Curriculum internationalisation is a strategy adopted by many universities as they prepare their graduates for employment in the global economy, write Glenda Crosling, Ron Edwards and Bill Schroder in the Journal of higher education policy and management. In a case study of organisational change involved in attempts by Monash University to implement curriculum internationalisation in six disciplines in the Faculty of Business and Economics - which encompasses five Australian and two offshore campuses and three families of degrees - they found that while the multi-campus structure presents an opportunity, a challenge is the number and geographic dispersion of lecturers along with differing academic cultures. "We identify significant staff and faculty issues requiring consideration in the change that accompanies curriculum development, such as the powerful effect of the traditional notion of academic autonomy, and the need for continued resources to support the changes".

The following is a short extract from Internationalising the curriculum: The implementation experience in a Faculty of Business and Economics, and is reproduced with permission of the publishers, Routledge.

Towards the end of the article, authors Glenda Crosling, Ron Edwards and Bill Schroder discuss findings from the curriculum internationalisation project at Monash, in so doing providing guidance for others who are in the process of curriculum internationalisation. Key issues in managing university change that emerge from the literature, they write, are:

1- People respond positively to change when: they understand why it is required; they can cope with it; and they have 'ownership' of the change process.
2- Senior management must be seen as committed to the change, through leadership and the provision of resources.
3- Academics value autonomy on curricula matters, especially with individual subjects.
4- Australian academics are frustrated with increased administrative and teaching workloads and are under pressure to research more.

Workshops at Monash brought together staff from all Australian and offshore campuses to understand the change and discuss its meaning and form for their subject, thereby participating in and owning the change. The purpose of the workshops was to involve as many staff members as possible and to demonstrate to the team the faculty and university commitment to the project.

However, the autonomy issue surfaced early and requires consideration by others as they internationalise their curriculum. Several academics argued strongly that individual academics should decide how to 'international' their subjects should be.

The individual subject leaders (who were funded for time release) were diligent in their attempts to internationalise the curriculum and develop flexible learning materials. However, apart from the initial workshops, the involvement of other academic staff was limited and is explainable by work pressure and the need to research and publish.

Most held neutral attitudes on the project's value and were happy to leave the work to someone else. A small proportion was strongly negative and such attitudes need consideration in the process. For example, two academics saw a more sinister objective for the project - the 'Taylorisation' of teaching and learning. Although one project objective was to standardise subject topics for 80% commonality between core subjects in each of the six disciplines, the other curriculum internationalisation objectives, flexible learning and involvement of academic staff from all campuses, aimed to facilitate rather than constrain diversity.

Although not explicitly stated, the idea behind this type of project is that, if successful, it provides a 'demonstration effect', leading to more widespread adoption across the university. However, demonstrated success in a pilot is only one variable influencing innovation adoption in organisations. As well as leadership and continuing financial commitment by faculty and university management, individual academics must be convinced that teaching and learning innovation does not threaten their continued employment, contributes to advancing their careers (relative to, say, research), contributes to improved learning outcomes, and can be implemented in a cost-effective way.

We interviewed department heads and subject team leaders at the completion of the project. As might be expected, their attitudes were quite positive and welcomed the positive course curricula developments and efforts to build team relations. However, the subject leaders were concerned about some of their colleagues' lack of involvement (which we have explained earlier). Incentives for involvement may overcome such issues in the future.

Conclusions

Despite the social challenges posed by globalisation, the importance of international skills and knowledge is widely accepted. A commitment to global issues, such as human rights and environmental protection, the capacity to empathise and communicate with people of different backgrounds, and the ability to feel at home everywhere, are attributes that will assist the current generation of university students as they make their way in the world. Hence, universities have revised their aims and objectives to incorporate international skills and knowledge as core graduate attributes. However, little work has been done to translate this new priority into curriculum documents and teaching practice.

This paper has reflected on and described one institution's attempts to introduce curriculum internationalisation and the development of flexible learning materials that facilitate it. In so doing, guidance has been provided for others as they engage in curriculum internationalisation. The project was concerned with six core subjects (the curriculum internationalisation component was pursued in depth for only two). This represents a small first step on the first of the three stages proposed by Edwards et al (2003). The pilot projects for the two subjects for which curriculum internationalisation was the primary objective (economics and management) showed that students appreciate the effort and that their learning opportunities were enhanced.

Academic staff closely involved with the subjects were also generally positive but, other than the subject leaders, were unwilling to commit much of their time. Although we lack objective attitudinal information of other academics, our impression is that their view are generally neutral or positive, but not strongly held. There are many things o their minds, in particular, the need to produce more published research.

At the same time, the faculty and university have pressed ahead with other aspects of internationalisation. For example, a growing proportion of the student population participate in university-funded study abroad programmes, and a programme to support short term, international staff exchanges has commenced.

Although adding international opportunities of this nature is relatively easy, curriculum change, involving large numbers of staff and students, is a difficult process. It confronts the same constraints of those introducing change in any large, complex organisation and, therefore, has to be carefully planned, well resourced and have the involvement and support of academic staff.

The full paper may be read at Journal of higher education policy and management


Printable version
Email to a friend
Comment on this article