Page 2 - Microsoft Word - EAIE_Anniversary_book_Final.docx

multicultural world in which they live and (will) have to function in the future” (p. 53). In 1995

the OECD definition similarly connected internationalisation of the curriculum with
preparation for life in national, multi-cultural contexts through an ‘international orientation in
content’. In 2005, Webb said that internationalisation of the curriculum in Australia “helps
students to develop an understanding of the global nature of scientific, economic, political

and cultural exchange” (p. 111). In South Africa, in 2007, Ogude argued that
internationalisation of the curriculum “is all about-producing globally competitive graduates,

and generating new knowledge”. In Canada, in 2009, the Association of Universities and
Colleges of Canada (AUCC) suggested that an internationalised curriculum is “a means for
Canadian students to develop global perspectives and skills at home” (p.5). Today “this

notion of global citizenship has become part of the internationalisation discourse in higher
education around the world” (Deardorff & Jones 2012, p.295).

There is, however, less agreement on what we actually mean by ‘global citizenship’ and the
scope and nature of the learning outcomes necessary for graduates to be global citizens.

Not surprisingly, the most effective means to develop these outcomes and how to assess
them, also remains elusive. Some argue that it is important that “content … does not arise
out of a single cultural base but engages with global plurality in terms of sources of

knowledge”, and that teachers encourage students “to explore how knowledge is produced,
distributed and utilized globally” helping them to “develop an understanding of the global
nature of scientific, economic, political and cultural exchange” (Webb 2005, p. 111). Some

argue for a strong emphasis on pedagogy and on managing cross-cultural encounters within
the classroom and on campus, with carefully structured and designed interactive and

collaborative learning activities (de Vita 2002 ; Leask 2003: 2009; Volet and Ang 1998).
Some emphasise the need to incorporate a variety of activities into the curriculum including
“international studies, language learning, international exchanges for students and faculty

members, as well as student-led educational activities” (AUCC, 2009, p. 5).

In practice, local settings significantly influence interpretation and priorities (Lee, 2000). Time
has also altered national approaches, priorities and perspectives. Huang (2003; 2006)
describes the similarities and differences in approach to internationalisation of the university

curricula in China and Japan, both unique from each other because of their distinctive
national histories and characters. Precisely because national context exerts an influence on
approaches to internationalisation of the curriculum, it must be said that despite general

agreement around the role of universities in preparing graduates for a globalised world, and
the importance of the internationalised curriculum in that, in practice how this is approached
may look very different in different parts of the world. Approaches in the same place have

2