretation of the Koran. Under Taliban and partly under Khomeini, there

were always large parts of the population who were against the strict rules on women.

The Human Rights Declaration can not and should not change religious or cultural laws.

But it should be allowed to influence interpretations of religious and cultural laws so that

no-one is subjected to cruel treatment or violence in the name of culture or religion. The

hard part is that this happens in certain countries. I don’t think other countries should

“police” human rights violations in certain countries. Rather, it is a matter of influencing

each other and supporting forces that oppose such violations. In both Iran and

Afghanistan, there were and are moderate forces who try to change the interpretations

of Sharia laws so that they correspond with human rights. In my opinion, the key is to

help such forces so that countries can change from the inside to be more in line with the

human rights.

I also think that certain human rights are a bit more important than others. Life and basic

needs are necessary for any person, but it is hard to give people these things by law. Of

course, one can make capital punishment and state executions illegal, but beyond that I

think it is very difficult to ensure that every citizen has access to basic needs (especially

in the least developed countries). But I think it is already the goal in almost all countries.


I guess the more important issue with basic needs is not to deny such rights to any part

of the population due to skin colour, ethnicity, religion etc.

Security is obviously also important. I think here of human security – so that each person

can be sure he or she will receive fair trials, not be arrested or killed without reason etc.

Citizenship rights are extremely important in the world today. Not only because people

should feel a belonging somewhere, but because the human rights are meant as

guidelines, ideals for countries to strive for in their own laws. Citizenship rights are the

laws of each country, and therefore where each person gets legal rights. Without

citizenship and citizenship rights, a person basically has very few rights. In other words,

citizenship is what gives people the ‘right to have rights’.



10. ADDITIONAL LINKS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE This resource includes references and web-based resources relevant to the internationalisation of teaching and learning. The resource is divided into two parts. Part 1 comprises a selection of links to relevant web-based resources which have not been included in other

resources. Part 2 presents a bibliography which combines reference lists from the other resources with a selection of

further references relevant to the aims of the project. TASKS/QUESTIONS/REFLECTIONS/INTERACTIONS While designed as a workshop, this resource may also be used for individual reflection. The resource can be used to stimulate reflection on current practice by, for example,

• Reading the references/going to the links/discussing them with colleagues; • Applying them to what you already know – re-evaluate previously held positions. • Trialling ideas in teaching and learning; and • Talking about key ideas with students.


ADDITIONAL LINKS

Australian Education International (AEI) provides links to resources which include recent AEI commissioned publications and reports, profiles of educational systems in over 100 countries, and a database for research into internationalisation: http://aei.dest.gov.au/AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/Default.htm

Cummings, W. (2001). Current Challenges of International Education. ERIC Digest. This article analyses the place of internationalised education in the United States post 9/11 and provides a useful bibliography: http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/current.htm

Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K. & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: the cultura project. Language learning & technology, 5(1), 55-102. This article explains the ‘Cultura project”, developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which seeks to provide an online, intercultural learning experience for students: http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/default.html

The American Council on Education offers a range of resources on internationalisation, including online publications: http://www.acenet.edu/programs/international/index.cfm

The British Columbia Centre for International Education (BCCIE) website provides a wide range of resources and links: http://www.bccie.bc.ca/bccie/FSA/Index.asp

The Centre for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) lists an extensive range of resources and links to language- and culture-related aspects of internationalisation: http://www.carla.umn.edu/

The European Association for International Education (EAIE) offers a wide range of resources and links, including an influential position paper on the Internationalisation at Home (IaH) project: http://www.eaie.nl/iah/iahpositionpaper.pdf

The International Association of Universities (IAU) provides a wide range of resources and links relevant to internationalisation and globalisation, including a brief bibliography of recent publications on internationalisation: http://www.unesco.org/iau/internationalization/biblio.html

The NAFSA: Association of International Educators lists resources and links related to study abroad and exchange programs: http://www.nafsa.org/

The National Center for International Education at Missouri Southern State College offers bibliographic and other resources: http://www.mssu.edu/ncie/

The UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education (IITE) website includes resources and links relevant to the use of ITCs in internationalising higher education: http://is.iite.ru/html/

The University of Minnesota’s Learning Abroad Center lists resources and links related to the integration of study abroad programs into the curriculum: http://www.umabroad.umn.edu/ci/

The University of Minnesota’s Office of International Programs provides resources on internationalisation which include links to influential working papers on internationalizing the curriculum: http://www.international.umn.edu/projects/intl_curriculum/workingpapers.html

The University of Minnesota recently hosted a conference with the theme ‘Study abroad curriculum integration’ (April 15-17, 2004). The conference website provides links to papers and other resources: http://www.umabroad.umn.edu/ci/


http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/current.htm

http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/default.html

http://www.nafsa.org/

http://www.international.umn.edu/projects/intl_curriculum/workingpapers.html

UNESCO provides an extensive range of resources, including perhaps the most extensive annotated bibliography of recent publications on the internationalisation of the curriculum in higher education: http://www.unesco.org/education/studyingabroad/highlights/global_forum/bibliography.doc

The University of the Pacific offers a self-guided and self-paced resource designed to engage students in intercultural learning: http://www3.uop.edu/sis/culture/index.htm

The USC Center for Global Education includes an extensive range of resources and links relevant to study abroad and exchange programs, including a bibliography of all online resources: http://www.lmu.edu/globaled/ro/index.html

Ziguras, C. (2002). Further reading for professional development participants. This is a handout provided for participants at the 2002 IDP Conference workshops on professional development (25-28 September, University of New South Wales). It includes useful, generally hyper-linked, bibliographies of recent publications relevant to the Australian experience of internationalisation: http://www.idp.edu.au/conference/conf2001/papers/ProfessionalDevelopmentReadings.pdf


http://www.lmu.edu/globaled/index.html

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alfred, G. & Byram, M. (2002). Becoming an Intercultural Mediator. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 23(5).

Altbach, P. G. & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalisation and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5-25.

Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee’s (AVCC). (2002). Provision of Education to International Students: Code and Guidelines for Australian Universities. Author.

Barnlund, D.C. (1988). Communication in a global village. L.A. Samovar & R.E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural Communication (pp. 22-32). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (1999). Teaching conversation for intercultural competence. J. Lo Bianco, C. Crozet & A.J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Striving for the third place Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 143-154). Canberra: Language Australia.

Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (1999). Teaching conversation for intercultural competence. J. Lo Bianco, C. Crozet & A.J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Striving for the third place Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 143-154). Canberra: Language Australia.

Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2000). Teaching conversation and socio-cultural norms with conversation analysis. A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures (pp. 65-78). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Baumgratz, G. (1987). Esquisse d’une conception pédagogique de l’enseignement des langues étrangères visant la compétence de communication transnationale, les conséquences pour le rôle et la compétence du professeur et les perspectives de la formation continue. G. Baumgratz & R. Stephen (Eds.), Fremdsrachenlernen als Beitrag zur internationalen Verständigung (pp. 64-75). Munich: Iudicium.

Baumgratz-Gangl, G. (1990). Persönlichkeitsentwicklung und Fremdsprachenerwerb. Paderborn: Schöningh.

Béal, C. (1990). It’s all in the asking: A perspective on cross-cultural communication between native speakers of French and native speakers of Australian English in the workplace. A. Pauwels (Ed.), Cross-cultural Communication in the Professions in Australia (pp. 23-52). Melbourne: ALAA.

Béal, C. (1992). Did you have a good weekend: Or why there is no such thing as a simple question in cross-cultural encounters. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15,1:23-52.

Bennett, J. M, Bennett, M.J., & Allen, W. (2000). Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT

Bennett, J. M. (1993). Cultural marginality: Identity issues in intercultural training. R.M. Paige (Ed.), Education for Intercultural Experience (pp. 109-135). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.) Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71). Yarmouth, M. E.: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, M.J. (1998). Overcoming the golden rule: Sympathy and empathy. M.J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication (pp. 191-214). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003). International higher education: Models, conditions, and issues. In T. S. Tullao, Jr. (Ed.), Education and globalization (pp. 213-272). Manila: PIDS/PASCN.

Bex, A.R. (1994). The problem of culture and English language teaching in Europe. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32,1:57-67.


Bickley, M. & Fyfe, S. (2002, September-October). Internationalisation of the business curriculum using the experiential simulation ‘Bafa-Bafa’ to promote cross cultural understanding. Paper presented at the 16th Australian International Education Conference, Hobart, Tasmania.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bodycott, P. & Walker, A. (2000). Teaching abroad: Lessons learned about inter-cultural understanding for teachers in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 79-94.

Bolten, J. (1993). Interaktiv-interkulturelles Fremdsprach-lernen. H.P. Kelz (Ed.), Internationale Kommunikation und Sprachkomptenz. Bonn: Dümmler.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). La misere du monde. Paris: Seuil.

Bremmer, L. & van der Wende, M. (1995). Internationalizing the curriculum in higher education: Experiences in the Netherlands. The Hague: The Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education.

Brislin, R., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C., & Yong, M. (1986). Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide. New York: Sage.

Brody, J. (2003). A linguistic anthropological perpsective on language and culture in the second language curriculum. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT

Buttjes, D., & Byram, M. (1991). Introduction. D. Buttjes & M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards an Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education (pp. 1-12). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (1988). Foreign language education and cultural studies. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 1,1:15-31.

Byram, M. (1989). Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon.

Byram, M. (1999). Questions of identity in foreign language learning. J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 91-100). Canberra: Language Australia.

Byram, M., & Morgan, C., (1994). Teaching and Learning Language and Culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M., & Zarate, G., (1994). Définitions, objectifs et evaluation de la compétence socio-culturelle. Strasbourg: Report for the Council of Europe.

Byram, M., Esarte-Sarries, V., Taylor, E., & Allat (1991). Young people’s perception of the other culture. D. Buttjes & M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating Languages and Cultures (pp. 103-119). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cadd, M. (1994). An attempt to reduce ethnocentrism in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 27,2:143-160.

Callan, H. (1998). Internationalization in Europe. In Scott, P. (Ed.) The globalization of higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) & Open University Press.

Callan, H. (2000). The international vision in practice: A decade of evolution. Higher Education in Europe, 25(1), 16-23.


Canale, M., & Swain, G., (1981). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1,1:1-47.

Carr, J. (1999). From ‘sympathetic’to ‘dialogic’ imagination: Cultural study in the foreign language classroom. J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 103-112). Canberra: Language Australia.

Carrithers, M.(1992). Why Humans Have Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carroli, P., Hillman, R., & Maurer, L. (1999). Australian perspectives on (inter)national narratives. J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the third place Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 155-166). Canberra: Language Australia.

Champagne, C., & Bourdages, J.S. (2000). Didactiser la culture par la comparaison réflective. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38:279-287.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clifford, J. (1988): The Predicament of Culture. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Clyne, F. , Marginson, S. & Woock, R. R. (2001). International education in Australian universities: Concepts and definitions. Melbourne Studies in Education, 42 (1), 111-127.

Collier, M.J. & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: an interpretive perspective. In Y.Y.Kim & W.B.Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Collombet-Sankey, N. (1997). Surfing the net to acquire communicative competence and cultural knowledge. R. Debski, J. Gassin & M. Smith (Eds.), Language Learning through Social Computing (pp. 141-158). Canberra: ALAA.

Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2001). The National Report on Higher Education in Australia (2001), Author.

Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2002). Striving for quality: learning, teaching and scholarship. Author.

Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2003). Engaging the world through education: Ministerial statement on the internationalisation of Australian education and training. Author.

Cronen, V., Chen, V., & Pearce, W.B. (1988). Coordinated management of meaning: A critical theory. In Y.Y.Kim & W.B.Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Crozet, C. (1995). Context and culture in language teaching. The Canberra Linguist, 25(1), 17-22.

Crozet, C. (1996). Teaching verbal interaction and culture in the language classroom. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 2:37-58.

Crozet, C. (1998). Teaching verbal interaction and culture. Unpublished Master of Arts, Australian National University.

Crozet, C., & Liddicoat, A.J. (1999). The challenge of intercultural language teaching: Engaging with culture in the classroom. J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 113-126). Canberra: Language Australia.

Crozet, C., & Liddicoat, A.J. (2000). Teaching culture as an integrated part of language: Implications for the aims, approaches and pedagogies of language teaching. A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures. Melbourne: Language Australia.

Crozet, C., Liddicoat, A.J., & Lo Bianco, J. (1999). Intercultural competence: From language policy to language education. J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 1-20). Canberra: Language Australia.


Damen, L. (1987). Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension in the Language Classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Davies, A. (1991). The Native Speaker in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States. Amsterdam: European Association of International Education (EAIE).

de Wit, H. (1998). Rationales for internationalisation of higher education. Retrieved 12th September, 2003 from: http://www.ipv.pt/millenium/wit11.htm.

de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Demorgon, J. (1989). L’exploration interculturelle. Pour une pédagogie internationale. Paris: Armand Colin.

Denzin, N. K. (1977). The research act. 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Devos, A. (2003). Academic standards, internationalisation, and the discursive construction of “the international student”. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(2), 155-166.

Edwards, J. (1997); Multicultural and Intercultural Handbooks. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(2), 155-161.

Ellingsworth, H.W. (1983). Adaptive intercultural communication. In W.B.Gudykunst (Ed.) Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Engberg, D. & Green, M. F. (2002). Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence in comprehensive internationalization. Washington, DC: American Council on Education (ACE)

Evans, T. & Tregenza, K. (2002, December). Academics’ experiences of teaching Australian ‘non-local’ courses in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300.

Gadamer, H.G. (1989/ 2003 Ed.) Truth and Method. (J. Weinsheimer & D. Marshall, trans.). New York: Continuum.

Gadamer, H-G. (1976). Philosophical Hermeneutics. (D.E.Linge, trans.). Berkeley: University Press.

Gallagher, M. (2000, September). The emergence of entrepreneurial public universities in Australia. Paper presented at the IMHE General Conference of the OECD, Paris. (Occasional papers series 00/E). DETYA.

Gallagher, M. (2002a). Internationalising education: Address to the sixth annual national teaching forum of the Australian universities teaching committee. Retrieved 17th September, 2003 from http://www.autc.gov.au/forum/mgspeech.htm.

Gallagher, M. (2002b). On the cusp – a new phase in the internationalisation of Australian education. Notes for discussion at the 16th Australian International Education Conference, Hobart.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.

Geertz, C. (2000). Available Light. Princeton: University Press.

Gipps C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. In A. Iran-Nejad and P. D. Pearson (Eds.) Review of Research in Education. Washington. American Educational Research Association.


Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19:283-307.

Gribble, K. & Ziguras, C. (2003). Learning to teach offshore: Pre-departure training for lecturers in transnational programs. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(2), (205-216.

Grodin, J. (1994). Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics. Yale University Press, N.Haven.

Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers. An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gumperz, J.J. (1982a) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J.J. (1982b) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haigh, J. M. (2002). Internationalisation of the curriculum: Designing inclusive education for a small world. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26(1), 49-66.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London, Arnold.

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International journal of intercultural relations, 27(4), 421-443.

Hannigan, T.P. (1990). Traits, attitudes and skills that are related to intercultural effectiveness and their implications for cross-cultural training: A review of the literarture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14,2:89-111.

Harman, G. (2002, September). Australia as a major higher education exporter. Paper presented at the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER) 15th Annual Conference, Vienna, Austria.

Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1).

Hasegawa, T. (1995). Bunkakenkyuu no shoruikei kara mita ‘Nihonjojoo’. Gaikokujinryuugakusei no tame no ‘Nihonjijoo’ kyooiku no arikata ni tsuite no kisoteki choosa kenkyuu: 51-66.

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.

Heritage, J. (1989). Current developments in conversational analysis. D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 21-47). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hosokawa, H. (1997). Gengoshuutoka nyokeru bunka no imi ni tsuite. Wasedadaigaku Nihongokenkyuukyooiku Kiyoo, 9:1-19.

Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J.D. (1992). A Framework for Testing Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Centre, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Hughes, G. (1986). An argument for culture analysis in the second language classroom. J.M. Valdes (Ed.), Culture Bound: Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching (pp. 162-169). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hutchings, K., Jackson, P. & McEllister, R. (2002). Exploiting the links between theory and practice: Developing students’ cross-cultural understanding through an international study tour. Higher Education Research and Development, 21(1), 56-71.

Hymes, D. (1987). Communicative competence. U. Ammon, N. Dittmar & K.J. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society (pp. 219-229). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Hymes, D.H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.


Hymes, D.H. (1986). Models of interaction and social life. J.J. Gumperz & D.H. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Itkonen, E. (1991). Universal History of Linguistics: India, China, Arabia, Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jackendoff, R. (1994). Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature. New York: Basic Books.

Jandt, F.E. (2001). Intercultural Communication: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Jayasuriya, K. (1990). The Problematic of Culture and Identity in Cross-Cultural Theorising. Nedlands, WA: Department of Social Work and Social Administration, University of Western Australia.

Jurasek, R. (1995). Using ethnography to bridge the gap between study abroad and the on-campus language and culture curriculum. C. Kramsch (Ed.), Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Kaplan, R.B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16:1-20.

Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartford (Eds.), Beyond Methods: Components of Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 113-136). New York: Macgraw-Hill.

Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

KcKinnon, K. R., Walter, S. H. & Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking: A manual for Australian universities. Canberra, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Kim, Y.Y. & Gudykunst, W.B. (Eds.) (1988), Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kim, Y.Y. (2001). Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2000). Contrastive rhetoric and the teaching of writing: Seven principles. A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures (pp. 79-88). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Knapp, K., & Knapp-Potthof, A. (1990). Interkulturelle Kommuication. Zeitschrifft für Fremdsprachforschung, 1:62-93.

Knight, J. & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: historical and conceptual perspectives. In de Wit (Ed.) Strategies for internationalisation of higher education. Amsterdam: European Association of International Education (EAIE).

Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and Checkpoints. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE).

Knight, J. (1997). Internationalization of education: a conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.) Internationalisation of higher education in the Asia-Pacific countries (pp. 5-19). Amsterdam: European Association of International Education (EAIE).

Knight, J. (1999). Internationalization of higher education. In Quality and internationalisation in higher education (pp. 13-28). Paris: OECD.

Knight, J. (2002a). Trade in Higher Education Services: The Implication of GATS. London: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved 20th November, 2003 from http://www.columbus-web.com/en/partj/

Knight, J. (2002b). Developing an institutional self-portrait using the Internationalization Quality Review Process guidelines. http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/events/IQRP-SelfPortrait.pdf


http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/events/IQRP-SelfPortrait.pdf

Knight, J. (2003a, November) Internationalisation: Developing an institutional self-portrait. Paper presented at Ethnography of the University (EOTU), University of Illinois. Retrieved 23rd February, 2004 from: http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/events/Illinoisnovfinal.pdf.

Knight, J. (2003b). Needed: Updated internationalisation definition. International Higher Education, 33, 2-3

Knight, J. (2003c). Internationalisation of higher education practices and policies: (2003). IAU survey report. International Association of Universities. (IAU), Paris.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, approaches and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31.

Knight, J., & de Wit (Eds.) (1999). Quality and internationalization in higher education. Paris, France: OECD.

Kordes, H. (1991). Intercultural learning at school: Limits and possibilities. D. Buttjes & M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards an Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education (pp. 17-30). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kramsch, C. (1987a) The cultural discourse of foreign language textbooks. A.J. Singer (Ed.), Toward a new integration of language and culture. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

Kramsch, C. (1987b) Foreign language textbooks’ construction of foreign reality. Canadian Modern Language Review, 44,1:95-119.

Kramsch, C. (1991a) Bausteine zu einer Kulturpädagogik des Fremdsprachenunterrichts: Überlegen aufgrund von Erfahrungen im US-amerikanischen Bildungssystem. Jarbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 17:104-120.

Kramsch, C. (1991b) Culture in language learning: A view from the United States. K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in a Cross-Cultural Perspective (pp. 217-240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kramsch, C. (1991c) The order of discourse in language teaching. B.F. Freed (Ed.), Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom (pp. 191-204). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Kramsch, C. (1993a) Context and Culture in Language Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (1993b) Language study as border study: Experiencing difference. European Journal of Education, 28,3:349-358.

Kramsch, C. (1995a) The cultural component of language teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8,1:83-92.

Kramsch, C. (1995b) Redefining the boundaries of language study. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the non-native speaker. PMLA, 112(3).

Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (1999). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through Drama and Ethnography (pp. 16-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive construction of self in L2 learning: Vygotskyian perspectives. In Sociocultural theory and second language learning, J.Lantolf (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2001). Intercultural communication. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp.201-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kramsch, C. (2002). In search of the intercultural. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6/2, 2002:275-285.


Kramsch, C. (2003). Teaching along the cultural faultline. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT

Kramsch, C., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). (Con)textual approaches to language study. C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context (pp. 3-26). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Kudo, K. (2000). Intercultural contact and adaptation of international Asian students in Australian universities. The Otemon Journal of Australian Studies, 26, 159-176.

Lafayette, R.C. (1978). Teaching Culture: Strategies and Techniques. Arlington, VA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Leask, B. (1999, October). Internationalisation of the curriculum: Key challenges and strategies. Invited paper presented at The State of the Art in Internationalising the Curriculum International Perspectives, IDP Education Australia (1999). Australian International Education Conference.

Leask, B. (2001). Bridging the gap: Internationalising university curricula. Journal of Studies in International Education, l5(2), 100-115.

Leask, B. (2002a, November). Tying Knots or bows? Measuring the development of a generic capability (international perspectives) in students. Paper presented at the Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Brisbane.

Leask, B. (2002b, July). Crossing the bridge from both sides – strategies to assist international and Australian students to meet each other half way. Paper presented at the 17th NLC Annual Conference, Launceston, Tasmania.

Leask, B. (2004). Internationalisation outcomes for all students using information and communication technologies (ICT). Journal of Studies in International Education. 8(4). (in press)

Leeman, Y. & Ledux, G. (2003). Preparing teachers for intercultural education. Teaching Education, 14(3), 279-291.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). Static and dynamic views of culture and intercultural language acquisition. Babel, 36(3), 4-11, 37.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2003). Internationalisation as a concept in higher education: perspectives from policy. In A. J. Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas & S. Trevaskes (Eds.) Australian perspectives on internationalising education (pp. 13-26). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Liddicoat, A. J., Eisenchlas, S. & Trevaskes, S. (2003). Australian perspectives on internationalising education. Melbourne: Language Australia.

Liddicoat, A.J. (1997a) Everyday speech as culture: Implications for language teaching. A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Language, Teaching Culture (pp. 55-70). Canberra: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

Liddicoat, A.J. (1997b) Interaction, social structure and second language use: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 81, 3:313-317.

Liddicoat, A.J. (2002a) Culture and the languages classroom, Paper presented to the MLTAV State Conference. Melbourne 19 April.

Liddicoat, A.J. (2002b) Static and dynamic views of culture and intercultural language acquisition. Babel, 36,3:4-11, 37.

Liddicoat, A.J., & Crozet, C. (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatic development in instructional contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Liddicoat, A.J., Crozet, C., & Lo Bianco, J. (1999). Striving for the Third Place: Consequences and implications. J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 1-20). Canberra: Language Australia.

Liddicoat, A.J., Crozet, C., Jansen, L.M., & Schmidt, G. (1997). The role of language learning in academic education: An overview. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 2:19-32.

Liddicoat, A.J., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A., Kohler, M. (2003): Report on Intercultural Language Learning. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of EST, Canberra.

Luong, L., Crockett, K., Lundberg, D. & Scarino, A. (1996). Report on internationalisation of the curriculum. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

Lynch, B. (1997). ‘In search of the ethical test’, Language Testing, 14(3), 315-327.

Manning, K. (2003). Managing internationalisation in Australian universities (Working papers series). Victoria University: School of Management.

Marginson, S. (2002). Nation-building universities in a global environment: The case of Australia. Higher Education, 43, 409-428.

Marginson, S. (2003, November). Markets in higher education: National and global competition. AARE Radford lecture [revised December (2003)]. NZARE/AARE Joint Conference, Auckland. Retrieved 17th March, 2004 from http:// instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/ anthr362/ Radford%(20lecture%20final%20revised.pdf.

Martin, A.L. (2003) Institutional Audit Reports. Analysis and comment. AUQA http://www.auqa.edu.au/aboutauqa/auqainfo/body_main.shtml

McMeniman, M., & Evans, R. (1997). The contribution of language learning to the development of cultural understandings. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 20,2:1-18.

Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In Linn, R. L. (ed.) Educational measurement. Third edition. Macmillan. New York pp 13-104

Meyer, F. (2000). “Wir waren, sind ein multinationales Haus”: Zur Bedeutung und Aspekten interkultureller Kompetenz am Beispiel eines Dienstleistungsbetriebes, Ressourcen, Kompetenzen, Qualifikationen: Potenziale von Zuwanderern in Weiterbildung und Arbeitsmarkt (pp. 17-26). Hamburg: Gesellschaft für Arbeit, Technik und Entwicklung.

Meyer, M. (1991). Developing transcultural competence: Case studies in advanced language learners. D. Buttjes & M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards an Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education (pp. 136-158). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morey, A. I. (2000). Changing higher education curricula for a global and multicultural world. Higher Education in Europe, 25(1), 25 – 39.

Nagata, Y. (1995). The ‘culture’ of Japanese language teaching in Australia. Japanese Studies, 15, 2:1-15.

Nagata, Y. (1998). The study of culture in Japanese: Towards a more meaningful engagement with Japanese language studies. N. Bramley & N. Hanamura (Eds.), Issues in the Teaching and Learning of Japanese (pp. 93-104). Canberra: ALAA.

Newmeyer, F.J. (Ed.)(1988). Linguistics: the Cambridge survey (4 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nostrand, H. (1991). Basic intercultural education needs breadth and depth: The role of second culture. E. Silber (Ed.), Critical Issues in Foreign Language Instruction. New York: Garland.



Nostrand, H.L. (1974). Empathy for a second culture: Motivations and techniques. G.A. Jarvis (Ed.), Responding to New Realities (pp. 263-327). Skokie, IL: National Textbook.

Olson, C. L. & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education 5(2), 116-137.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris: Author.

Otten, M. (2000). Impacts of cultural diversity at home. In Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M.,Teekens, H., Wächter, B. & Nilsson, B. Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE).

Paige, M. R. & Mestenhauser, J. A. (1999). Internationalising Educational Administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 500-517.

Paige, R. M. (2003). The American case: The University of Minnesota. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 52-63

Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Hammer and Bennett intercultural development inventory. International journal of intercultural relations, 27(4), 421-443.

Paige, R. M., Lange, D. L. & Yershova, Y. A. (Eds.) (1999). Culture as core: Integrating culture into the language classroom. University of Minnesota, CARLA.

Paige, R.M. (Ed.) (1993). Education for the Intercultural Experience. Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, Maine

Paige, R.M., & Stringer, D. (1997). Training Design for International and Multicultural Programs. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.

Paige, R.M., Jorstad, H., Siaya, L., Klein, F., Colby, J. (2003). Culture learning in language education: A review of the literature. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

Papademetre, L. (2000). Developing pathways for conceptualising the integration of culture-and-language. In Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures, A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Melbourne: Language Australia.

Papademetre, L. (2003). Culture-language ‘know-ing’ and en-acting: linguistics in teacher education and training. Paper presented at the National Congress of the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia, Griffith University, Brisbane, July.

Papademetre, L. (2003). ‘Intra-and-inter-cultural acculturation in ‘the knowledge-base’ of culture language teacher education.’ Paper presented at the National Conference of AFMLTA, Brisbane, July.

Papademetre, L., & Scarino, A. (2000). Integrating Culture Learning in the Languages Classroom: A Multi-Perspective Conceptual Journey for Teachers. Melbourne: Language Australia.

Pauwels, A. (2000). Globalisation and the impact of teaching languages in Australia. A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures (pp. 19-26). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical Applied Linguistics: a critical introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Poole, D. (2001). Moving towards professionalism: The strategic management of international education activities at Australian universities and their faculties of business. Higher education, 42, 395-435.

Ramburuth, P. (1999, September). Managing language and learning diversity in higher education: enhancing the graduate experience. Paper presented at the Sixth International Literacy and Education Research Network (LERN) Conference on Learning, Penang, Malaysia.


Reich, L. R. (2002, June). Developing intercultural perspectives by means of an international course. Paper presented at the international symposium Intercultural Teacher Education, The Challenges of Diversity: Institutional Obstacles and Possibilities, Botkyrka, Sweden.

Reichert, S. & Wächter, B. (2000). The globalisation of education and training: Recommendations for a coherent response of the European Union. Directorate-General for Education and Culture, European Commission.

Rizvi, F. & Walsh, L. (1998). Difference, globalisation and the internationalisation of curriculum. Australian Universities’ Review, 41(2), 7-11.

Robinson, G.L. (1981). Issues in Second Language and Cross-Cultural Education: The Forest through the Trees. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Robinson-Stuart, G., & Nocon, H. (1996). Second culture acquisition: Ethnography in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 80(4) 431-449.

Roy, A. & Starosta, W.J. (2001). Hans-Georg Gadamer, Language, and Intercultural Communication. In Language and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 6-20.

Ryan, J. (2000). A Guide to Teaching International students. Oxford Centre for Staff Development (OCSD), Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.

Sadler, D. R. (1985) The origins and functions of evaluative criteria. Educational Theory. 35, 3, pp 285-297

Sadler, D. R. (1987) Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education. 13, 2, pp 191-209

Saiya, L. & Hayward, P. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses: Final report (2003). Washington, DC: American Council for Education.

Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. (Eds.) (1988), Intercultural Communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. (1991), Communication between cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

Saville-Troike, M. (2003). Extending communicative concepts in the second language curriculum: A sociolinguistic perspective. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

Scarino, A., Papademetre, L. (2002). Developing professional ‘standards’ for teachers of languages and cultures: who prescribes and who ascribes in the profession. Paper presented at the AILA International Conference, Singapore, Dec.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York: Oxford University Press.

Scollon, R., S.Wong Scollon (2000). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford:

Seelye, H.N. (1994). Teaching Culture: Strategies for Foreign Language Teachers. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,3:219-231.

Seuren, P.A. (1997): Western Linguistics: an historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc

Shirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and Culture: An Introduction. London: Sage.

Shi-xu, Wilson, J. (2001). Will and power: Towards radical intercultural communication research and pedagogy.’ Language and Intercultural Communication, 1(1).

Skehan P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford. Oxford University Press


Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or not. The education of minorities. Clevedon. UK: Multilingual Matters.

Smith, S,L., Paige, R.M., Steglitz, I. (2003). ‘ Theoretical foundations of intercultural training and applications to the teaching of culture’. In Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning. D.L.Lange, R.M.Paige (Eds.). Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

Stillings, N.A. et al (1995): Cognitive Science: an introduction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.

Surian, A. (1996). Education for global citizenship: Examples of good practice in global education in Europe. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Szalay, L.B. (1981). Intercultural communication – a process model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 133-146.

Tajfel, H. (Ed.) (1982). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tarone, E., Allwright, D. (2004): ‘Second language teacher-learning and student second language-learning: shaping the knowledge base’. In Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives, Teddick, D.(Ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum (forthcoming ).

Teddick, D. (Ed.) (2004). Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum (forthcoming ).

Teichler, U. (1998). The role of the European Union in the internationalisation of higher education. In Scott, P. (Ed.) The globalization of higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) & Open University Press.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4,2:91-112.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.

Touraine, A.(1997). Pourrons-nous vivre ensemble? Egaux et differents. Paris: Fayard.

Valdes, J.M. (Ed.) (1986). Culture Bound: Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Valdmann, A. (1992). Authenticity, variation, and communication in the foreign language classroom. C. Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and Context: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Language Study (pp. 79-97). Lexington, MA: Heath.

van Damme, D. (2001). Quality issues in the internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 41, 415-441.

van de Wende, M. C. (2001). International policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14, 249-259.

Vidovich, L. (2002). (December). ‘Acceding to Audits’: New quality assurance policy as a ‘settlement’ in for Australian higher education? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane. Retrieved 20th January, 2004 from http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/vid02168.htm.

Vincenti, V. B. (2001). Exploration of the relationship between international experiences and the interdisciplinary work of university faculty. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 42-63.



Vogel, T. (2001). Internationalisation, interculturality, and the role of foreign languages in higher education. Higher education in Europe, 26(3). 381-389.

Wächter, B. (2000). Internationalisation at home – the context. In Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Teekens, H., Wächter, B. & Nilsson, B. Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE).

Walters, D. & Adams, T. (2001). Global reach through a strategic operations approach: An Australian case study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(4), 269-290.

Ward, C. (2001). The impact of international students on domestic students and host institutions. New Zealand Ministry of Education. Retrieved 18th November, 2004 from: http://www. minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid= 5643&indexid=6671&indexparentid=6663

Welch, A. & Denman, B. (1997). Internationalisation of higher education: Retrospect and prospect. Forum of Education, 52(1), 14-29.

Westerheijden, D. F. & Leegwater, M. (Eds.) (2003). Working on the European dimension of quality: Report on the conference on quality assurance in higher education as part of the Bologna process, Amsterdam, 12-13 March 2002. Ministry of Education Culture and Sciences, Zoetermeer. Retrieved 5th January, 2004 from: http://www.bologna-berlin (2003).de/pdf/Amsterdam_Results.pdf

Whalley, T. R. (1997). Best practice guidelines for internationalizing the curriculum. Douglas College, for the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and the Centre for Curriculum, Transfer and Technology, British Columbia.

Woodhouse, D. (2001, September). Globalisation: Implications for education and for quality. Presentation to the AAIR Conference, Rockhampton, Australia. Retrieved 5th January, 2004 from: http://aair.org.au/(2001)Papers/Woodhouse.PDF.

http://www/

Integrated resources for intercultural teaching and learning in ...

Documents