Critical Reflections on the Internationalisation of the Curriculum

  • Craig Whitsed
  • Wendy Green
Part of the Global Perspectives on Higher Education book series (GPHE, volume 28)


We commenced this volume with these words spoken by a disciplinary academic reflecting on internationalisation of the curriculum. The sense of frustration is palpable. And, as the chapters collected in this book indicate, this sense of frustration is not uncommon. While the importance of internationalisation of the curriculum (IoC), as a concept, is increasingly recognised, it is not generally embraced enthusiastically within faculties.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Althusser, L. (1968/1970). Reading capital. London, UK: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D., & Johnson, R. (2006). Ideas of leadership underpinning proposals for the Carrick Institute: A review of proposals for the leadership for excellence in teaching and learning program. (Occasional paper). Retrieved December 12, 2009 from
  3. Banks, J. (2001). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. Banks, & C. McGee (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives, (4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. (2000). Realising the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Barnett, R., Parry, G., & Coate, K. (2001). Conceptualising curriculum change. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barrie, S. C. (2004). A research based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barrie, S. C. (2007). A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 439–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barrie, S., Hughes, C., Crisp, G., & Bennison, A. (2014). Assessing and assuring Australian graduate learning outcomes: Principles and practices within and across disciplines: Final report. Office of Learning and Teaching. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from:
  12. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of the disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Billett, S. (2011). Curriculum and pedagogic bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences: Final report. Office of Learning and Teaching. Retreived December 12, 2014 from–griffith–2011
  14. Bronner, S. E. (2013). Imagining the possible: Radical politics for conservative times. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Carroll, J. (2015). Tools for teaching in an educationally mobile world. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Childress, L. K. (2010). The twenty-first century university: Developing faculty engagement in internationalization. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  17. Clandinin, D. J., & Rosiek, J. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry: Borderland spaces and tensions. In D. J. Clandinin, (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clifford, V. A. (2009). Engaging the disciplines in internationalising the curriculum. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(2), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colman, F. (2005). Rhizome. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  20. David, M. M., & Watson, A. (2008). Participating in what? Using situated cognition theory to illuminate differences in classroom practices. In A. Watson & P. Winbourne (Eds.), New directions for situated cognition in mathematics education (Vol. 45). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Deardorff, D., & van Gaalen, A. (2012). Outcomes assessment in the internationalization of higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The sage handbook of international higher education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Flavell, H., Jones, S., & Ladyshewsky, R. (2008). Academic leadership development for course coordinators and the influences of higher educational change. Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2008, Canberra, Australia. Retrieved February 27, 2010 from
  24. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  25. Green, W., Hammer, S., & Star, C. (2009). Facing up to the challenge: Why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes? Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, W., Hibbins, R., Houghton, L., & Ruutz, A. (2013). Reviving praxis: Stories of continual professional learning and practice architecture in a faculty-based teaching community of practice. Oxford Review of Education, 39(2), 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green, W., & Mertova, P. (2011). Engaging with the gatekeepers: Faculty perspectives on developing curriculum for globally responsible citizenship. In V. Clifford & C. Montgomery (Eds.), Internationalisation of the curriculum for global citizenship: Policies, practices and pitfalls. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development Press.Google Scholar
  28. Green, W., & Whitsed, C. (2013), Reflections on an alternative approach to continuing professional learning for internationalization of the curriculum across disciplines. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guattari, F. (2005). The three ecologies. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  31. Houle, C. O. (1980). Continuing learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, E., & Brown, S. (2007). Internationalising higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Kemmis, S. (2007). Action research. Educational research and evidence-base practice. Martyn Hammersley (pp. 167–180). London, UK: SageGoogle Scholar
  34. Kemmis, S., & Groontenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Kemmis, S., & Smith, T. (2008) Praxis and praxis development. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp. 3–13). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publications. Google Scholar
  36. Laurillard, D. (1997). Applying systems thinking to higher education. Position paper, Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
  37. Leask, B. (2008). Internationalisation, globalisation, and curriculum innovation. In M. Hellstén & A. M. Reid (Eds.), Researching international pedagogies: Sustainable practice for teaching and learning in higher education. London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leask, B. (2013). Internationalising the curriculum in the disciplines – Imagining new possibilities. Special issue, Internationalisation of the curriculum and the disciplines. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 103–118.Google Scholar
  40. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalising the curriculum. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Leask, B., & Bridge, C. (2013). Comparing internationalisation of the curriculum in action across disciplines: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1), 79–101.Google Scholar
  42. Leask, B., Whitsed, C., & Green, W. (2014). Internationalising the curriculum in action. Retrieved December 13, 2014 from Google Scholar
  43. Lee, A., & Poynton, C. (Eds.). (2000). Culture and text: Discourse and methodology in social science research and cultural studies. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  44. Little, D. (2012, November 15). Assemblage theory. Understanding society: Innovative thinking about social agency and structure in a global world. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from–theory.html
  45. Mace, W. M. (2005). James J. Gibson’s ecological approach: Perceiving what exists. Ethics and the Environment, 10(2), 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. McCormick, R., & Murphy, P. (2000). Curriculum: The case for a focus on learning. In M. Ben-Peretz, S. Brown, & B. Moon (Eds.), Routledge international companion to education. London, UK: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mestenhauser, J. (2011). Reflections on the past, present and future of internationalising higher education – Discovering opportunities to the meet the challenges. Minneapolis, MN: Global Programs and Strategy Alliance, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  49. Munro, A. (1997). Selected stories, 1968–1994. Toronto, ON: The Ryerson Press.Google Scholar
  50. Resher, N. (1979). The ontology of the possible. In M. J. Loux (Ed.), The possible and the actual: Readings in the metaphysics of modality. London, UK: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rizvi, F. (2005). International education and the production of cosmopolitan identities In A. Arimato, F. Huang, K.Yokoyama, & D. Hiroshima (Eds.), Globalization and higher education. Hiroshima, Japan: Research Institute of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  52. Sanderson, G. (2008). A foundation for the internationalisation of the academic self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Senge, P., & Kim, D. (1997). From fragmentation to integration: Building learning communities. The Systems Thinker, 8(4), 1–5. Retrieved December 13, 2104 from
  54. Shiel, C. (2006). Developing the global citizen. Academy Exchange, 6, 18–20.Google Scholar
  55. Shulman, L. S. (1993). Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 25(6), 6–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, K. (2009). Transnational teaching experiences: An under-explored territory for transformative professional development. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(2), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strauss, S. (2000). Theories of cognitive development and learning and their implications for curriculum development and teaching. In M. Ben-Peretz, S. Brown, & B. Moon (Eds.), Routledge international companion to education. London, UK: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  58. Rowland, S. (2006). The enquiring university: Compliance and contestation in higher education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Teekens, H. (2006). Internationalization at home: A background paper. In H. Teekens (Ed.), Internationalization at home: A global perspective. The Hague, The Netherlands: Nuffic.Google Scholar
  60. Thompson, G., Estabrooks, C., & Degner, L. (2006). Clarifying the concepts in knowledge transfer: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(6), 691–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trahar, S., & Hyland, F. (2011). Experiences and perceptions of internationalisation in higher education in the UK. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(5), 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Trowler, P. (2012a). Disciplines and interdisciplinarity: Conceptual groundwork. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders, & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Trowler, P. (2012b). Wicked issues in situating theory in close-up research. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(3), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2008). Internationalizing the university. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  65. Volet, S. (2001). Undestanding learning and motivation in context: A multi-dimensional and multi-level cognitive-situative perspective. In V. Simone & S. Javela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical and methodological implications. Oxford, UK: Pergsmon.Google Scholar
  66. Whitsed, C., Green, W., & Breit, R. (2014). The games we play: A situated approach to engaging disciplinary academic teams for the internationalisation of their curriculum. International Consortium of Educational Developers Conference (ICED), 15–18 June 2014, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig Whitsed
    • 1
  • Wendy Green
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for University Teaching and LearningMurdoch UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.Tasmanian Institute of Learning and TeachingUniversity of TasmaniaAustralia

Personalised recommendations