Challenges in Internationalizing the Curriculum

There are numerous challenges inherent in the process of internationalizing the curriculum. Institutional barriers, internal structures, and factors associated with faculty's reluctance to engage in the curricular reform process can all impede the progress of reform.

Internationalization is an ongoing, multifaceted, holistic process that impacts on the entire institution (Paige, 2003; Schoorman, 2000a). Written policy statements and strategic plans defining the institution's internationalization goals are an important element and must be acted upon (Knight, 1994, 1995). Knight (1994) emphasized the necessity of permanent commitment to internationalization at an institution: "Internationalization must be entrenched in the culture, policy, planning and organizational processes of the institution so that it is not treated as, nor does it become, a passing fad" (p. 5).

The lack of a curricular review and assessment process at the majority of Canadian universities is a major barrier to the curricular reform process (Knight, 2000a; McKellin, 1998). Respondents within Knight's (2000a) study indicated that the responsibility for internationalizing the curriculum rested with individual departments and faculties or in some cases, a faculty member, who was assigned a facilitative role in the process. Only 1.6 % of Canadian post-secondary institutions have developed internationalized curricula specifically for foreign students (Taylor, 2000). Knight (1994, 2000a) emphasized the important role an international office, staffed by leaders who have credibility with faculty, and who possess the requisite academic, administrative, and cross-cultural skills can play in the curricular development and review process.

Faculty in other Canadian studies (Bond et al., 2003; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006) indicate that a lack of support and encouragement for the curricular reform process at both the departmental and institutional levels and "limitations placed on instructors by the infrastructure, policies, and procedures of their departments and the institution in general" (Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 1997, p. 87) are barriers to the successful internationalization of the curriculum.

Insufficient funding and resources can also be serious impediments to internationalizing the curriculum (Bond, 2003a; Bond et al., 2003; Castenada, 2004; Cleveland-Innes, Emes, & Ellard, 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Knight, 1995, 2002a; Jones & Andrews, 2002; Schoorman, 2000a; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006). In this era of fiscal restraint, the establishment of new international programs and curricula must compete with many other institutional demands for funding (Knight, 1995; Taylor, 2000). Closely associated with this issue are time constraints on faculty due to downsizing of departments, increased teaching loads, and larger class sizes which may inhibit faculty from successfully designing and delivering an internationalized curriculum (Bond, 2003a; Bond et al., 2003; Castenada, 2004; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006). Faculty may also be reluctant to engage in curricular reform if insufficient release time and financial rewards are not allocated for their efforts (Taylor, 2000). However, McKellin's (1998) study of British Columbia post-secondary institutions indicated that the majority of respondents surveyed provide "release time for faculty to undertake international projects or to develop course curricula" (p. 45). It appears that the priority institutions place on funding this important aspect of internationalization will determine its level and extent of development.

Although the curricular reform process will vary by institution, the discipline-based focus of many North American institutions and the traditionally decentralized nature of the curricular reform process within Canadian institutions can negatively impact on the internationalization of the curriculum (Carter, 1992; Maidstone, 1995; Taylor, 2000). The majority of the respondents in Knight's (1995) study suggested that, "internationalization needs to occur at local academic and administrative units within a broad policy framework" (Knight, 1995, p. 20). However, faculties, which have diverse goals and characteristics, tend to address curricular reform within the context of their own disciplines and classes. Faculty members don't often collaborate with colleagues, including those who have international experience, in designing and delivering their courses (Bond, 2003a; Cleveland-Innes et al., 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Jones & Andrew, 2002; Mestenhauser, 1998). Since successful internationalization of the curriculum requires a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach, one of the greatest challenges in internationalizing the curriculum is bringing together large numbers of faculty from diverse disciplines to collaborate towards this goal (Cleveland-Innes et al., 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Jones & Andrews, 2002; Maidstone, 1995; Mestenhauser, 1998).

Closely connected with the decentralized nature of post-secondary institutions are communication difficulties. The use of both formal and informal communication and information-sharing strategies amongst the stakeholders involved within the institutional internationalization process is crucial to its success (Jones & Andrews, 2002; Knight, 1994). However, respondents in Knight's (1995) study of 89 Canadian institutions indicated that communication was very helpful to the internationalization process but not fundamental. Nevertheless, the participants within this study did note the importance of communication to promote the cross-disciplinary aspect of internationalization.

Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom

A fear of loss of personal autonomy and academic freedom may provide another barrier to the curriculum reform process. Faculty who have not been involved in the development of the institution's mandate to internationalize may perceive the call to internationalize their courses to be mandated from a top-down perspective and may resent what they regard as an intrusion into their rights of academic freedom and integrity (Khalideen, 2006). Khalideen (2006) stressed that many faculty members "find it difficult to relinquish 'power' over what is taught because in some ways they benefit from the status quo. Others are opposed to change since they see change simply as a criticism of their current practice" (p. 5). Nevertheless, a faculty member within Castaneda's (2004) study indicated the need for increased departmental and/or administrative support for addressing diversity within the curricular and pedagogical practices of the institution and lamented the climate in which some faculty members view this as mandated reform which infringes upon their rights to academic freedom. Faculty within Knight's (1995) study indicated academic freedom to be both a facilitator and a barrier within the internationalization process. As one respondent indicated, "academic freedom is both a facilitator, allowing faculty members to pursue international interests and a barrier in that those who are not interested must be convinced or co-opted and cannot be asked to change their focus of interest" (Knight, 1995, p. 20).

Additionally, some faculty may be suspicious of internationalization efforts as indicative of the 'commodification of education', which focuses on the economic benefits of internationalization initiatives rather than traditional humanistic or academic rationales (Cleveland-Innes et al., 2001; Knight, 1997). The recruitment of international students is often seen as an important source of revenue for post-secondary institutions. A great number of academics disagree with this consumer approach towards the view of education and curriculum as a commodity (DeVita & Case, 2003; Schapper & Mayson, 2008; Vertesi, 1999). These researchers caution against the standardization approach to internationalizing the curriculum that has occurred in Australia in which faculty have little or no input into curriculum design and are required "to deliver prepackaged education with efficiency and economy" (Schapper & Mayson, 2008, p. 197). Knight (1999) highlighted the importance of achieving a balance between the economic and academic rationales for recruiting international students. In order for faculty to fully embrace the internationalization of the curriculum, institutions must focus on the recruitment of international students not simply as "cash cows" (Brown & Jones, 2007, p. 2), but as positive forces of diversity who can enrich the learning environment for the benefit of everyone on the campus (Bond & Thayer Scott, 1999; Taraban, Dippo, Fynbo, & Alsop, 2006).

Institutions that neglect to reward faculty involvement in internationalization initiatives in their tenure and promotion policies provide another barrier to faculty involvement (Bond et al., 2003; Bond & Thayer Scott, 1999; Burn, 2002; Carter, 1992; Castaneda, 2004; Harari, 1992; O'Brien & Sarkar, 2002). Knight's (1995) survey of Canadian institutions indicated that 84% of respondents did not explicitly recognize the contribution to or participation of faculty in international activities within their assessment and reward policies. Although 62% of faculty in Bond et al.'s (2003) study disagreed that international or intercultural experience is an important criteria in hiring new faculty, the majority of researchers recommended that institutions consider faculty's international experience and competence in their recruitment and hiring processes and introduce reward and promotion strategies for faculty based on their involvement in international activities such as internationalizing the curricula (Bond, 2006; Bond & Thayer Scott, 1999; Carter, 1992; Knight, 1994; Maidstone, 1995; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981).

Lack of funding to support faculty development and to aid faculty in increasing their levels of international awareness and expertise through international research, study, and teaching activities can also impede curricular reform (Cleveland-Jones et al., 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Harari, 1992; Knight, 1994, 2000; Paige, 2003; Taylor, 2000; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). Some researchers propose a direct link between faculty who are 'internationalized' and their interest in and ability to reform and deliver an internationalized curriculum (Knight, 1994; Taylor, 2000; Maidstone, 1995). However, other research shows that such international involvement and experience does not necessarily result in these faculty members transferring their experiences into internationalizing their classes and courses (Ellingboe, 1998; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). In Ellingboe’s (1998) study, some faculty, despite having international experience, "had not made the cognitive shift to internationalize their curriculum. Those who had international experiences had not connected them with their teaching, and ways of infusing their disciplines with international perspectives were unknown to them" (p. 211). This underscores the importance of providing professional development opportunities to assist faculty with translating their international expertise and knowledge into the content and pedagogy of their courses.

Bond and Thayer Scott (1999) indicated that it may be a challenge to convince some Canadian faculty to participate in such internationalization activities since they may view them as an extra burden and a drain on human and financial resources that have already been cut in times of fiscal restraint. Many faculty members find the choice of participating in international work a difficult one considering that it may negatively impact on their colleagues at home who are faced with increasing class sizes and decreasing resources.

Intercultural Knowledge, Skills, and Interest

Lack of personal knowledge, skills, or interest in internationalization, and a lack of intercultural knowledge and sensitivity are other reasons for the lack of faculty involvement in international curricular reform initiatives. Bond (2006) indicated that issues such as ethnocentricity, a disbelief that knowledge is socially constructed, a belief that their discipline is already international, and a neglect to engage in self-reflection regarding the impact of their personal cultural beliefs on their choice of course content and pedagogical practices are all issues in faculty reluctance to engage in curricular internationalization and reform. Benick et al.'s (1996) survey, examining faculty resistance to change within Ontario post-secondary institutions, also found that many faculty lack the motivation, "interest…experience, commitment, flexibility and openness [to revise their curricular and pedagogical practices]….They don't seem to understand the principles of an inclusive environment" (p. 26)

Consequently, the need for faculty development programs and workshops that promote intercultural sensitivity and increase understanding of how and why to internationalize the curriculum are also essential (Bond et al., 2003; Carter, 1992; Castaneda, 2004; Cleveland-Jones et al., 2001; Harari, 1992; Knight, 1994; Maidstone, 1995; Odgers & Giroux, 2006; Otten, 2003; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006).

Pedagogical and Content Concerns

Canadian faculty members and instructors engaged in a workshop focusing on internationalizing curricula at the University of Victoria expressed difficulty with determining appropriate methods of validating the international students and their prior learning experiences while maintaining equity (Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007). The instructors in this workshop also questioned whether they should be creating a distinction between the international and traditional content within their courses or integrating the two. Another participant was also wary "that the emphasis on internationalization of the classroom does not impede the learning of basic ideas and processes that students are coming here to learn" (Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007, pp. 79-80). Moreover, mindful as they are of the need for diverse assessment mechanisms to better meet the needs of international students, faculty in Schuerholz-Lehr and van Gyn's (2006) study commented on the difficulties inherent in this process due to large class sizes and lack of resources to comprehensively assess students' learning.

Institutions desiring the successful development and delivery of internationalized courses for their international student populations must be mindful of this myriad of challenges inherent in the curricular and pedagogical reform process.

Internationalization of the Curriculum

Tenets, Goals, and Approaches

There is no 'one size fits all' method of internationalizing an institution or of internationalizing the curriculum (Bond, 2003a; Harari, 1992). The decision of how to internationalize an institution and the extent of the internationalization process must be based upon an institution's unique history, context, goals, mission, values, and resources (Harari, 1992; Knight, 1994, 1995, 2004; Lemasson, 1999; Schoorman, 2000a).

Research has emphasized that the internationalization of the curriculum should be part of an ongoing, comprehensive, integrated, interdisciplinary approach to institutional internationalization (Bonfiglio, 1999; Edwards & Tonkin, 1990; Ellingboe, 1998; Green & Olson, 2003; Harari, 1992; Schoorman, 1999, 2000a, 2000b; Taylor, 2000). Bonfiglio (1999) stressed that within the traditional discipline-based focus of North American post-secondary education "learning becomes isolated and disconnected" (p. 11) and the diverse perspectives inherent in today's global society are ignored. She also cautioned that within this single disciplinary approach, faculty is seen as conveyors of knowledge and students have little opportunity for personal input and participation. Curricular reform needs to occur not only at the faculty and departmental level, but also at the institutional level in order that students' experiences with an internationalized curriculum are not isolated to a particular course or department (Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006). Transforming the curriculum requires a move from individual faculty members working in isolation to a more comprehensive, collaborative strategy in which the tenets of internationalized pedagogy and curricular reform infiltrate all of the faculties and departments within an institution.

Research indicates that some academic disciplines such as anthropology, foreign languages, fine arts, science, history, and political science see themselves as inherently international and may not see a need to further internationalize their curricula (Bond 2003a; Edwards & Tonkin, 1990; Schoorman, 1999; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). However, as a faculty member within Schoorman's (1999) U.S. based case study recognized, although "the problems of science are international, and the same for all,…the approach to that problem depends on the culture" (p. 29). Faculty members who deny the need to internationalize their courses are neglecting to consider the diverse learning styles and experiences of international students within their classes. As Benick and Saloojee (1996) indicated, "an inclusive learning environment can be created in any course regardless of discipline because it is about respecting students and valuing them as partners in teaching and learning" (p. 2). For an overview of the "internationalized curricula by discipline" (Taylor, 2000, p. 12) at Canadian institutions, please refer to Appendix A.

An internationalized curriculum demands a move from a teacher-centered learning environment, in which the traditional lecture and discussion style of teaching dominates (Bond, 2003a, 2006; Jones & Young, 1997; Lynch, 1997; Vertesi, 1999), to a more inclusive, student-centered, interactive, and experiential learning environment (Benick, Newby, & Samuel, 1996; Bond, 2003a; Saloojee, 1996; Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007). Such an environment would value the diverse learning styles and previous experiences of international students (Guo & Jamal, 2007; Lynch, 1997; McLoughlin, 2001; Peelo & Luxon, 2007; Saloojee, 1996; Vertesi, 1999). Moreover, it would incorporate intercultural and international dimensions to facilitate the academic achievement of culturally diverse students (Banks, 2002; Bond, 2003a, 2006; Maidstone, 1995; Otten, 2003; Whalley, Langley, & Villarreal, 1997; Vertesi, 1999). Bond (2006) indicated that 80% of Canadian faculty utilizes the lecture format as the predominant method of instruction; however, 90% of students indicated that interactive pedagogies promote improved learning environments.

Researchers propose incorporating a range of learner-centered instructional strategies that encourage international students' participation such as peer learning; small and large group discussions and projects that incorporate diverse groups of students and examine particular issues from various cultural perspectives; reaction papers and reflective writing assignments focusing on intercultural issues; analyses of international case studies; problem solving exercises focusing on international or intercultural contexts; the use of multimedia and technology within the classroom; and the incorporation of international students and international guest speakers in the class (Castaneda, 2004; Grey, 2002; Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007; Taylor, 2004; Whalley et al., 1997). However, the majority of faculty members within Schuerholz-Lehr et al.'s (2007) study expressed uncertainty about how to incorporate an international perspective within their teaching, implying a need to offer professional development opportunities for faculty members to assist them in providing effective and relevant teaching and learning strategies for their culturally diverse students. Bond et al. (2003) proposed a number of practical "best practices/good practices" (p. 11) for teaching and learning within an internationalized curriculum derived from faculty across Canada. (See Appendix B for a list of these strategies.) These strategies would be appropriate for faculty from diverse disciplines to employ in order to enhance the learning environment for all students within their classes, regardless of students' cultural or ethnic backgrounds.

Whatever techniques are employed, it is incumbent upon faculty to modify their pedagogical approaches to meet the diverse learning needs of a multicultural student population (Adams, 1992; Banks, 2002; Maidstone, 1995; Vertesi, 1999). Faculty must explicitly outline the academic expectations and teaching and learning style requirements of the new educational environment (Lim & Ilagan-Klomegah, 2003; Mullins et al., 1995; Samuelowicz, 1987). Faculty should also guide and support students in understanding their reasons and goals for utilizing particular teaching strategies within the classroom environment (Bond et al., 2003; Burns, 1991; Carroll & Appleton, 2007; Mullins et al., 1995). Furthermore, faculty members must provide sufficient time to enable international students to modify and add to their existing repertoire of learning styles to more successfully engage in their new learning environment (Valiente, 2008). As Schuerholz-Lehr and van Gyn (2006) noted, "good teaching is at the heart of internationalizing the curriculum" (p. 13).

Schuerholz-Lehr and van Gyn (2006) proposed a 'course design wheel' (see Appendix C) based on the tenets of student-centered learning and encompassing the three essential elements of an internationalized curriculum: internationalized content, internationalized pedagogical strategies, and culturally sensitive assessment strategies. The learning outcomes within their wheel include "intercultural competence, global awareness, world mindedness, global literacy, embrace of pluralism, and shift in frames of reference" (Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006, p. 23).

The three approaches to internationalizing the curriculum most common in Canadian post-secondary institutions are the add-on, infusion, and transformation approaches (Bond, 2003a, 2003b).

The first approach used to internationalize the curriculum was the add-on approach (Bond 2003b). It is characterized by adding "content, concepts, themes, and perspectives…to the curriculum without changing its structure" (Banks, 2004, p. 246), nor its pedagogical approaches. Nevertheless, as Harari (1992) stressed, curricular reform requires more than "adding a course here and there, more than repackaging of old courses" (p. 54).

Within the transformation perspective, an internationalized curriculum provides students with an opportunity to explore the impact of diverse cultures on knowledge construction within the field of study (Whalley et al., 1997). Course content should incorporate, wherever possible, sources representing local, national, and international perspectives (Freedman, 1998; Knight, 1997; Schoorman, 2000b; Whalley et al., 1997). Knowledge should be examined not from the perspective of a single discipline, but from multidisciplinary contexts (Bond, 2003a; Freedman, 1998) and should "include sources that may be fragmented [and] conflicting" (Freedman, 1998, p. 50). Internationalized course content should be carefully chosen to ensure it accurately reflects different countries and cultures and should encourage students to critically reflect on their own socially determined cultural identity in order to "provide emancipatory learning experiences" (p. 16).

Although the infusion approach to internationalizing the curriculum may be the most prevalent in Canadian post-secondary institutions and is viewed by many researchers as being an effective means of internationalizing the curriculum (Bond, 2003b; Cogan, 1998; Harari, 1992; Maidstone, 1995), one questions whether this method is truly sufficient to meet the needs of culturally diverse students in today's global society. As Mestenhauser (1998) indicated, "knowledge is not universal, but culture-specific, and…the infusion model merely adds to the existing traditional structure of knowledge without confronting its origin" (p. 17). The transformation approach, on the other hand, encourages students and faculty to critically explore diverse ways of knowing and being and "has the potential to…change, in fundamental ways how faculty and students think about the world and their place in it" (Bond, 2003b, p. 8). This student-centered approach to curriculum and pedagogy, in which faculty and students act as partners in the learning and teaching process (Kitano, 1997; Quan, 1996; Schoorman, 1999), aims to transcend the Euro-centric content and ways of knowing that may impede the academic success of some international students (Maidstone, 1995; Marchesani & Adams, 1992; Rivzi & Walsh, 1998). Although further research is required to determine which approach would result in the greatest gains for international students in terms of their academic achievement and success, it would appear that the transformation approach has the greatest potential to create culturally inclusive classroom environments that would meet the needs of today's diverse student populations, and in particular, international students.

Roles of Stakeholders

The internationalization of the curriculum is an ongoing, multifaceted process that requires the collaboration and support of faculty members, students, academic departments, the institutional administration, and international offices on campuses. Taylor (2000) also suggested the importance of teaching and learning centers in providing support for this process; however, within Canadian post-secondary institutions, "few centers appear to be proactive in the internationalization of the curriculum" (Taylor, 2000, p. 19). For stakeholders to work together to successfully internationalize the curriculum, it requires commitment to the process, intercultural sensitivity, financial support, willingness, interest, open lines of communication, and interdisciplinary cooperation (Ellingboe, 1998). Additionally, as Harari (1992) stated, "there is no substitute to a consensus-building process which must be initiated and nurtured on campus" (p. 69).

Researchers overwhelmingly contend that faculty members are the key to the reform process required for the internationalization of the curriculum (Bond, 2006; Bond et al., 2003; Carter, 1992; Ellingboe, 1998; Green & Olson, 2003; Harari, 1992; Paige, 2003; Saloojee, 1996; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006; Taylor, 2000). "Faculty are in a preferential and privileged position to influence the classroom atmosphere and to create environments where students learn effectively and successfully" (Samuel & Burney, 2003, p. 84). In Bond et al.'s (2003) study of faculty members at Canadian post-secondary institutions, 80% of faculty respondents envisioned themselves as having the primary responsibility for internationalizing the curriculum. Moreover, only "20% [of participants] said they did not make 'every effort to internationalize' their courses" (p. 5). Although these results are hopeful for internationalization at Canadian institutions, Bond (2006) reminds us that in order to engage faculty in the curricular internationalization process, faculty members need to see a clear link between the curricular reform process and their personal projects and missions.

Nevertheless, faculty cannot act alone in this process (Harari, 1992; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). Although it is the responsibility of faculty to devise and deliver curricula, visionary senior administrators and institutional leaders, including the president, the Senate, academic deans, and faculty-administrators, through a consensus-seeking process, must provide guidance, leadership, professional development opportunities, and support to assist faculty in internationalizing the curriculum (Ellingboe, 1998; Green & Olson, 2003; Harari, 1992; James & Nef, 2002; Jones & Andrews, 2002; Knight, 1994, 1995; Maidstone, 1995; Paige, 2003; Schoorman, 2000b; Taylor, 2004; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981). Institutional leaders must support faculty in creating more inclusive learning environments that reflect the present and future needs of the institution and its students (Benick et al., 1996). Green and Olson (2003) emphasized that effective leaders provide the energy and momentum required for institutional change and have the power to remove the barriers inhibiting change. Maidstone (1995) cautioned that internationalization of the curriculum will remain a marginalized activity undertaken by a limited number of faculty working in isolation unless senior administration provides the support and structural framework necessary for change. However, Mestenhauser (1998) admonished that the senior administrators who traditionally make decisions regarding the curricular reform process often don't have the required interdisciplinary, intercultural, and pedagogical competencies required to engage in this process.