Enhancing Learning in The Social Science Vol - 2 - 1 - Killick

Curriculum internationalisation: identity, graduate attributes and ‘alter-
modernity’
David Killick
Leeds Metropolitan University
G14 Macaulay Hall
Headingley Campus
Leeds LS6 3QS
UK
Tel: 0113 283274

Email: d.killick@leedsmet.ac.uk
Biography
Since joining Leeds Metropolitan University in 1991 after a career in EFL,

David has played a significant role in developing the university’s distinctive
approach to curriculum internationalisation through cross-cultural capability
and global perspectives. His publications, workshops and conference
presentations in this area have significantly added to internationalisation
debate and practice across the UK. David is currently researching the lived
experience of students undertaking international mobility and how this relates
to learning and development theory.
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 1

Abstract
Internationalisation is a complex and contested term, which UK higher

education is only now defining for itself. I focus on specific rationales for
internationalisation, arguing that it is to be interpreted as the educational
response to globalisation. It is argued that curriculum internationalisation can
enable students to situate themselves, and be helped to responsibly navigate
the ‘liquid flows’ which challenge their self-identity. This paper proposes that
self-identification as a ‘global citizen’ and the ‘attributes’ of cross-cultural
capability and global perspectives can form the basis for a values-based
internationalised university curriculum across the disciplines, enabling
students to make their way in the world.
Keywords: internationalisation, curriculum, cross-cultural capability, identity,

graduate attributes

‘Universities are places, perhaps above all, for the formation of student
identities.’
(Barnett and Di Napoli, 2008a: 161)
Section 1
UK higher education and internationalisation
Since the turn of the millennium, ‘internationalisation’ has become

increasingly visible in the discourse of UK higher education (HE). Reports,
strategies and research projects (Bourne et al, 2006; Caruana and Spurling,
2007; Fielden, 2007; Fielden et al, 2007; Hudson and Todd, 2000; Lunn,
2006; McKenzie et al, 2003; Middlehurst and Woodfield, 2007; Trahar, 2007;
Universities UK, 2005), conferences (Bournemouth University, 2008; British
Council, 2004, 2006, 2008; HEA, 2007, 2009; Oxford Brookes, 2008, 2009)
and themes within conferences, journal articles (too numerous to cite)
including this special edition, books (Brown and Jones, 2007; Atfield and
Kemp, 2008; Jones, 2009) and related guidelines, and case studies and
training materials spanning the HEA’s subject centres crowd a previously
rather barren space. (Note, for example, the absence of internationalisation in
Dearing’s report (1997a) on the role of HE in the UK.)
In the year 2008–2009 at least four UK universities launched units dedicated

to some aspect of internationalisation (Bournemouth University’s Centre for
Global Perspectives, Oxford Brookes University’s Centre for International
Curriculum Inquiry and Networking, UCL’s Centre for Applied Global
Citizenship and Leeds Metropolitan University’s Centre for Academic Practice
and Research in Internationalisation). Given the UK’s comparatively belated
interest in this area, we should not be surprised to find contention and
confusion surrounding the term, and a tendency hitherto to seek clarification
in definitions and descriptions drawn from North America and Australasia is
understandable (for example, the many citations for the works of Janet Knight

and Betty Leask (Altbach and Knight, 2007; Knight, 1997, 2003, 2004; Leask,
1999, 2001, 2003, 2004)). In this historical perspective, it is hard to see the
validity of Professor Trainor’s claim that ‘[m]ost observers will agree that the
UK higher education sector has been in the vanguard of internationalisation’
(Fielden, 2008: foreword), not least in the context of a report which itself
adopts Jane Knight’s (1994) definition of the term.
At the same time as UK HE has been adopting, adapting or ignoring the

movement to internationalise, UK schools have been given very strong steers
regarding the ‘global dimension’ in the curriculum (DfES, 2004, 2005). This, I
believe, is highly relevant to how the HE sector might respond to the
globalising world in which its graduates will need to find their place and make
their way. There has been an almost simultaneous drive towards ‘citizenship’
education (Crick, 1998), and the ensuing debates around what citizenship can
mean in the context of multiculturalism and globalisation are of consequence
to the notions of ‘global’ citizenship and ‘altermodernism’ referenced below. Of
particular significance to the role universities may play in the (re)location of
self-identity is Olser and Starkey’s call for all citizenship education to be
directed towards a cosmopolitanism in which ‘educated cosmopolitan citizens
will be confident in their own identities’ and will see their responsibilities to
others ‘within the local community and at a global level’ (Osler and Starkey,
2003: 276). At the same time, we see issues of identity arising in a number of
other discussions in HE: the challenges of supercomplexity (Barnett, 2000);
the challenges to disciplinarity (Kreber, 2009a); the blurring of boundaries
between the ‘academic’ and the ‘market’ or the ‘consumer’ (Barnett and Di
Napoli, 2008c). It is likely that each of these challenges to the identity of the
university is also reflected in the ongoing social construction of
internationalisation within the academic community.
Hitherto, consonant with the marketisation of HE, the predominant approach

to internationalisation in the UK has been a single focus on the for-profit
recruitment of international students (and possibly also the creation of
‘offshore’ or ‘transnational’ delivery of parts of the curriculum to international
students in their home countries). For many of us, it is unfortunate but not

surprising that this economic and performative driven conceptualisation
(Harris, 2008; van der Wende, 2001) seems to have informed not only the first
Prime Minister’s Initiative on the international development of HE in 1999, but
also PMI2 (see Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, 2006). Indeed,
one feature of the internationalisation movement is the degree to which
dimensions beyond that of student recruitment are being driven through
unfunded local initiatives, often by chalk-face enthusiasts in individual
institutions. There are echoes of other politically driven, centrally funded
drives, such as widening participation, where a similarly narrow view focuses
on recruitment while the substantive considerations of purpose, impacts,
value-added, curriculum, delivery and campus diversity in relation to the
student experience are left in abeyance. However, a broader
conceptualisation of internationalisation in the UK is now beginning to gain
recognition (Caruana and Spurling, 2007), with the global curriculum
dimension at subject level specifically perhaps being led in part by QAA
benchmark statements (Lunn, 2008). Speaking of the ‘global university’ in the
introduction to a recent report from the Observatory on Borderless Education,
David Pilsbury acknowledges that ambitions in this direction require ‘[the]
“international” to pervade everything a university does and for it to be
embedded in a strategic and operational framework. Internationalisation
strategies that are simplistic and backward looking are not fit for purpose in a
complex world driven by ideas and relationships’ (Observatory on Borderless
Education, 2007: 3). While internationalisation and ambitions to become a
global university are not synonymous (few will achieve the status of global
university, but to survive as a university at all worthy of the name in the
twenty-first century requires every institution to engage seriously with
internationalisation), the point about pervasiveness is pertinent to both
endeavours.
Taking internationalisation to be a long-term process (or, better, a series of

interrelated processes) which affects all aspects of an institution
(pervasiveness), my intention here is to present a rationale which might
underpin the endeavour, along with an associated model of graduate
attributes. Although it is possible to find discussion around rationales in the

literature, again it is usually necessary to go beyond work published in the UK
to find much systematic attention to these (Knight, 1997, Qiang, 2003,
Warner, 1992). In most discussions and analyses of rationales, it seems that
those concerned with academic/educational outcomes may receive the least
attention (Lewis, 2007). Given the potential of internationalisation to transform
the student learning experience, and the outcomes of that experience, this
seems both unfortunate and to some degree puzzling (though the strong
focus on international recruitment along with neglect in supporting colleagues
in their responses to often large influxes of international students may well
have something to do with the academic community being reluctant to
embrace internationalisation as its own).
It is not uncommon to find recognition that the changing shape of the world of
the twenty-first century requires a review of our current university provision.
However, among those calling for such a review it is often the case that, even
when a nod is given to global citizenship or other ethical stances, the focus is
principally on issues such as employability and global competitiveness. For
example:
‘To respond to these challenges [of globalisation], it is essential that our

institutions of higher education graduate globally competent students. Without
global competence our students will be ill-prepared for global citizenship,
lacking the skills required to address our global security needs, and unable to
compete successfully in the global marketplace.’
(Brustein, 2007: 3)
I am not seeking to argue against the importance of graduate employability,

but to suggest that it is only part of the picture.
The thrust into ‘skills’ has paralleled the marketisation of HE, with students
cast as ‘consumers’ and businesses as our ‘clients’. Universities compete
(locally and internationally) for market share, and increasingly ‘sell’
themselves through the broad ephemera of location, facilities, celebrity and

brand. This mono-dimensional engagement with globalisation is leaving the
university itself, and all members of its community, with a ‘crisis of identity’
(Lapworth, 2008: 163; see also other contributions to the same volume), the
descriptions of which entirely echo those in much of the literature on the
postmodern condition more generally.
Yet we all know that the challenges of globalisation extend well beyond global
markets – and there are certainly more fundamental issues to be addressed if
we truly aspire to graduate globally competent students. These challenges
require a quite radical review of the student experience, especially, though not
exclusively, that offered through our undergraduate curricula (though beware
too of the ‘skills’ knocking at the postgraduate door). The fragmenting forces
of a globalising world challenge how we shape our identities, how we relate to
the growing diversity in those others with whom interaction is inevitable, and
how we then envision our responsibilities in relation to those global others.
Herein lie fundamental considerations for ‘higher’ education, situated as we
are at sites of personal development and learning where values are adopted,
ethics explored and identity formation is in process if not completion (Baxter
Magolda, 2009). This is the context for the rationale for internationalisation
elaborated below.
To begin with I set out six propositions leading into what I refer to as a
‘developed’ view of internationalisation (Killick, 2007).
Propositions underpinning a ‘developed’ view of internationalisation
1. A university should seek to provide an education for all its students that
is ‘fit for purpose’.
2. An education offering ‘fitness for purpose’ today is one which will
enable our students to make their way in the world of today and the worlds of
tomorrow.
3. The world we inhabit is undergoing rapid changes in many dimensions,
through processes broadly grouped under the term ‘globalisation’.

4. These changes involve technological, economic, material, cultural,
social, environmental and personal connectivity, spanning globally
differentiated life-worlds.
5. To make our way within this globalising world, we must constantly
engage in extending the horizons of our life-world. To facilitate that process,
graduates need both a ‘global identity’ and attributes which take them beyond
the knowledge and skills traditionally delivered within a narrowly discipline-
focused curriculum.
6. Internationalisation in this context is about delivering a student
experience (principally but not exclusively through the formal and informal
curriculum) that will enable our graduates to develop such a global identity
along with attributes to enable engagement (agency).
Being ‘beyond’ the traditional subject discipline and ‘across’ the university
may be seen to pose a difficulty in the context of UK three-year degrees,
which are typically tightly structured and focused, with little room for
‘additional’ knowledge or skills. However, this also offers an advantage over
contexts (for example, the USA) where longer programmes with less rigid
credit requirements have tended to allow the international or intercultural to be
dealt with as a peripheral subject area rather than being situated in the
subject itself. In relation to diversity, Kreber (2009b: 6) makes the point that ‘it
stands to reason’ for all those engaging with students to ‘respond positively to
different dimensions of diversity and employ inclusive practices’. While
incontestable in itself, surely such behaviour must also extend to interrogating
how the discipline itself responds to diversity. This has been most prominently
explored through feminist critiques, but there are other voices to be heard,
geographically, culturally, racially and temporally distributed. For this and
other reasons, I propose that curriculum internationalisation must be taken on
as the responsibility of each discipline area, rather than left as a matter to be
dealt with centrally. Nonetheless, to guide the process of internationalising the
curricula within the disciplines, it may be helpful to outline some of the core
attributes which all our students might find beneficial as they move on to make
their way in the supercomplex world of ‘continual challenge and insecurity’
(Barnett, 2000: 167). The nature of those attributes is in part determined by

the world we anticipate our graduates inhabiting, and in part by the nature of
the role they might play within that world. This second implies a consideration
of the part which universities can or should play in enabling students to take
action (‘agency’) based upon ethical or values-based positions.
However much those within academia and many of those ‘looking in’ may
think otherwise, universities do not stand outside the world and cannot hide
behind flags of academic ‘neutrality’; we are ‘more than a spectator of society’
(Green and Barblan, 2004: 15). As already alluded to, in the wake of market
forces, universities have in recent decades been driven to play their social
role out through a shift to key skills and employability (dumbing down by
skilling up). Barnett and Di Napoli (2008c) offer a host of perspectives to
suggest that this process has stripped the academy of its identity. However, it
is a mistake to attribute this loss solely to our ‘local difficulties’. Universities,
disciplines, staff and students are also located in the global flows and
associated uncertainties of postmodernity. Shifting our focus from skills to
values, from performing to being, might be an appropriate way to help us re-
establish some common core. It must be acknowledged that assigning to HE
a role of encouraging or developing values seems anathema to some (see, for
example, Shephard, 2008). Yet a view of knowledge and education which
believes it can be value-free is naive; the question is ‘not whether, but which
values ought to be promoted’ (Case, 1993: 320). In defending the inclusion of
the values of a global perspective in the curriculum, Collins invites academics
to ‘explore the sometimes hidden values and exclusiveness that underpin
their practice’, refuting ‘the notion that any academic activity is value free’
(Collins, 2005: 224). As obvious examples, consider the value positions taken
by the academy in respect of scholarship, intellectual property, academic
freedom or research ethics; more broadly, we actively oppose racism and
sexism, and espouse tolerance and the validity of human rights. Barnett goes
so far as to assert that ‘a university cannot, with dignity, retain the title of
‘university’ unless it upholds the collective virtues of tolerance and respect for
persons’ (Barnett, 2000: 27).

Mayo (2003: 42) cites Richard Shaull’s foreword to Friere’s Pedagogy of the
oppressed, asserting there are only two stances for education:
‘Education either functions as an instrument that is used to facilitate the

integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and
bring about conformity to it, or it becomes the ‘practice of freedom’, the means
by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and
discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.’
(Freire, 1970: 13–14)
It may not be clear whether he was advocating most stongly for education for
conformity or for freedom, but Dearing proposed that good HE in the UK ‘can
impart tolerance, openness, and the capacity to inject positive forms of social
interaction’ (Dearing, 1997b: 23) (my italics). Dewey (1916/1966), the founder
of much educational thinking, saw education as the basis for healthy
democracy. At the other extreme, Mao Tse Tung ousted the academy for its
anti-revolutionary conservatism. Education and values cannot be dissociated,
and so it is important to recognise universities as ‘not simply sharing values
with the rest of society but also helping to shape society’ (Robinson and
Katulushi, 2005: 256). This line is, of course, replete with well-rehearsed
difficulties – who decides (and on what authority) what shape ‘we’ want? How
do we mediate between those whose preferred shapes are opposed? And so
forth. Opening the debate is a can of worms which cannot be avoided once
we embark on the process of curriculum internationalisation. At a time of such
global change (and local ‘threat’), it is a debate we should welcome.
Taking this view of value-driven rather than value-free HE, enabling students
to make their way implies engaging responsibly with the world. Enabling
graduates to take a responsible stance is a value position which underpins
this paper and the model of curriculum internationalisation advocated within it.
In the next section I briefly explore particular features of the world our
graduates may inhabit and how these relate to issues of identity and the
graduate attributes which may be relevant to HE students regardless of their

disciplinary home. In this, I recognise the danger of positioning myself among
the ‘wrongheaded’ by perhaps offering ‘unrealistic and totalitarian responses’
(Barnett, 2000: 45), but I hope it will be possible to see that, in arguing for a
location of the self which offers greater personal security as a co-citizen in a
globalising world and some of the attributes which will enable dialogues and
less ethnocentric critical engagement with alterity, I am attempting a model to
open up rather than close down ontological and epistemological horizons.
Section 2
Global identity and graduate attributes in a globalising world
Baxter Magolda correctly proposes that our students ‘require a transformation

from dependency to self-authorship, or the capacity to internally define one’s
beliefs, identity and social relations’ (Baxter Magolda, 2009: 143). However,
we also need to recognise that the challenges of identity formation have
dimensions beyond a relinquishing of dependency. The discourses of
globalisation present a complex and confusing montage of causes and
consequences; this is hardly surprising given the multiple sites in which it is
enacted. Indeed, this complexity and its surrounding uncertainties are
themselves the prominent feature of the globalisation process as much as
they are of its critiques. Liquid modernity (Bauman, 1991, 1998) is a context
which bounds the life-worlds of our students, and should therefore inform the
interpretations of our disciplines. One significant dimension to this is
constructed by the shifting ethnoscapes (Appadurai, 1997, 2006/1966) which
increasingly add complexity to our lived experience: ‘the landscapes of
persons who constitute the shifting world in which we live: tourists,
immigrants, refugees, exiles, guest workers, and other moving groups and
individuals’ (Appadurai, 2006/1966: 182). Hall proposes that in the
postmodern world, far from seeking to achieve fixed identity or identities, our
problem is ‘primarily how to avoid fixation and keep the options open’ (Hall,
1966: 18). Ray goes so far as to propose that in the globalising world we can
(or must) accept eclecticism in our ‘choice’ of identities (Ray, 2007). Whether
or not we accept that we can make our way in the world under such a fluid

state of identity, it is clear that living with alterity challenges our self-identity
(constituted at least in part through essentialised constructs of the ‘other’) and
can lead us to close down the horizons of our life-world in defence of the
socialised ethnocentrism which helps secure the self. The notion of
ethnocentrism is a prominent one in discussions of self within the literature on
intercultural identity, sensitivity and adaptation (Bennett, 1997, 2008; Bennett,
1986, 1993a, 1993b; Matsumoto, 2001; Matsumoto and Juang, 2004;
Matsumoto et al, 2001, 2004; Matsumoto and Yoo, 2005). Kim asserts that it
is our culture which ‘allows us to define who we are and what is meaningful’
(Kim, 2001: 58). Experience which leads us to question our cultural norms
and values, and thereby to shift our sense of self-identity, is seen to be
psychologically disturbing, requiring:
‘… a disappointment of the narcissistic assumption of the superiority of ‘us’

over ‘them’. It challenges us to be willing to become involved with otherness,
to take up others’ perspectives by reconstructing their perspectives for
ourselves, and understanding them from within.’
(Alred et al, 2006: 2)
Education, as one of the most powerful forces of socialisation, can be seen to

have a role to play in helping us swim rather than sink among this liquid tide of
local and global others. If we are to help students cope with their disappointed
narcissism and readjust their ‘inner compass … away from the concentration
on the polarity of the own and the foreign to an attentiveness for what might
be common and connective whenever [they] encounter things foreign’
(Welsch, 1999: 201), this will require active attention to identity formation,
including deliberate focus within the mainstream curriculum.
As multiple others nudge the borders of our life-world whenever we enact our
daily lives, images of the differentiation in their lived experiences also flash
into consciousness and force upon us a recognition of the impacts we have
on the lives of geographically and socially distant others. These others have
always been with us; some of ‘us’ have always been in the position of living at

the expense of those others, but the global financescapes of postmodernity
have positioned so many more of us in the role of the consumer/exploiter,
while the ethnoscapes and global mediascapes continuously assert these
global others into our consciousness. In such a context, I suggest, it becomes
increasingly difficult to consider ourselves ethically as anything other than co-
citizens of a single planet. Yet Bauman argues that postmodern ‘life
strategies’ are fragmentary forces, leaving human connection distant and
vague, and leading us to ‘cast the Other primarily as the object of aesthetic,
not moral, evaluation; as a matter of taste, not responsibility’ (Bauman, 1996:
33). This is inadequate, not only as a response to the challenges to self-
identity indicated above, but also as a response to the global ethical issues
posed by the juxtaposed other (Dower, 2003; Dower and Williams, 2002).
Additionally, the complexities of the globally interconnected world can lead to
a sense of impotence; agency is threatened by the lack of security, fixity,
knowledge and procedural schema, which may enable us to make our way in
the world. My suggestion here, then, is that universities have a legitimate role
to play in helping students engage with the processes of identity formation (or
‘life-world becoming’) (Barnett, 2000:14). Specific dimensions to this are:
a. in the context of personal development amidst the turbulence of alterity

– locating their sense of self among the complexities of living with and
between global others
b. to challenge the ethnocentrism of socio-cultural socialisation processes
as a basic underpinning for a global ethic – understanding their role as
co-inhabitants of the planet with those global others
c. as underpinning to a sense of personal agency – enabling them to act
effectively and responsibly in their personal lives and through the
professional practice arising from their discipline.
Such aspirations form the rationale for the interpretation of internationalisation

presented here. I believe that they are at least suggestive of a positive
response to the limiting visions which frame the marketisation agenda on the
one hand and much of the discourse on postmodernism on the other; perhaps
enabling a global identity in which the other and the self are both defined less

through the kaleidoscopic lenses of what they are not. Holding a value, being
responsible, is a matter of identity (I am) and the underpinning to wanting or
being inclined to act. Self-identification as a global citizen, then, is a pre-
requisite, but on its own does not enable me to enact my values (I can).
Below, I propose two clusters of abilities, or attributes, which might be
integrated into any discipline.
A starting point for constructing the ‘I can’ dimension in an internationalised

curriculum, and for making our objectives transparent to ourselves, our
students and other legitimate stakeholders in HE, is through developing and
publishing university statements of graduate attributes. While there may
appear to be little distinction to be drawn between attributes and skills, and
certainly within a marketised HE discourse there is a danger of attribute
statements being limited and limiting, I believe the two can be fundamentally
distinct when attributes are crafted with attention to making our way
responsibly in a globally interdependent world. Suggestions for outcomes
relating to global perspectives can be found in the literature on sustainability
and development education (Case, 1993; McKenzie et al, 2003; Shiel, 2006;
Shiel and Takeda, 2008), and relevant objectives are comprehensively
elaborated in the World Declaration on Higher Education (UNESCO, 1998).
Australia has a national requirement for universities to articulate graduate
attributes, (Barrie, 2004, 2007). As an example, Leask (1999) has reported on
the University of South Australia’s comprehensive set of graduate attributes.
The seventh set of attributes is reproduced below.
A graduate who demonstrates international perspectives as a

professional and a citizen will:
7.1 display an ability to think globally and consider issues from a variety of
perspectives
7.2 demonstrate an awareness of their own culture and its perspectives
and other cultures and their perspectives
7.3 appreciate the relation between their field of study locally and
professional traditions elsewhere

7.4 recognise intercultural issues relevant to their professional practice
7.5 appreciate the importance of multicultural diversity to professional
practice and citizenship
7.6 appreciate the complex and interacting factors that contribute to
notions of culture and cultural relationships
7.7 value diversity of language and culture
7.8 appreciate and demonstrate the capacity to apply international
standards and practices within the discipline or professional area
7.9 demonstrate awareness of the implications of local decisions and
actions for international communities, and of international decisions and
actions for local communities.
Looking at each of these, I think it is clear how it is possible to propose

notions of ‘graduateness’ through attributes which transcend skills and signal
aspirations far beyond employability.
Leeds Metropolitan University’s guidelines for curriculum review document

(Killick, 2006a) proposes three attributes around the notion of graduate as
global citizen:
• the awareness, knowledge and skills to operate in multicultural

contexts and across cultural boundaries
• the awareness, knowledge and skills to operate in a global context
• values commensurate with those of responsible global citizenship.
This document has informed a university-wide curriculum review project at

Leeds Metropolitan University (Leeds Met), and is based upon the twinned
concepts of cross-cultural capability and global perspectives (see Jones and
Killick, 2007 for a full case study). Cross-cultural capability, originally
conceived in the context of the capability movement in HE (Stephenson,
1998), and informed by Sen’s conceptualisation of ‘the substantive freedoms
– the capabilities – to choose a life one has reason to value’ (Sen,1999: 74),
is essentially concerned with the attributes which may help us make our way

as co-citizens of a globalising world; some of these will be generic, others
subject-specific. A global perspective offers a worldview to extend the
normally ethnocentric horizons which can bound the life-world, and provides
the basis for a global ethic which sees individual responsibility as extending
beyond the frontiers of my country, my ethnicity, or my culture.
To explore these further, I return to one of the propositions which I suggest

underpin a developed view of internationalisation:
• These changes involve technological, economic, material, cultural,

social, environmental, and personal connectivity spanning globally
differentiated life-worlds.
The personal is highlighted because, as indicated in earlier discussions, this is

the frontline of that global connectivity: the site where flowing ethnoscapes
eddy through the life-world of every individual, regardless of location or
occupation. It is a prerequisite for engagement with civil society, political
processes, our colleagues and our masters, our neighbours, and all those at a
distance with whom we enact our everyday business of living, establish the
planetary systems and processes which shape our environment and our
capacities to feed ourselves, seek to resolve conflict by ‘jaw not war’ and
engage in every other dimension of the evolving complex global-social world.
Negotiating the boundaries which inhibit successful communication in this
highly interconnected world requires complex and not always ‘natural’
attributes: precisely the theatre of a supercomplex higher education.
Cross-cultural capability concerns being with cultural others. In addition to

identification, it encompasses the abilities to communicate effectively across
cultures, and to locate and recognise the legitimacy of other cultural practices
in one’s discipline and subsequent personal and professional lives. In a
globalising world, these are forms of freedom. Global perspectives is
suggestive of a global ethic and notions of global social justice. These offer a
life one has reason to value. Each of these has applicability wherever we
encounter alterity and wherever we are responsible for inequity. And so, in the

communities of multicultural nation states, it has local as well as global
relevance.
Embedding such overarching objectives within the curriculum, however,

requires complex shifts in content, delivery and assessment. A piecemeal
approach, or one which relegates internationalisation to the silos of key skills
or PDP, is an inadequate response. A major contention of this paper is that
each of us with responsibilities for student learning needs to interrogate the
programmes we offer to see how we can better facilitate the identity formation
discussed earlier, along with cross-cultural capability attributes and an
appreciation for how each of our personal and professional choices impacts
upon the highly differentiated life-worlds of those others with whom we share
the planet (a ‘global perspective’).
Internationalisation of the curriculum along the lines proposed here supposes

a level of ‘intercultural sophistication on the part of the faculty’ (Yershova et al,
2000: 67), along with a personal identification with its underpinning rationales.
Not unreasonably, Gunn raises the question of the ability of academic staff ‘to
influence the broader personal capabilities of our students’ (Gunn, 2009: 172).
This highlights the issue of enabling academic staff to transform themselves
and their practice, something ‘which requires significant attention and support’
(Leask, 2008: 64). The process of curriculum review at Leeds Met has been
accompanied by an impressive number of initiatives to raise the profile and
understanding of internationalisation activity (see, for example, Jones, 2007;
Killick, 2008a), and by targeted staff development opportunities. The topic
areas of staff development workshops and seminars reflect the kind of focus
which might be included in an internationalised curriculum: intercultural
communication, culture in professional practice, stereotypes and
misattribution, inclusivity, working in intercultural groups, schemas and world-
views, etc. Embedding each of these, incidentally, helps develop generally
more inclusive practice which can support diverse students (home and
international) in their successful integration into university life.
Internationalisation at Leeds Met has also had high-level support, and is
strongly evidenced in related university policies and strategies. However, it

cannot be argued that internationalisation work is completed. Indeed, in many
areas of the university, it has barely begun, and progress is only made when
academic colleagues identify with the values, support the objects and are fully
supported in their efforts to achieve them. As noted in the opening section of
this paper, internationalisation is a long-term process.
Section 3
Summary
UK HE is gaining ground in its own social construction of the concept of

internationalisation, fundamentally as a response to the various pressures of
globalisation and one which contests the marketisation agenda. In this
context, I have presented a rationale for internationalisation as a process of
taking forward the university experience to better meet the needs of our
students in the turbulence of a globalising world. These needs are both
developmental in terms of emergent senses of self-identity based on an ethic
of global responsibility, and educational in terms of enabling attributes and of
locating disciplines and professional practice in a global perspective. I have
sought to demonstrate how appropriate graduate attributes can derive from a
university experience which is ‘fit for purpose’, and suggested that such
attributes are articulated in the constructs of cross-cultural capability and
global perspectives. I have focused on the internationalised curriculum as the
principal mechanism through which such attributes may be developed, and
suggested that, given this direction, individual disciplines have the
responsibility to interrogate the learning experiences and outcomes they offer
and demand of their students. Although I have not developed the point, I have
also noted that institutions have responsibilities to enable this work through
their own practice and the provision of support and staff development
opportunities. I should note that I have argued for the importance of a ‘whole
institution’ approach to internationalisation elsewhere (for example, Jones and
Killick, 2007). Such a pervasive approach is essential. However, all the other
dimensions of institutional internationalisation cannot be effective without
curriculum, or where it is sidelined to additional or optional modules, as it is

the core curriculum which frames learning and thereby opens the horizons of
the life-world to the potential of alterity (Bond, 2003; Kehm and Teichler, 2007;
Killick, 2006b, 2008b; Paige, 2003).
Bourriaud (2005, 2009) proposes a shift from postmodernism as a new era of

altermodernism, which is identified and identifies as ‘global from scratch’,
begins to take form. Similarly, in one sense, the project of curriculum
internationalisation, as envisaged here, is an educational response to its
commodification on the one hand and to the somewhat nihilistic visions of
postmodernity on the other, and one through which we might (re)construct
fragmenting identities in the self as global citizen. I am proposing that
internationalised curricula conceived around this notion may better enable our
students to make their way in the world(s) of the future. Perhaps not
coincidentally, the university conceived with this at its core may enable
academic leadership to pull back from its advancing role of ‘translating
between mutually non-comprehending communities’ (Barnett and Di Napoli,
2008b: 204) and establish a new integrity to underpin the identity of the
‘academic’, regardless of either discipline base or position on the teacher–
researcher continuum. In this regard, internationalisation offers institutions the
opportunity to be transparent about their own stance on issues of social
justice, global citizenship and the like – for the sake of prospective students,
staff, and society more generally.
Note
The thrust of this paper formed the introduction to a workshop on learning
outcomes at the 2008 Higher Education Academy Annual Conference. The
appendix summarises proposals arising from group work at that workshop.

References
Alred, G, Byram, M and Fleming, M (eds) (2006) Education for intercultural

citizenship: concepts and comparisons, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Altbach, PG and Knight, J (2007) ‘The internationalization of higher education:

motivations and realities’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11
(3/4), pp 290–305.
Appadurai, A (1997) Modernity at large, Minnesota, MN: University of

Minnesota Press.
Appadurai, A (2006/1966) ‘Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural

economy’, in H Lauder, P Brown, J-A Dillabough and AH Halsey (eds)
Education, globalisation and social change, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atfield, R and Kemp, P (eds) (2008) Enhancing the international learning

experience in business management, hospitality, leisure, sport, tourism,
Newbury: Threshold Press.
Barnett, R (2000) Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity,

Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University
Press.
Barnett, R and Di Napoli, R (2008a) Introduction to Part III’, in R Barnett and

R Di Napoli (eds) Changing identities in higher education. Voicing
perspectives, London: Routledge.
Barnett, R and Di Napoli, R (2008b) ‘Identity and voice in higher education.

Making connections’, in R Barnett and R Di Napoli (eds) Changing identities in
higher education. Voicing perspectives, London: Routledge.
Barnett, R and Di Napoli, R (eds) (2008c) Changing identities in higher

education. Voicing perspectives, London: Routledge.

Barrie, S (2004) ‘A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of
generic graduate attributes’, Studies in Higher Education, 32 (4), pp 439–458.
Barrie, S (2007) ‘A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes

policy’, Higher Education Research & Development, 23 (3), pp 261–275.
Bauman, Z (1991) Intimations of postmodernity, London: Routledge.
Bauman, Z (1996) ‘From pilgrim to tourist – or a short history of identity’, in S

Hall and P Du Gay (eds) Questions of cultural identity, London: Sage.
Bauman, Z (1998) Globalization. The human consequences, Cambridge:

Polity Press.
Baxter Magolda, M (2009) ‘Educating students for self-authorship. Learning

partnerships to achieve complex outcomes’, in C Kreber (ed) The university
and its disciplines. Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary
boundaries, London: Routledge.
Bennett, J (1997) ‘Transition shock: putting culture shock in perspective’, in N

Jain (ed) International intercultural communication annual, Falls Church, VA:
Speech Communication Association.
Bennett, J (2008) ‘On becoming a global soul’, in V Savicki (ed) Developing

intercultural competence and transformation. A path to engagement during
study abroad, Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bennett, MJ (1986) ‘A developmental approach to training for intercultural

sensitivity’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, pp 179–195.
Bennett, MJ (1993a) ‘Towards a developmental model of intercultural

sensitivity’, in RM Paige (ed) Education for the intercultural experience,
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, MJ (1993b) ‘Towards ethnorelativism: a developmental model of
intercultural sensitivity’, in RM Paige (ed) Education for the intercultural
experience, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bond, SL (2003) Untapped resources. Internationalization of the curriculum

and classroom experience: a selected literature review, Ottawa: Canadian
Bureau for International Education.
Bourne, D, McKenzie, A and Shiel, C (2006) The global university: the role of
curriculum, London: Development Education Association.
Bournemouth University (2008) Education for sustainable development:

graduates as global citizens, conference, proceedings of an international
conference, University of Bournemouth, September 2007.
Bourriaud, N (2005) Modern postmodernism: altermodernism? Transforming

aesthetics, Sydney, Australia: Art Association of Australia and New Zealand.
Bourriaud, N (2009) Altermodernism, London: Tate Modern. Available at:

www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/altermodern/videointerview.shtm
(accessed June 2009).
British Council (2004) Going global, conference, Edinburgh.
British Council (2006) Going global 2, conference, Edinburgh.
British Council (2008) Going global 3, conference, London.
Brown, S and Jones, E (2007) ‘Values, valuing and value in an

internationalised higher education context’, in E Jones and S Brown (eds)
Internationalising higher education, London: Routledge.

Brustein, W (2007) ‘Creating the globally competent student’, Realising the
global university: part four, Observatory on Borderless Education.
Caruana, V and Spurling, N (2007) The internationalisation of UK higher

education: a review of selected material, Higher Education Academy.
Case, R (1993) ‘Key elements of a global perspective’, Social Education, 57

(6), pp 318–352.
Collins, G (2005) ‘Only connect’, in S Robinson and C Katulushi (eds) Values

in higher education, St Bride’s Major: Aureus/University of Leeds, pp 216–
225.
Crick, B (1998) Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in

schools, London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Dearing, R (1997a) Higher education in the learning society, London: HMSO.
Dearing, R (1997b) NCIHE report 1: report on national consultation, London:

HMSO.
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (2006) PMI2 information.

Available at:
www.dius.gov.uk/dius_international/education/prime_ministers_initiative
Dewey, J (1916/1966). Democracy and education, Toronto: Collier-Macmillan,

Canada.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2004) Putting the world into
world-class education, London: DfES Publications.
DfES (2005) Developing the global dimension in the school curriculum, DfES
and DfID: DfES. Available at:

http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetai
ls&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DFES-1409-2005& (accessed June
2009).
Dower, N (2003) An introduction to global citizenship, Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.
Dower, N and Williams, J (eds) (2002) Global citizenship: a critical reader,

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fielden, J (2007) Global horizons for UK universities, London: Council for

Industry and Higher Education. Available at:
www.cihe-uk.com/docs/PUBS/0711IntHEsumm.pdf (accessed June 2009).
Fielden, J (2008) The practice of internationalisation: managing international

activities in UK universities, London: UK Higher Education International Unit.
Fielden, J, Middlehurst, R and Woodfield, S (2007) Global horizons for UK

students. A guide for universities, London: Council for Industry and Higher
Education. Available at:
www.cihe-uk.com/docs/PUBS/0707GLOBAL.pdf (accessed June 2009).
Freire, P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed, New York: Continuum.
Green, MF and Barblan, A (2004) Higher education in a pluralist world: a

transatlantic view, Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Gunn, V (2009) ‘Constraints to implementing learning partnership models and

self-authorship in the arts and humanities’, in R Barnett and R Di Napoli (eds)
The university and its disciplines. Teaching and learning within and beyond
disciplinary boundaries, London: Routledge.
Hall, ET (1966) The hidden dimension, New York, NY: Doubleday.

Harris, S (2008) ‘Internationalising the university’, Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 40 (2), pp 346–357.
HEA (2007) Internationalisation and education development, conference,

Leeds Metropolitan University.
HEA (2009) New perspectives of internationalisation: enhancing the student

experience, conference, Edinburgh.
Hudson, B and Todd, MJ (eds) (2000) Internationalising the curriculum in

higher education: reflecting on practice, Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University
Press.
Jones, E (2007) ‘International reflections and culture change’, in E Jones and

S Brown (eds) Internationalising higher education, London: Routledge.
Jones, E (ed) (2009) Internationalisation and the student voice: higher

education perspectives, London: Routledge (forthcoming).
Jones, E and Killick, D (2007) ‘Internationalisation of the curriculum’, in E

Jones and S Brown (eds) Internationalising higher education, London:
Routledge.
Kehm, BM and Teichler, U (2007) ‘Research on internationalisation in higher

education’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 (3/4), pp 260–
273.
Killick, D (2006a) Cross-cultural capability and global perspectives. Guidelines

for curriculum review, Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University. Available at:
www.leedsmet.ac.uk/international/Cross_Cultural_Capability_Guidelines.pdf
Killick, D (2006b) ‘Going global: curriculum at the root’, conference paper,

Going global 2, Edinburgh: British Council.

Killick, D (2007) ‘The internationalised curriculum: making UK HE fit for
purpose’, Academy Exchange (HEA), 5, pp 36–37. Available at:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/publications/e
xchange/web0523_exchange_issue_5.pdf (accessed June 2009).
Killick, D (ed) (2008a) Hands on internationalisation, Leeds: Leeds

Metropolitan University. Available at:
www.leedsmet.ac.uk/Hands_on_Internationalisation.pdf (accessed June
2009).
Killick, D (2008b) ‘Cross-cultural capability and global perspectives:

curriculum development for global citizenship’, in C Shiel and S Takeda (eds)
Education for sustainable development: graduates as global citizens,
proceedings of an international conference, Bournemouth University,
September 2007, pp 50–55.
Kim, U (2001) ‘Culture, science, and indigenous psychologies’, in D

Matsumoto (ed) The handbook of culture and psychology, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Knight, J (1994) ‘Internationalization remodeled: definition, approaches, and

rationales’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, pp 5–31.
Knight, J (1997) ‘Internationalization of higher education: a conceptual

framework’, in J Knight and H De Wit (eds) Internationalization of higher
education in Asia Pacific countries, Amsterdam: EAIE.
Knight, J (2003) ‘Updated internationalization definition’, International Higher

Education, 33, pp 2–3.
Knight, J (2004) ‘Internationalization remodeled: definition, approaches, and

rationales’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 8 (1), pp 5–31.

Kreber, C (ed) (2009a) The university and its disciplines. Teaching and
learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries, London: Routledge.
Kreber, C (2009b) ‘Introduction: setting the context’, in C Kreber (ed) The

university and its disciplines. Teaching and learning within and beyond
disciplinary boundaries, London: Routledge.
Lapworth, S (2008) ‘A crisis in identity. The view of a postgraduate student of

higher education’, in R Barnett and R Di Napoli (eds) Changing identities in
higher education. Voicing perspectives, London: Routledge.
Leask, B (1999) ‘Internationalisation of the curriculum: key challenges and

strategies’, conference paper, The state of the art in internationalising the
curriculum: international perspectives, Australia: IDP Education.
Leask, B (2001) ‘Bridging the gap: internationalizing university curricula’,

Journal of Studies in International Education, 5 (2), pp 100–115.
Leask, B (2003) ‘Beyond the numbers – levels and layers of

internationalisation to utilise and support growth and diversity’, conference
paper, 17th IDP Australian International Education Conference, Melbourne,
Australia.
Leask, B (2004) ‘Internationalisation outcomes for all students using

information and communication technologies (ICTs), Journal of Studies in
International Education, 8 (4), pp 336–351.
Leask, B (2008) ‘A holistic approach to internationalisation – connecting

institutional policy and the curriculum with the everyday reality of student life’,
in C Shiel and S Takeda (eds) Education for sustainable development:
graduates as global citizens, proceedings of an international conference,
Bournemouth University, September 2007, pp 57–66.

Lewis, VF (2007) ‘“Integrated internationalism” in UK higher education:
interpretations, manifestations and recommendations’, University of Bath
(unpublished thesis).
Lunn, J (2006) Global perspectives in higher education, project summary,

Royal Geographic Society DfID-funded project, 2004–2006, Royal
Geographical Society.
Lunn, J (2008) ‘Global perspectives in higher education: taking the agenda

forward in the United Kingdom’, Journal of Studies in International Education,
12, pp 231–354.
Matsumoto, D (ed) (2001) The handbook of culture and psychology, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Matsumoto, D and Juang, L (2004) Culture & psychology, Belmont, CA:

Wadworth/Thompson Learning.
Matsumoto, D, Leroux, J, Berhard, JA and Gray, H (2004) ‘Unraveling the

psychological correlates of intercultural adjustment potential’, International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, pp 281–309.
Matsumoto, D, Leroux, J, Ratzlaff, C, Tatani, H, Uchida, H, Kim, C and Araki,

S (2001) ‘Development and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment
potential in Japanese sojourners: the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale
(ICAPS)’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, pp 483–510.
Matsumoto, D and Yoo, SH (2005) ‘Culture and applied nonverbal

communication’, in RE Riggio and RS Feldman (eds) Applications of
nonverbal communication, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayo, P (2003) ‘A rationale for a transformative approach to education’,

Journal of Transformative Education, 1 (1), pp 38–57.

McKenzie, A, Bourn, D, Evans, S, Brown, M, Shiel, C, Bunney, A et al (2003)
Global perspectives in higher education, London: Development Education
Association.
Middlehurst, R and Woodfield, S (2007) ‘Responding to the

internationalisation agenda: implications for institutional strategy’, research
project report 2005–2006, York: Higher Education Academy.
Observatory on Borderless Education (2007) Realising the global university:

part one, Observatory on Borderless Education.
Osler, A and Starkey, H (2003) ‘Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship:

theoretical debates and young people's experiences’, Educational Review, 55,
pp 243–254.
Oxford Brookes University (2008): Using formal and informal curricula to

improve interactions between home and international students, conference,
Oxford.
Oxford Brookes University (2009): Internationalising the home student,

conference, Oxford.
Paige, MR (2003) ‘The American case: the University of Minnesota’, Journal

of Studies in International Education, 7 (1), pp 52–63.
Qiang, Z (2003) ‘Internationalization of higher education: towards a

conceptual framework’, Policy Futures in Education, 1, pp 148–270.
Ray, J (2007) Globalisation and everyday life, Abingdon: Routledge.
Robinson, S and Katulushi, C (eds) (2005) Values in higher education, St

Bride’s Major: Aureus/University of Leeds.
Sen, A (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Shephard, K (2008) ‘Is it the role of higher education to teach students to
value our environment, and if it is, how do we do it and how well do we do it?’,
in C Shiel and S Takeda (eds) Education for sustainable development:
graduates as global citizens, proceedings of an international conference,
Bournemouth University, September 2007, pp 146–155.
Shiel, C (2006) ‘Developing the global citizen, Academy Exchange (HEA), 5,

pp 18–20. Available at:
www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/publications/excha
nge/web0523_exchange_issue_5.pdf (accessed June 2009).
Shiel, C and Takeda, S (2008) ‘Global vision and global citizenship at

Bournemouth University’, in C Shiel and S Takeda (eds), Education for
sustainable development: graduates as global citizens, proceedings of an
international conference, Bournemouth University, September 2007, pp 3–8.
Stephenson, J (1998) ‘The concept of capability and its importance in higher

education’, in J Stephenson and M Yorke (eds) Capability and quality in
higher education, London: Kogan Page.
Trahar, S (2007) Teaching and learning: the international higher education

landscape, Bristol: Higher Education Academy Education Subject Centre.
UNESCO (1998) Higher education in the twenty-first century: vision and

action, Paris: UNESCO. Available at:
www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm (accessed
June 2009).
Universities UK (2005) Universities UK's international strategy, London:

Universities UK.
van der Wende, M (2001) ‘Internationalisation policies: about new trends and
contrasting paradigms’, Higher Education Policy, 14, pp 249–259.

Warner, G (1992) ‘Internationalization models and the role of the university,
International Education Magazine.
Welsch, W (1999) ‘Transculturality: the puzzling form of cultures today’, in M

Featherstone and S Lash (eds) Spaces of culture. City, nation, world, London:
Sage.
Yershova, Y, DeJaeghere, J and Mestenhauser, J (2000) ‘Thinking not a

usual: adding the intercultural perspective,’ Journal of Studies in International
Education, 4 (39), pp 39–78.

Appendix
Generic learning outcomes devised by participants in the workshop ‘Graduate

attributes for a globalising world’ at the Higher Education Academy Annual
Conference, Harrogate, 2 July 2008.
Skills
Students will be able to:
• demonstrate the ability to think critically in a global context
• operate in a diverse and multicultural context
• demonstrate critical self-awareness in inter/multicultural global contexts
• successfully demonstrate the ability to translate ideas of responsible

global citizenship into action in terms of:
– work
– society/community
– personal development
• analyse a problem with a global dimension from at least three different

perspectives
• communicate with people from different cultural backgrounds.
Knowledge
Students will be able to:
• demonstrate an understanding of the potential of their discipline to

unite and divide cultures and communities
• demonstrate knowledge of the relationship between their own culture

and that of another culture
• demonstrate a critical understanding of cultural diversity/responsible

global citizenship

• demonstrate an understanding of the value of a range of perspectives
in their disciplinary field
• identify intercultural issues relevant to professional practice
• demonstrate an understanding of perspectives on globalisation as a

contested concept
• demonstrate a knowledge and an understanding of different cultures
• compare systems, contexts and environments from different countries

and cultures
• identify intercultural issues relevant to professional practice.
Values and attitudes
None were identified as it was generally felt that these would be problematic
to assess.

Enhancing Learning in The Social Science Vol - 2 - 1 - Killick

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Enhancing Learning in The Social Science Vol - 2 - 1 - Killick

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Curriculum internationalisation: identity, graduate attributes and ‘alter-

Tel: 0113 283274

Since joining Leeds Metropolitan University in 1991 after a career in EFL,

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 1

Internationalisation is a complex and contested term, which UK higher

Keywords: internationalisation, curriculum, cross-cultural capability, identity,

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 2

(Barnett and Di Napoli, 2008a: 161)

UK higher education and internationalisation

Since the turn of the millennium, ‘internationalisation’ has become

In the year 2008–2009 at least four UK universities launched units dedicated

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 3

At the same time as UK HE has been adopting, adapting or ignoring the

Hitherto, consonant with the marketisation of HE, the predominant approach

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 4

Taking internationalisation to be a long-term process (or, better, a series of

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 5

‘To respond to these challenges [of globalisation], it is essential that our

I am not seeking to argue against the importance of graduate employability,

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 6

Propositions underpinning a ‘developed’ view of internationalisation

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 7

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 8

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 9

‘Education either functions as an instrument that is used to facilitate the

(Freire, 1970: 13–14)

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 10

Global identity and graduate attributes in a globalising world

Baxter Magolda correctly proposes that our students ‘require a transformation

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 11

‘… a disappointment of the narcissistic assumption of the superiority of ‘us’

(Alred et al, 2006: 2)

Education, as one of the most powerful forces of socialisation, can be seen to

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 12

a. in the context of personal development amidst the turbulence of alterity

Such aspirations form the rationale for the interpretation of internationalisation

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 13

A starting point for constructing the ‘I can’ dimension in an internationalised

A graduate who demonstrates international perspectives as a

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 14

Looking at each of these, I think it is clear how it is possible to propose

Leeds Metropolitan University’s guidelines for curriculum review document

• the awareness, knowledge and skills to operate in multicultural

This document has informed a university-wide curriculum review project at

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 15

To explore these further, I return to one of the propositions which I suggest

• These changes involve technological, economic, material, cultural,

The personal is highlighted because, as indicated in earlier discussions, this is

Cross-cultural capability concerns being with cultural others. In addition to

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 16

Embedding such overarching objectives within the curriculum, however,

Internationalisation of the curriculum along the lines proposed here supposes

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 17

UK HE is gaining ground in its own social construction of the concept of

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 18

Bourriaud (2005, 2009) proposes a shift from postmodernism as a new era of

ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 1, July 2009 ISSN: 1756 ‐848X 19

Alred, G, Byram, M and Fleming, M (eds) (2006) Education for intercultural

Altbach, PG and Knight, J (2007) ‘The internationalization of higher education:

Appadurai, A (1997) Modernity at large, Minnesota, MN: University of

Appadurai, A (2006/1966) ‘Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural

Atfield, R and Kemp, P (eds) (2008) Enhancing the international learning