INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE
CURRICULUM

A REMEDY FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS' ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT DIFFICULTIES?

CHALLENGES IN INTERNATIONALIZING THE CURRICULUM

• Faculty, who are the key to curricular reform (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), need to become engaged in the internationalization process which won't occur unless they undersand the link between the internationalization process and their personal projects and missions (Bond, 2006).

• 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 (Mestenhauser, 1998). 

• Faculty often neglect to draw upon the experiences of international students and domestic students who have international or intercultural experiences as potential resources for internationalizing their curricula and pedagogical practices (Bond, 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Mestenhauser, 1998, 2002b; Taylor, 2004; Vertesi, 1999). 

• Few Canadian institutions provide support to faculty in how to effectively incorporate the cross-cultural knowledge and experience of their international students within their classes (Knight, 2000a). 

• Support for the curricular reform process must be recognized within written policy statements and strategic plans of the institution and must be effectuated at the departmental and institutional levels (Bond et al., 2003; Knight, 1994, 1995; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006). 

• 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).  

• Insufficient funding and resources to support the internationalization of the curriculum can also be serious impediments to this process (Bond, 2003a; Bond et al.,2003; Castenada, 2004; Cleveland-Innes, Emes, & Ellard, 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Jones & Andrews, 2002; Knight, 1995, 2002a; Schoorman, 2000a; Schuerholz-Lehr & van Gyn, 2006). 

• 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). Since successful internationalization of the curriculum requires a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach, one of the greatest challenges to curricular reform is promoting collaboration amongst faculty from diverse disciplines (Cleveland-Innes et al., 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Jones & Andrews, 2002; Maidstone, 1995; Mestenhauser, 1998).     

• 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).

• Faculty must believe that the academic and humanistic rationales for internationalizing the curriculum are the institution's priority and that the process will enrich the learning environment for the benefit of everyone on campus rather than simply being an avenue of revenue generation which will increase the institution's potential of recruiting international fee-paying students (Bond & Thayer Scott, 1999; Brown & Jones, 2007; Cleveland-Innes et al., 2001; DeVita & Case, 2003; Knight, 1997; Schapper & Mayson, 2008; Taraban, Dippo, Fynbo, & Alsop, 2006; Vertesi, 1999). 

• Institutions that neglect to consider faculty's international experience and competence in their recruitment and hiring processes and fail to introduce reward and promotion strategies for faculty based on their involvement in international activities such as internationalizing the curricula impede the curricular reform process (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 negatively impact on the process of internationalizing of the curriculum (Cleveland-Jones et al., 2001; Ellingboe, 1998; Harari, 1992; Knight, 1994, 2000; Paige, 2003; Taylor, 2000; Tonkin & Edwards, 1981).   

• 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 (Bennick et al., 1996). 

• 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 (Bond, 2006). 

• Faculty may be reluctant to internationalize the curriculum at the expense of the basic knowledge required within the discipline and may question whether they should be creating a distinction between the international and traditional content within their courses or integrating the two (Schuerholz-Lehr et al., 2007).