Leask (2013) grounds the aspirational nature of interculturalism in her definition of an internationalised curriculum: “the incorporation of an international and intercultural dimension into the content of the curriculum as well as the teaching and learning arrangements and support services of a programme of study” (p. 106).
Others would argue that such a curriculum has the potential to offer more, citing global graduates with global citizenship skills (Clifford & Montgomery, 2017; de Wit, 2010), a curriculum for transformation reflecting values, attitudes and competencies beyond curriculum content (Barnett & Coate, 2005) and drawing on social and emotional intelligences (Dulabaum, 2012). Several authors see the transformational potential of an internationalised curriculum to lift a university’s reputation domestically and internationally (Knight, 2004; Leask & Carroll, 2011) because such an education approach would activate the processes of “international connectivity, social connectivity and intercultural learning” (De Vita, 2007, p. 165).
The subject of internationalising the curriculum at the home campus is an emerging field in the literature (Dunne, 2011; Kelm & Teichler, 2007; Mestenhauser & Ellingboe, 1998; Soria & Troisi, 2014), with Leask recognised as a leader (De Vita, 2007). A strong theme in the literature is the value of such a curriculum for all students, not only international students, who are usually the target group (Haigh, 2002; Leask & Bridge, 2013). Jones and Killick (2007) make the point that domestic students may benefit more from such an education than international students, who are often bilingual and have already functioned across cultures. These foreign-born students are recognised as bringing potential resources into higher education curricula (De Vita, 2007; Harman, 2005; Leask, 2001; Stier, 2003). Immigrants are specifically mentioned by Brown and Jones (2007), who note that domestic students, many of whom would be first- or second-generation immigrants, increasingly present a diverse range of cultural backgrounds. Jiang (2010) describes this group as ‘internal internationals’, as compared with ‘external internationals’, noting that both are a consequence of globalisation, they have similarities in carrying their culture into new learning environments and both acculturate to a new host culture. Universities, she concludes, need to be responsive in their accommodation of these new demographic groups.
The content of an internationalised curriculum evidences similarities across the literature (Ardakani, Yarmohammadian, Ali, Abari, & Fathi, 2011) with arguments for students to learn a foreign language (Cooper, 2007); achieve competency in intercultural skills, knowledge and attitudes (Besley, 2012; Deardorff, 2006; Harvey,
2018; Leask, 2001; Leask & Carroll, 2011; Stier, 2003; Stone, 2006); and include international topics and issues, as well as experiences in overseas settings for professional practice (Leask, 2001; Roskvist, Harvey, Corder, & Stacey, 2014). While not part of the literature on internationalisation, it could be argued that a commitment to resourcing English language support for ESL students for positive outcomes rather than from a deficit perspective should be part of an internationalised curriculum (Borland & Pearce, 2002; Humphreys, 2017; Roach & Roskvist, 2007). Clifford and Montgomery (2017) argue that an add-on to existing curricula of international elements is unlikely to change worldview or behaviours. They support a redesign of curricula with strong structural and intercultural foci to achieve transformative learning for global citizenship, and argue for a responsiveness to indigenous, diaspora and minority voices at the local level. I support such an approach as it would include critical pedagogies as a transformative teaching and learning strategy for all students. Clifford and Montgomery (2017) make the pertinent point that this approach would necessitate a philosophical and structural review at an organisational level. Jiang (2008) would agree and contends that changes must be reflected beyond the internationalised curriculum itself, through all levels of the university and beyond. Only one aspect of such change involves staff professional development, essential to moving such curricula forward, particularly in relation to discipline focus (Leask, 2013) and deficit theorising regarding cultural difference (Biggs, 2003; Bishop et al., 2009; Haigh, 2002; Leask & Bridge, 2013), and Danylchuk (2011) goes so far as to challenge staff to internationalise themselves. While internationalisation of the curriculum does have a values base with a focus on developing attitudes of openness, responsibility, ethics and social justice aligned with global citizenship, it equally has been advanced and enacted for pragmatic reasons aligned with the competitive and economic drivers associated with globalisation, international migration and the knowledge economy (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Jiang, 2010; Tremblay, 2005). De Vita (2007) is critical of such market-driven initiatives and their failure to deliver a student experience through what he terms ‘osmosis’ of intercultural interaction. Haigh (2002) agrees and argues for an inclusive curriculum as he identifies deficit models in internationalised curriculum that have been
designed to “bring foreigners up to speed” (p. 57) through benevolent multicultural approaches. De Vita (2007) agrees with such deficit underpinnings and critiques Biggs’s (2003) ‘stereotypical misconceptions’ about international students, arguing instead for a culturally inclusive pedagogy at the core of an internationalised curriculum with a holistic approach towards what he terms a ‘global imagination’. This is, in fact, Biggs’s (2003) central argument against deficit thinking and for educative teaching that places the student at the centre of the curriculum.
While arguments for an internationalised curriculum on the home campus are easily made, home culture needs to be considered. Moon’s (2016) research in South Korea revealed that international students are marginalised in the learning and social environment by the dominant ethnic nationalism. Likewise, Abdul-Mumin’s (2016) research findings in Brunei reported that curriculum developers had strong views that internationalisation perspectives should fit with the existing culture, religion and political context. In NZ, too, national pressures on higher education institutions to prioritise Māori equity initiatives as part of biculturalism (Strathdee, 2013) constrain interculturalism in a country that not only lacks a multicultural policy (Jiang, 2005b) but has sparse literature on internationalising the curriculum, apart from attention to specific curriculum elements such as global citizenship (Grimwood, 2018) and intercultural competencies (Harvey, 2018).