Infusing, adding or transforming | From a global perspective

Paul Roberts offers a critique of the University?s Internationalisation Strategy in relation to learning and teaching.

York?s Internationalisation Strategy emphasises the economic and academic advantages of an internationalised higher education experience. These are two of the motivations for internationalisation proposed by Knight (1999) in her influential paper, the other two being political and social motivations. The economic aim of the strategy entails the development of ?programmes that prepare students to succeed in the modern global economy?, leading to better employment possibilities. The academic advantage is spelled out in the intention to ?create opportunities for international exchange with high quality institutions?. Mention is also made of the social imperative, the aim of bringing about ?improved cultural understanding between the University and key international partners?.

To achieve these aims, a set of objectives is outlined, grouped into three areas:

- academic endeavour and opportunity,

- reputation building, stakeholder engagement and income generation, and

- embedding internationalisation in the York community.

The first of these entails what Knight has called the ?Activity Approach? to internationalisation: the movement of students and staff across national and cultural boundaries. This is already in evidence, with large numbers of international students coming to York, internationally-recruited staff, and significant exodus of staff and students through overseas placement schemes and Study Abroad.

This first area includes a commitment to making the curriculum ?culturally diverse and internationally focused?. This seems closely aligned to Knight?s ?Process Approach? to internationalisation, where the curriculum is infused with international and intercultural elements.? The theme is taken up by Bond (2003) who cites Cogan?s (1996) list of starting points for infusing the curriculum with international content. As with the Activity Approach to internationalisation, there is much evidence of ?infusion?, or the Process Approach, already taking place at York.

The second area of objectives, while carrying implications for learning and teaching, does not make explicit reference to the curriculum, unlike the third area, ?embedding internationalisation in the York community? which entails bringing ?an international perspective to as many aspects of the student experience as possible?. This objective may be seen as an example of what Bond (op.cit) characterises as the ?Add-on? approach to internationalisation. The student experience is enhanced by the addition of an international perspective. As with examples of infusion, there are many instances of added international perspectives already in operation for York students, for example the King Lear project in Siberia.

These instances of activity, of infusion and addition, substantially multiplied, will undoubtedly lead in the right direction, towards a fulfilment of the ultimate economic, academic and social goals outlined in the strategy document. But more may be achieved by working towards a transformation of learning and teaching in both systems and practice.

The idea of making the curriculum culturally diverse and internationally focused seems based rather narrowly on the learning and teaching content expressed in programme and module documents, and to sidestep the opportunity to gain cross-cultural input into programmes by exploiting the presence of an international body of students. This focus on programme content may also result in a missed opportunity to use students to help develop intercultural competence. Experience at some HE institutions has shown that by transforming approaches to teaching room practice, it is possible to draw benefit from the diverse student body, allowing a range of cultural standpoints to inform programme content (e.g. Hockings et al 2009).? As a by-product of genuinely inclusive teaching strategies, students can develop intercultural competence (see Jones and Killick 2007, pages 112-3). Assessment schemes might then be transformed so that processes of intercultural communication are rewarded in the same way as content-based products.

Paul Roberts is Director of York?s Centre for English Language Teaching

?References

Bond, S. L. 2003. Untapped resources: Internationalization of the curriculum and classroom experience: a ????? selected literature review. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education.

Cogan, J. 1998. ?Internationalization through networking and curricular infusion?. In Mestenhauser, ???????????? J. and Ellingboe, B. (eds). Reforming higher education curriculum: internationalizing the campus. ???? Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Hockings, Cooke and Bowl. 2009. ?Pedagogies for social diversity and difference?. In David, M. (ed). ???????????? Improving learning by widening participation in higher?education. London: Routledge

Jones, E. & Killick, D. 2007. ?Internationalisation of the curriculum?. In Jones, E. and Brown, S.? (eds) ?????????????? Internationalising Higher Education.? London: Routledge

Knight, J. 1999. ?Internationalisation of higher education?.? In Knight, J. and DeWit, H. (eds). Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education.? Paris: OECD.

University of York. 2010. Internationalisation Strategy. Available at www.york.ac.uk/media/abouttheuniversity/supportservices/internationalrelations/INTERNATIONALISATION%20STRATEGY.pdf

Source: http://blogs.collabtools.org.uk/internationalrelationsoffice/2012/08/29/infusing-adding-or-transforming/

salton sea arizona immigration law aubrey huff the killers brandy julianne hough bruins