Higher Education Academy Annual Conference, July 2008

Higher Education Academy Annual Conference, July 2008

Internationalisation: Graduate attributes for a globalising world[1]

David Killick, Leeds Metropolitan University

Introduction

In the last five years, ‘internationalisation’ has been increasingly visible on the UK HE ‘scene’; reports, strategies and research projects (Bourne, McKenzie, & Shiel, 2006; Caruana & Spurling, 2007; Fielden, 2007; Fielden, Middlehurst, & Woodfield, 2007; Hudson & Todd, 2000; Lunn, 2006; McKenzie et al., 2003; Middlehurst & Woodfield, 2007; Trahar, 2007; Universities UK, 2005), conferences (Bournemouth University 2007; British Council 2004, 2006; HEA; Oxford Brookes 2008), and themes within conferences (such as this one), journal articles (too numerous to cite examples), and books (Brown & Jones, 2007) now crowd a space which was somewhat barren prior to the turn of the millennium (note the lack of consideration of ‘internationalisation’, for example, in Dearing’s report (1997a) on the role of higher education in the UK. We should not, therefore, be surprised to find contention and confusion about the meaning of 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 Knight and Leask (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Knight, 1997, 2003, 2004; Leask, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004)). Given our relative late arrival on the scene, it is hard to see the validity of Professor Trainor’s claim that, “Most 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 Knight’s 1994 definition of the term. At the same time as UK higher education 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); something which I believe highly relevant to the debate.

The most common misconception of internationalisation is that it means the recruitment of international students (and possibly also the creation of ‘off-shore’ or ‘transnational’ delivery of parts of the curriculum to international students in their home countries). It is unfortunate that this impoverished, economic and ‘performative’ driven conceptualisation (Harris, 2008; van der Wende, 2001) seems to have informed not only the first ‘Prime Minister’s Initiative’ (1999) on the international development of HE, but also ‘PMI2’ (2006). There is often a similarly narrow view of the meaning of ‘widening participation’ in the sense that a focus on recruitment detracts from considerations of purpose, impacts, value–added, curriculum, delivery, and campus diversity in relation to all students. The broader dimensions to internationalisation are, however, now emerging in the forums of debate and in the directions being taken by a number of institutions (Caruana & Spurling, 2007).

Rather than go into all aspects of internationalisation here (it must affect all aspects of a university), or offer another definition of the term (the morphology itself tells us it is a process), I set out below a number of maxims with regard to what I refer to as a ‘developed’ view of internationalisation of the curriculum/student experience.

Some maxims underpinning a developed view of internationalisation

·  A university should provide an education for all its students which is ‘fit for purpose’;

·  An education offering ‘fitness for purpose’ today means one which will enable all our students to live and work successfully in the world of today and the worlds of tomorrow;

·  The world we inhabit is undergoing rapid changes in many dimensions, through processes broadly grouped under the term ‘globalisation’;

·  These changes involve greater technological, economic, material, cultural, social, environmental, and personal connectivity;

·  The world(s) of the future are not predictable;

·  To live and work successfully within this globalising world, all our graduates need attributes which extend beyond the knowledge and skills traditionally delivered within a purely discipline-focussed curriculum;

·  Internationalisation is about delivering a student experience (principally but not exclusively through the formal and informal curriculum) which will enable them to develop those attributes.

I hope the above cannot be seriously contested (let’s see!). Where there will certainly be disagreement, however, is on what might be meant by “live and work successfully” – and out of differences in that understanding will fall differences in the framing of the graduate attributes we consider most indispensable.

Values and Higher Education

Universities do not stand outside of the world, and cannot hide behind flags of aloof neutrality; we are, “more than a spectator of society” (Green & Barblan, 2004: 15). The idea that higher education should be concerned with ‘encouraging’ or ‘developing’ values seems anathema to many (Shephard, 2008). Yet, a view of knowledge and education which believes it can be value-free seems hopelessly naïve; 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).

Mayo (2003: 42) cites Richard Shaull’s foreword to Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, asserting there to be only two stances which education can take:

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)

Whether advocating education for conformity or for freedom may not be clear, but Dearing recognised that (good) higher education ‘can impart tolerance, openness, and the capacity to inject positive forms of social interaction’ (Dearing, 1997b: 23).

These considerations lead us on to a vision of, “the university not simply sharing values with the rest of society but also helping to shape society” (Robinson & Katulushi, 2005: 256). This line is of course thwart 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 or worms which cannot be avoided once we embark on the process of curriculum internationalisation.

To “live and work successfully” implies to me engaging responsibly; taking a responsible stance is a value position (as are taking an irresponsible stance or an a-responsible stance).

A two-dimensional model – cross-cultural capability and global perspectives

In a model developed at Leeds Metropolitan University, we propose two dimensions to a curriculum fit for purpose in our globalising world (Killick, 2006a). Cross-cultural capability is essentially concerned with the skills and knowledge base which are appropriate for living and working responsibly as a citizen of that globalising world; some of these will be generic, others subject-specific; they are susceptible to change as the field of operation itself changes. A global perspective provides a world-view and an ethical underpinning which sees humanity as extending beyond the frontiers of my country or my culture.

To explore, briefly, cross-cultural capability, I return to one of the maxims which I suggest underpin a developed view of internationalisation:

·  These changes involve greater technological, economic, material, cultural, social, environmental, and personal connectivity;

The personal is highlighted because this is the front line of that global connectivity. It is a pre-requisite for engagement with civil society, political processes, our colleagues and our masters, our neighbours, those at a distance with whom we enact our everyday business of living, the planetary processes which shape our environment and our capacities to feed ourselves, our ability to resolve conflict by ‘jaw not war’, and every other dimension of the complex human world. Negotiating the boundaries which inhibit successful communication in this highly interconnected world requires:

Intercultural understanding

·  An awareness of my ‘self’ and my ‘culture(s)’;

·  An awareness of my ‘self’ in relation to the ‘other’;

·  An awareness of the ways in which cultures may differ;

·  An acceptance that ‘different’ is not a value judgement.

Intercultural communication

·  An ability (and a willingness) to monitor ongoing communication for misunderstanding and/or breakdown arising from contrasting styles or strategies;

·  An ability (and a willingness) to employ a range of communication styles or strategies which are appropriate to the context and to one’s interlocutors.

Subject/Professional perspectives

When acting professionally, in the context of a discipline, I also require:

·  An understanding (and an acceptance) that there are other perspectives on the discipline itself;

·  An understanding (and an acceptance) that the practice of the discipline (profession) takes place within a cultural context which may have a significant impact on that practice;

·  An appreciation (and an acceptance) of the fact that one’s own perspectives may be limited, may be false, may be contested.

The above could (and should) apply to the domestic context; global perspectives takes the view that what applies at home applies, equally, elsewhere.

Both cross-cultural capability and global perspectives require a shift in curriculum content, in its delivery, and in its assessment, and must be taken on board as the responsibility of all, realised in the context of a student’s chosen discipline area and programme of study. Although not the focus of this paper, it must be noted that this, in turn, highlights the necessity of supporting academic staff to transform themselves and their practice:

Staff are the link between the curriculum policy and students. The role of academic staff in interpreting curriculum policy at the discipline level is an important one which requires significant attention and support. The role of professional staff is also critical in ensuring that a campus culture of internationalisation exists and intercultural engagement is modelled. (Leask, 2008: 64)

The development of graduate attributes through an internationalised curriculum/ student experience pre-supposes a level of “intercultural sophistication on the part of the faculty” (Yershova, DeJaeghere, & Mestenhauser, 2000: 67).

Graduate Attributes & Learning Outcomes

For a university education to be fit for purpose in a globalising world, then, suggests that we must provide our students with (i) a relevant set of “intercultural” skills and attitudes, (ii) international perspectives on themselves and their discipline/profession, and (iii) “a set of values that transform them, both now and in the future” (Otter, 2007: 42). A starting point for achieving this, and for making our objectives transparent to our students and other stakeholders in higher education is through developing statements of graduate attributes which would be appropriate outcomes of an internationalised curriculum/student experience. Guided by such overarching institutional objectives, individual disciplines can begin the process of interrogating their content, delivery and assessment to determine how they are enabling their students. The clear expression of this process will be through transparent learning outcomes throughout their programmes of study. Suggestions for attributes and outcomes relating to global perspectives provide a good starting point (Case, 1993; McKenzie et al., 2003; Shiel, 2006; Shiel & Takeda, 2008), though I suggest that they tend to lack a recognition of the dimensions of cross-cultural capability which are enabling attributes for individuals to escape the limitations ‘naturally’ imposed through their own cultural norms and perceptual prisms.

Australia has a national requirement for universities to articulate graduate attributes, and a national project to research them co-ordinated by Simon Barrie at the University of Sydney (for example see Barrie, 2004, 2007). Leask (1999) has reported on the University of South Australia’s comprehensive set of graduate attributes, number seven of which details:

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

Leed’s Metropolitan University’s guidelines for curriculum review (Killick, 2006a) currently sets out just three attributes:

·  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.

I suggest both the above are a good starting point for deliberation in UK HEIs. For further thought, the appendix to this paper summarises attributes and learning outcomes proposed by those who attended the session at which this paper was presented.

Summary

In this paper, I present a ‘developed’ conceptualisation of internationalisation as a process of ‘modernising’ the university experience for all students. I have sought to demonstrate how graduate attributes for a globalising world should derive from a university experience which is ‘fit for purpose’ and suggested that such attributes are based in cross-cultural capability and global perspectives. I have focussed on the internationalised curriculum as the mechanism through which such attributes may be developed, and suggested that, given this direction, individual disciplines have the responsibility to develop appropriate learning outcomes for their students. I should note that I have argued the importance of a “whole institution” approach to internationalisation elsewhere (for example, Jones & Killick, 2007); I do not wish to diminish the importance of that comprehensive approach. However, those other dimensions of institutional internationalisation cannot be effective without curriculum, as it is the curriculum which forms the backbone of the student experience (Bond, 2003; Kehm & Teichler, 2007; Killick, 2006b, 2008; Paige, 2003).