Towards more effective research supervision for 

international students in an Australian university *

[Symposium Crossing boundaries: Perspectives on internationalisation 
from one university.]

John Hall 
Curtin University of Technology


Introduction
My intention in this paper is to contemplate what it might take for 
Curtin University to provide more effective research supervision 
practices for its language minority (LM) postgraduate students. I begin 
with the following premises: a) that LM students have special needs for 
their supervision; b) that at least some of the current supervision 
practices are less than effective for LM students at Curtin; and c) 
that there are ways and means (glossed below as a preferred model) for 
providing more effective supervision practices for these researchers.

What follows is: first, a display of some empirical evidence to support 
the propositions: that LM students do seem to be experiencing 
difficulties in their supervision and that these difficulties are 
somewhat different from those of mainstream students; second, the main 
focus of the paper, an outline of general principles for more effective 
supervision practices for LM students at Curtin. 


Evidence from a case study
As part of a larger study on postgraduate research supervision at 
Curtin University in 1995 (Barker, Chung, Hall, Low and Shoebridge, 
1995), I conducted a case study of 17 international research 
postgraduates' supervision experiences. My brief was to undertake a 
qualitative inquiry of these students' perceptions, employing 
face-to-________________________________________________________________ 
__

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at Quality in 
Postgraduate Research - Is it Happening? -- a national conference 
jointly presented by The University of Adelaide, The Flinders 
University of SA and the University of South Australia -- held at 
Stamford Plaza Hotel, Adelaide on 18 & 19 April, 1996. 

face interviews rather than the questionnaire approach used by the 
other members of the research team. I had opted for an ethnographic 
study, believing it to be a more appropriate form of research with 
students whose first language was not English. 

However, some of the potential strengths of such a methodology were 
lost with my willingness to comply with the wish of my team members to 
produce frequency distributions. For example, by soliciting a larger 
sample and using a more structured approach to the interviewing, I 
sacrificed contextual richness and depth of understanding of 
postgraduates' narratives. Nevertheless, my study, along with those of 
my colleagues, was deemed useful to others working on policy 
development in this area (Reeves and Robbins, 1995).

The main differences in the 'findings' I constructed from the 
interviews, as opposed to the findings from the questionnaire data for 
international students were: 1) the apparent precariousness of the 

students' relationships with supervisors; and 2) the lower levels of 


satisfaction expressed by the students about their supervision 
experiences. I believe the first four of the following sample sets of 
responses show some indications of their "precariousness": 

i)when asked about the allocation of their supervisors, only 4/17 
postgrads said they had any input in the decision; of the 13 who did 
not, seven were satisfied with the arrangement, the other six said they 
would have liked a say in the matter.

ii)on the question of choosing their research topic, only 1/17 
postgraduate was allowed to exercise complete free choice; 10 had their 
topics modified considerably by their supervisors, and five of these 
said they had no say whatsoever in the formulation of their topic.

iii)when asked if they had been well prepared in the English language 
at the outset of their research programs, only 3/17 postgraduates 
considered themselves so; of the 14 who thought not, only four 
undertook formal instruction, though most of the ten regretted not 
having done so; as it happened, only 3/17 supervisors had advised their 
students in this matter, but, interestingly, the postgraduates did not 
blame their supervisors -- most attributed their decision to forego 
English instruction to their (the postgraduates') perception that it 
would take up too much of their time.

iv)as for the postgraduates being informed about their rights and 
responsibilities, as per the guidelines and regulations, only 1/17 
thought they had been well informed; 12 claimed they had not been 
informed at all; with respect to receiving information about their 
material entitlements, such as availability of a computer, there was a 
similar response -- most had had to rely on informal student networks 
for this information, and five respondents confided that they felt 
either too shy or too afraid to ask staff about these matters

The final response set pertains more to postgraduates' general 
wellbeing and sense of cultural identity, not at first glance pertinent 
to the research supervision act but, I argue below, an important aspect 
of empowerment for the LM student :

v)twelve of the 17 in the sample were asked if they had received 
recognition and support for their cultural identity by Curtin staff; 
3/12 said they were satisfied -- two of these were Indonesian 
postgraduates who were pleased with the interest shown by their 
supervisors about Indonesia; the other was a Singaporean who 
proclaimed, somewhat magnanimously, "Australians respect Singaporeans"! 
The other nine stated they had received no such recognition or support 
from staff at Curtin, but six of these (mostly Indonesians) said they 
were getting good support from fellow Indonesian and other 
postgraduates, and from people outside the university in their 
respective churches/temples. One respondent, an African, suggested that 
many things could be done to make the campus a friendlier place for 
 minority groups, such as providing in the library at least one 
 newspaper from their part of the world.  

I provide no further interpretation or analysis of these responses in 
this paper and, with the economy of time and space befitting this 
conference, move swiftly to reflect on a possible pedagogy for minority 
students at Curtin University.


A preferred supervision model for LM postgraduates
In contemplating what is needed for more effective supervision of LM 

research postgraduates, I draw on the perceptions of participants in 


the aforementioned study, on my own experience as a cross-cultural 
teacher and supervisor, and I am especially indebted to the ideas of 
Cummins (1988). In his metatheoretical analysis of minority education 
programs, Cummins contends that programs driven by a 'liberal ideology' 
-- typically under the rubric of multicultural education or 
cross-cultural education -- have been ineffectual because they have not 
addressed the power relations between the dominant and the dominated 
(cf, McConnachie and Kapferer, 1981). Cummins favours a policy 
framework informed by critical theory (ie a neo-Marxist, 
action-oriented ideology) which typically employs the nomenclature of 
anti-racist education. 

Though I concur with Cummins' basic posture, I am somewhat chastened by 
the realisation of having contributed to 'liberal' ideological policies 
and practices; and even as I strive to adopt a more radical stance, 
being a West Australian, I am culturally inclined to speak with a 
softer tongue and use terminology like anti-assimilationist education!  


In pondering effective minority education programs and practices, 
Cummins (1988, p.138) gives primacy to the interactions of educators 
and students; however, he claims these interactions are mediated by the 
following key institutional characteristics (minority parent 
participation is omitted here because it is deemed of little relevance 
to the tertiary sector), and the extent to which these characteristics 
are adopted in the role definitions of educators:

1) Minority students' first language (L1) and culture are incorporated 
    into the educational program, thus majority language/culture is 
 regarded      as an add on (ie 'additive') rather than as a replacement 
 for first        language/culture (ie 'subtractive'); 

2) The pedagogy (teaching and learning practices/strategies) promotes   
    students using their language(s) actively in order to generate their 
 own     knowledge, rather than emphasising the transmission of 
 pre-determined      knowledge (ie 'filling of the empty vessel'); and

3) When it comes to assessment, educators become advocates for minority 
    students, eg by focussing on how students' academic difficulties 
 are      constructed by interactions within the institution, rather 
 than legitimising     the location of the 'problem' as only within 
 students.

Now to apply Cummins' three key characteristics, along with other 
resources, to a consideration of how research supervision of LM 
postgraduates at Curtin (and elsewhere) may be improved:

1) cultural/linguistic incorporation: in his metatheoretical 
deliberations Cummins points to the weight of evidence in favour of 
minority students' first language (L1) being 'incorporated', ie being 
included, in minority education programs. Focussing on primary 
schooling, Cummins asserts that incorporation ensures "both the more 
solid cognitive/academic foundation developed through intensive L1 
instruction and also the reinforcement of their cultural identity" 
(1988, p.139). However, at the tertiary level in Australia there are 
very few instructors or supervisors able to communicate with LM 
students in their L1, and given that LM students have at that stage 
acquired full literacy in L1 it is not such an issue. Nevertheless, it 
is surely important for supervisors of LM research students to have a 
clear conception of their role as facilitators of these students' 
literacy development in the dominant language. Thus the following 

postulation by Cummins has relevance for the tertiary supervisor:



Educators who see their role as adding a second language and cultural 
 affiliation to students' repertoire are likely to empower students more 
 than those who see their role as replacing or subtracting students' 
 primary language and culture in the process of assimilating them to the 
 dominant culture. (p.139)

Tikunoff is another researcher in the field of minority education who 
emphasises the need for teachers to take advantage of LM students' L1 
and cultural experience. Tikunoff (1983) reports that incorporating 
aspects of LM students' home culture tends to promote engagement in 
instructional tasks and to contribute to a feeling of trust between the 
students and their teachers. It is interesting to note that LM 
postgraduates at Curtin, when defining what constitutes a "good 
supervisor", place a lot of importance on the respect shown by 
supervisors for their (the students') cultural background (Hall, 1995).

In our institution policy development on literacy is well under way 
(Curtin Policy, 1995), but I believe more consideration must be given 
to the special needs of LM students. I have argued elsewhere (Hall and 
Bell, 1995) that LM postgraduates in research programs have different 
linguistic needs from other students, in line with their main task of 
research writing, and that their post-program linguistic requirements 
ought to be carefully considered. For example, for those postgraduates 
who are returning to situations where increased English proficiency 
will not enhance their professional standing it may be possible to 
design with and for them a program with diminished English literacy 
requirements. It is also possible that arrangements could be made for 
the examination of at least some of these students' theses in their 
first language (Martinez, 1995). The others, who put a premium on 
acquisition of English literacy, will profit from intensive and 
sustained conversation and writing programs. These are just some of the 
possibilities for empowering LM research students through cultural and 
linguistic incorporation. 

2) pedagogy to promote active learning: Cummins (1988, p.143) refers to 
several pieces of research which demonstrate that students "designated 
'at risk' typically receive intensive, formal instruction that confines 
them to a passive role and induces a form of 'learned helplessness'". 
The alternative model, more conducive to their empowerment, encourages 
students to be active, independent learners who 'negotiate the 
curriculum' (Boomer, 1982) and construct their own knowledge. However, 
for some this will be a new approach to learning and instructors will 
need to ease them into it, with careful but hopefully non-intrusive 
monitoring of their progress.

An important dimension, according to Cummins (1988, p.143), is the 
degree of control exercised by the educator over the classroom 
interaction. The situation where extreme control is exercised may be 
characterised as the 'transmission' model; at the other end of the 
continuum is the 'reciprocal interaction' model (ibid, p.143) which 
positions students as having a high degree of control in setting their 
learning goals and in achieving these goals. Cummins (1988, p.145) 
contends that the transmission model of pedagogy is not conducive to 
genuine multicultural (or cross-cultural) education because it "entails 
the suppression of students' experiences and consequently does not 
allow for the validation of minority students' experiences in the 
classroom". 

At the tertiary level it would seem that active cross-cultural learning 
is eminently achievable, if two action research projects undertaken by 

Curtin lecturers to improve their cross-cultural teaching are anything 


to go by (Hall, in press). In these studies, one in the school of 
business and the other in engineering, minority and majority students 
were teamed up and required to work collaboratively on learning 
projects. Most students appreciated the opportunity for cross-cultural 
co-mingling and, as a serendipity feature of the research, they also 
thought they had achieved better learning of key concepts and 
knowledge. Wong-Fillmore & Valdez (1985) and Garcia (1989) likewise 
link more effective cross-cultural pedagogy to classroom discourse with 
high degrees of teacher-student and student-student interaction.

The implications of the preferred pedagogy for LM postgraduates' 
research supervision are fairly obvious. Because many LM researchers 
experience difficulty with their thesis writing there is a reported 
tendency for supervisors to dominate and even to take over the 
authorship completely; whilst this is usually well intentioned, it has 
the potential to be damaging to the relationship and to the self-esteem 
of the student -- to say nothing of the ethical implications! For 
example, as reported elsewhere, an Indonesian postgraduate, 'Namo', 
"complained that his supervisor always pushed him to write in the 
supervisor's style and always found Namo's expression to be incorrect 
-- which Namo found to be 'dehumanising'" (Hall, 1995, p.3). 

This does not mean that supervisors should not be strong leaders. 
Indeed this is another characteristic favoured by LM postgraduates in 
their supervisors. But though there is bound to be some deference shown 
by research postgraduates to their supervisors, 'reciprocal 
interaction' seems a useful ideal for both parties to strive for. After 
all, many of the LM postgraduates are already professionals in their 
field and those who are not are expected to be independent, autonomous 
learners by the completion of their programs.

3) advocacy in assessment: Cummins (1988) is convinced that 
'psychological assessment' has served to downgrade the academic 
achievement of minority students in the Western world by locating the 
academic 'problem' within the student, thus 

screening from critical scrutiny the subtractive nature of the 
 educational program, the exclusionary orientation of educators towards 
 minority communities, and the transmission model of teaching that 
 inhibits students from active participation in learning. (p.145)

In other words if the only tools available to the assessor are 
psychological tests then it is inevitable that a student's difficulties 
will be "attributed to psychological dysfunctions" (ibid, p.145; cf 
McConnachie, 1982). And this serves to remind us that there is no such 
thing as a culture free assessment -- all tests have terms of reference 
which favour a particular set of 'culture capital'.

For Cummins (1988, p.147), non-discriminatory assessment means at the 
very least the minority student's linguistic background must be taken 
into account when crucial tests or placement decisions are being made 
that will seriously affect the student's future. The preferred role 
definition, then, is one of "advocacy", wherein educators should 
delegitimise the traditional forms of assessment and "become advocates 
for the student in scrutinising critically the social and educational 
contexts within which the student has developed" (ibid, p.148). 
Presumably this would entail educator intervention to ensure that LM 
students are not discriminated against in their assessment; in extreme 
cases this could mean educators refusing to use certain forms of 
assessment or modifying them to allow the minority students a more 
culturally appropriate opportunity to demonstrate their ability.



At the tertiary level any attempt to change established assessment 
practices is bound to be controversial because these are central to the 
organisation and conceptualisation of established fields of knowledge 
and their power bases. For example, in my institution what constitutes 
'real' research is grounded in a positivist epistemology, and any 
attempt to challenge the orthodoxy is a hard-fought affair! 
Notwithstanding the resistance to change, I note that academic staff at 
Curtin are showing signs of being more aware of the disabling aspects 
of some forms of assessment for LM students and this awareness is being 
manifested in school policies and strategic plans. One small but 
significant change in University policy in recent years has been the 
allowance of extra time in examinations for students who qualify on the 
basis of a disability or LM status. There are also special conditions 
for entry into the University which apply to LM students, but it is 
often a matter of 'sink or swim' once minority students have gained 
entry, with an assimilationist ethic holding sway -- especially in the 
case of undergraduates. 

From personal observations and anecdotal evidence it would seem that at 
Curtin LM postgraduates are assessed in a much more sympathetic, if not 
culturally sensitive, manner than undergraduates and the net result for 
the former is more equitable. However, in policy terms, an 
advocacy-based form of assessment for LM research students needs to be 
explicated. At present too much is being left to chance in all aspects 
of supervision, and without some clear guidelines along 
"anti-assimilationist" lines there is a danger of there being serious 
casualties in this ever-vulnerable population.


Concluding remarks
This paper has grown out of a perceived need for me to be more explicit 
about the difficulties facing LM research students, as constructed by 
my research; and, in a more speculative frame, about possible ways of 
addressing these difficulties. Not all LM students are "at risk" of 
course, but many seem to be exposed to unhealthy and unnecessary stress 
and risk -- in a university environment in which we are becoming aware 
of our cross-cultural responsibilities (Curtin Cross-Cultural Education 
Policy, 1992), but in my view we have a long way to go in meeting these 
responsibilities.

However, despite the rather laboured and earnest manner in which I have 
begun to examine policy ideas for improving cross-cultural research 
supervision in this paper, I am pessimistic about improvement being 
achieved by a well-articulated list of do's and don'ts. Written 
policies and regulations do have their place, and at times they are 
downright useful; but in terms of bringing about widespread 
improvement, I believe, it is the process of policy development --the 
debates and contestations (towards which, hopefully, this paper might 
contribute) -- which are likely to be more consequential than any 
policy product.








REFERENCES

Barker, J., Chung, A., Hall, J., Low, J. & Shoebridge, A. (1995). 

Improving the quality of postgraduate supervision at Curtin University. 


Unpublished report, Curtin University.

Boomer, G. (ed) (1982). Negotiating the Curriculum. Sydney: Ashton 
Scholastics.

Cummins, J. (1988). From multicultural to anti-racist education: an 
analysis of programmes and policies in Ontario. In Skutnabb-Kangus, T. 
& Cummins, J. (eds) Minority education: from shame to struggle. 
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 

Curtin University Cross-Cultural Education Policy (1992). Produced by 
the Cross-Cultural Education Policy Network and available from the 
Policy Co-ordinator, Liz Campbell, Curtin University. 

Curtin University Literacy Policy: Communication-In-Context: A Report 
on Communication Skills Development  (1995). Produced by and available 
from
the Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee (c/- TLG, Curtin).

Garcia, E. (1989). Instructional discourse in "effective" Hispanic 
classrooms. In R. Jacobson and C. Faltis (Eds.), Language distribution 
issues in bilingual schooling (pp. 104-120). Clevedon, England: 
Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Hall, J. (1995). What counts as a 'good' research supervisor: A case 
study of overseas postgraduates at Curtin university. Paper presented 
at Teaching Learning Forum, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup Campus, 
February 9.

Hall, J. & Bell, J. (1995). Case studies on the English language 
requirements of overseas postgraduates at an Australian university. 
Paper presented at HERDSA Annual Conference, Rockhampton, July 4-6.

Hall, S. (ed) (in press). An action research approach to developing 
cross-cultural university teaching. A Curtin University publication, 
available from the editor, Teaching Learning Group, Curtin University.

Martinez, F. (1995). In defence of native speakers: reading for a 
degree in their mother tongue. Paper presented at Teaching Learning 
Forum, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup Campus, February 9, 1995.

McConnachie, K. (1982). Assimilation and Aboriginal education in the 
Northern Territory. In Sherwood, J. (ed) Aboriginal education: issues 
and innovations. Perth: Creative Research.

McConnachie, K. & Kapferer, J. (1981). Consensus, conflict and 
multicultural education. In Sherwood, J. (ed) Multicultural education: 
issues and innovations. Perth: Creative Research.

Reeves, P. & Robbins, J. (1995). Quality Fund 1994-95 Postgraduate 
Supervision Project Report. Produced for and available from Teaching 
Learning Group, Curtin University.

Tikunoff, W.G. (1983). Compatibility of the SBIF features with other 
research on insruction of LEP students. San Francisco: Far West 
Laboratory (SBIF-83-4.8/10).

Wong-Fillmore, L. & Valdez, C. (1985). Teaching bilingual learners. In 
M.S. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook on research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 
648-685). Washington, D.C.:American Educational Research Association.
10



INTERNATIONALISATION

AND
 
ACADEMIC STAFF DEVELOPMENT










Dr Anna Alderson
Teaching and Learning Group
Curtin University of Technology

INTERNATIONALISATION 
AND 
ACADEMIC STAFF DEVELOPMENT
 
Introduction
Staff development for internationalisation can be understood as a 
journey through a series of stages towards the development of a 
culturally inclusive curriculum. Lesley Parker, in an accompanying 
paper, has outlined several ways in which we can conceptualise these 
stages.  Her theorising is based on an understanding of critical 
pedagogy which, as she explains "both critiques and takes into account 
the links between classroom processes, the production of knowledge, the 
institutional structures and relations within the wider community" 
(p.3) If academic staff are to be assisted to make this journey through 
the stages (whatever they might be) several important aspects need to 
be taken into account.

In the first place it is important that we have a common understanding 
of some of the terms which we are using so, in the first part of this 
paper I will explore some of the more significant terms which are 
integral to the staff development process. Secondly, for learning to be 
successful it is necessary that we start where the learner is at and 
assist them to move to the point at which they want to be.  And staff 
development is about academics as learners.  In this next part of the 
paper I will examine some crucial factors in the learning process for 
students and staff.  Finally, I will outline how, if staff development 
for a culturally inclusive curriculum is to be successful, it will be 
necessary to develop different delivery strategies for the different 
stages which themselves correspond with the different needs of the 
participants.

Towards a Common Understanding of Some Terms
Knowledge and Knowing
If a culturally inclusive curriculum is linked to critical pedagogy, as 
Parker (1996) suggests, which is in part about "the production of 
knowledge", then it is important that we examine further this notion of 
"producing knowledge".  Most commonly, knowledge is thought of as 
something which one person has which is conveyed to another.  This is 
often known as the "empty vessel" approach to knowledge.  On reflection 
though this is based on conceiving of knowledge as a "thing" or 
"commodity" which Yaxley (1992, p.2) suggests comes about because we 

store the representations of our thoughts (i.e. our knowledge) in 
books, or journals or on discs.  However, a more useful understanding 
of knowledge is offered by Bruffee (1993) who writes of "knowledge as a 
consensus: ...something [which] people construct interdependently by 
talking together." (p.113).  Thus, as Yaxley (1992) puts it "Knowing is 
a state of understanding [and a]s such our knowing cannot be 
transmitted from one person to another and cannot be separated from the 
knower." (p.2)

The implication of this for a culturally inclusive curriculum is that 
the lecturer's view of a topic, a procedure or a theory will always be 
interpreted by the learner - which means that no matter what the 
lecturer believes they have delivered by way of knowledge this will not 
necessarily be what the student receives. A culturally inclusive 
curriculum will engage the world views of the students' cultures as 
they see them, not necessarily filtered through those of the lecturer 
or the texts which he/she has selected.  Thus, while it is valuable for 
lecturers to have some basic understanding of the cultures from which 
their students come and the acceptable norms of polite behaviour, it is 
not necessary, as some fear, to have an in depth understanding of  
them.  Nor does it imply that the lecturer has no input and brings 
nothing  to the student and the classroom. What is necessary is a 
willingness and capacity on the part of the lecturer to negotiate the 
content of the curriculum with the students recognising that the 
students bring to it understandings and skills about their society and 
its needs.  They are in the best position to assess the value of the 
information to which the lecturer is able to provide access as far as 
their society is concerned.  In part then, the role of the lecturer is 
to assist students in making those assessments, providing them with 
tools and theories  which might inform those assessments and reassuring 
them of the appropriateness of them doing so.

Learners and Learning
While a culturally inclusive  curriculum still recognises the learner 
as a novice it does not accept that  the learner is a novice in all 
areas.  In particular, the learner is seen as the expert on his or her 
own culture (i.e. their daily lived interpretation of that culture).  
Subsequent learning, which in the professions includes acculturation 
into the norms and mores of that particular sub-culture as well as 
mastery of specific information and technical and social skills, needs 
to enable the student to build on their own understandings and skills 
which they already have and help them gain new ones.  It is not about 
assuming we are starting with an "empty slate" or replacing the old 
understandings with the new.

Learning then is seen as a collaborative effort and is, as Bruffee 
(1993) describes it, "a reacculturative process that helps students 
become members of knowledge communities whose common property is 
different form the common property of the knowledge  communities they 
already belong to." (p.3)  This implies that learning is most 
frequently a social activity, rather than the solitary task we often 
associate with tertiary studies.  Of course, the social part is often 
mediated through the written word, but understanding learning as a 
social process implies that we will incorporate into the classroom 
opportunities for students to explore their thinking with others as 
they jointly seek to construct common meanings and understandings of 
the knowledge communities they are seeking to join.  It gives different 
meaning to age old issues such as "cheating" and might even require us 
to reexamine current topical questions such as "intellectual property" 
and "plagiarism". 

Some Factors in the Learning Process for Students and Staff 

We also know a great deal about what constitutes  best practice in the 
planning, implementation, facilitation and application of staff 
(professional) development (see, for  example, Crowther and Gaffney, 
1994, Fullan, 1991, and Louden, 1994) and how to provide for teachers' 
learning.  While much of what has been written recently, especially in 
Australia, has been about teachers in schools, the principles of best 
practice are equally applicable, if somewhat more difficult to achieve 
at the tertiary level. 

While I do not intend to explore in detail all aspects of the process 
of academic staff development for internationalisation and a culturally 
inclusive curriculum for students there are some aspects which have 
particular importance.


Negotiating Understandings  
If we are to work with staff in the university we must be applying the 
same principles to our understanding and facilitation of their learning 
as we expect them to apply with their students.  Thus, we need to start 
where they are at and negotiate common understandings.  If we accept 
the notion that professional courses at universities are about 
acculturating students into those professions then staff who are 
working with international students are faced with some of the 
following dilemmas.  "Acculturation" for what? To work in this society? 
In their home society? In some other society?  Are students going to be 
expected to preserve the status quo in their home countries? To 
challenge the status quo? Or even to change it when they return?   How 
is a lecturer to determine this and what are they then to do about?  
Does it matter who pays for the student to come here? Does it matter 
what the political and social climate is like in the student's country 
of origin?  Does it matter if the student does not fully measure up to 
the same standards as those required of local students?  Does it matter 
for the overseas students, and for the local students?

As staff working with international students start to move through the 
stages which Parker has outlined they often begin to feel uncomfortable 
about the imposition of these sub-cultural mores onto their students 
especially if the come to see that the norms of their profession may 
reflect a specific orientation which may be equally foreign to local 
students of different ethnic or social origins as it is to overseas 
students.  Their own reading, visiting and talking with the students 
and others from different overseas settings make them nervous about 
what they are providing for their students.  They may be unsure as to 
the appropriateness of the knowledge base for another culture,  the 
procedures that are used, and/or the attitudes and values which are an 
integral part of what they teach and the way they teach it.  In severe 
cases a staff person can be reduced almost to a state of paralysis 
afraid of what they are "doing" intentionally or unintentionally to the 
students who are paying significant sums of money to become . . . what? 
 Staff are torn between a necessity to impose  the "standards" and 
"rigour" of their discipline and the  fear that any or all of what they 
are providing for the students may be at best irrelevant and at worst 
actually harmful to the societies and communities from which they come 
an to which they must eventually return.

The problems are no less complex for staff who are trying to adapt to 
the latest interpretation of internationalisation which is stressing 
that what they need to be doing is preparing all  students, local and 
international  for operating in a "global community" as "international 
citizens".  Not only are they faced with the question of what do 
students need to know, which now may include  another language, an 
understanding of other cultures and an ability to communicate across 

cultural boundaries, but also they need to address issues of how to 
operate "internationally".  What does a "global person" look like?  How 
does an "international citizen" behave?  What and how does one 
acculturate people into a profession  whose boundaries are now fluid 
and which  is being defined increasingly  by  people whose expectations 
may be different to one's own?  How indeed does one even determine if 
they are different? And then determine what one can do about it.


Staff are increasingly asking these sorts of questions but they are not 
finding very satisfactory answers.  If they are operating with  
understandings of knowledge and learning which are static then the 
answers they will come up with may be appropriate for a single setting, 
but will not accommodate the diversity with which they are now faced.  
They need to take into account the way in which knowledge is socially 
constructed and learning is socially mediated in order to find answers 
which are satisfactory for them - and  for their students. They need to 
negotiate with their students to determine mutually understood meanings 
for content which may be different to the meanings which they have 
previously taken for granted.

Negotiating Process and Assessment
The process of delivery will also need to be open to negotiation.  
Ideally, it won't necessarily be based on stereotypical notions of what 
counts as Western type teaching styles.  Nor will it be based on 
equally stereotypical notions of what counts as Eastern learning 
styles. A culturally inclusive curriculum will allow for negotiation 
between the lecturer and the students according  to the needs of 
individual students and may be limited only by the available technology 
rather than preconceived notions as to what counts as the necessary 
rituals for progress through a course.

Assessment too, will be under challenge.  Instead of assessment being 
seen as testing the degree of successful transmission of knowledge from 
the lecturer to the student (or the staff development provider to the 
academic) which is carried out at the culmination of section of a piece 
of work, a socially constructed view of assessment suggests that it 
will be an integral part of the learning process which will be 
negotiated like all other parts according to the needs of the students 
for feedback, rather than the needs of the lecturer for grading 
(sorting) purposes.

Negotiating Time and Resources
Part of the ritual of university courses has been the weekly meeting 
with the lecturer.  Forty years ago, before the Murray Report there 
were twice weekly lectures.  Then tutorials were introduced to enable 
students to have face-to-face contact with an academic.  The newer 
universities (many of which were previously CAEs) adopted more 
interactive teaching approaches using smaller classes and larger blocks 
of times.  Whatever the approach originally, eventually the format 
comes to be seen as the norm.  But there is nothing "normal" about any 
of these approaches.  There is no reason why the time and format in 
which students meet with the lecturer shouldn't be negotiated. Indeed 
some classes already do this - and even meet at times without the 
lecturer! Reduced resources might make this more attractive and even a 
necessity.  But a culturally inclusive curriculum (especially if it was 
also gender inclusive, disability inclusive and geographically 
inclusive) might consider a variety of approaches of academics and 
students meeting together which would be negotiated between them.  

Resources do not come value free.  Books (and libraries), computers, 
videos, the internet, human resources (staff, students, the community 

etc.) all come with their own biases and each incorporates assumptions 
about learning and the learner.  The greater the range of resources, 
the greater the options there are for enabling students and staff to 
find resources which more adequately meet their needs.  A culturally 
inclusive curriculum will encourage and support learners in their use 
of a variety of resources.

Similarly, time and resources for academic staff development could and 
should be open to negotiation for all academics throughout the 
institution. What is more, with the new technologies there are 
wonderful opportunities for the building of data bases of resources 
(human and physical) which staff could tap into and share with each 
other.  This could then be followed with face-to-face or virtual 
meetings as and when groups of staff determine according to their 
needs.

The Importance of Critical Thinking 
One of the basic tenets of Western university education is that 
students are expected to become critical thinkers.  In an on-going 
study at Curtin (cited in Reid, 1996) researchers are finding that the 
notion of  "critical thinking" and "critical literacy" has different 
degrees of currency and is embued with different degrees of importance 
in depending on the disciplines and the school.  It cannot be taken for 
granted that every degree students in an Australian university will be 
exposed to a requirement to think critically during the course of their 
studies.  If   critical thinking is not a part of  students' studies 
how  can they be expected to be able to critically assess the  value of 
their course as a whole or analyse its merits in relation to their own 
and their society's needs? In reading Reid's analysis one can't help 
but feel that for many staff, critical thinking, like literacy, is 
[F1]seen as someone else problem. Perhaps this is not surprising if 
their understanding of knowledge is about getting it from their heads 
into the heads of their students, and their understanding of their 
profession is one of ensuring that students become functional (as 
opposed to critical) members of  that knowledge community.

The implication of this in terms of academic staff development would 
seem to be twofold.  Firstly, there may be a need for academic staff 
themselves to develop critical skills in relation to their discipline, 
the theories in which it is embedded and the practices which they 
undertake and to model this critical undertaking to their students.  
Secondly, it will be necessary for staff to have more opportunities to 
critically evaluate their own teaching and that of their peers - a 
practice which seems to be even less evident in universities than it is 
in schools.  This process, however, like all others will need to be 
mindful of starting where people are at and assisting them to move on 
from that point.  Perhaps this implies that a great deal more academic 
staff development in general, not just with reference to 
internationalisation, will need to take place at the school/
department level rather than being conducted by a centrally located and 
funded body.  Maybe there is a need for more consultants to work 
directly with schools helping them to identify and meet their needs 
rather than providing generic courses for academics across the 
university.

Negotiating Evaluation of the Course
A great deal of emphasis is now placed on the Course Experience 
Questionnaires administered to students.  Based on the students own 
assessments it is assumed we can judge the quality of a course. But 
this is only one assessment based essentially on client satisfaction.  
Students who are satisfied with their courses may not in fact be 
literate, may not have become analytical thinkers, may not be critical 

thinkers, and may have learnt nothing which is of value to their 
community.  What is more, this self-selected sample may not include 
those who have gained least from the course.  A culturally inclusive 
curriculum will incorporate the negotiation of an evaluation of the 
course based on the factors which students, lecturers and the 
professional community determine to be important.  It will be 
determined before and during the course and may well change over that 
time.  It may be different for courses delivered off-shore than those 
delivered on-shore and is likely to be at least marginally different 
each time the course is delivered.

Delivery of Academic Staff Development for a Culturally Inclusive 
Curriculum
In the light of the understandings explored about the nature of 
knowledge and learning process involved in staff development what 
further lessons are there  for the conduct of staff development?  The 
most obvious implication is that if it is true that progress towards a  
culturally inclusive curriculum proceeds in stages then professional 
development for staff will need to be provided in a variety of ways and 
at variety of levels if it is to meet the needs of those people where 
they are at.  Staff will need to determine for themselves where they 
are and what kind of professional development will best meet those 
needs.

Depending on what stage they are at they may need information,  
opportunities for discussion and reflection, to see other people in 
practice, to try out alternatives (and get feedback about these), to 
find a mentor with whom they can have on-going dialogue, to access a 
chat page on the internet through which issues of mutual interest can 
be explored, or any of a number of other possibilities.  After these 
initial knowledge building experiences staff then need to engage in 
analytical and critical thinking about their own practice.  In other 
words staff will need to determine what does this mean for them 
individually, what are they now doing that needs changing and what will 
they now implement. 

This is not a one-off exercise.  Staff need the opportunity, and most 
particularly, the time to revisit the issues, the practices and the 
mistakes they are making on their journey.  Staff need to do this with 
other people - not just for the process of learning, but also to assist 
them to continue their journey.

To be effective staff development needs support, most especially from 
management at all levels.  This support needs to be in the form of 
recognition from management, time to get together, rewards for good 
teaching equivalent to those available through research and 
opportunities to share their efforts with others.

Conclusion
Academic staff development for internationalisation can thus be seen as 
a journey which at each stage requires exploration and negotiation of 
understandings, re-examining of currently held beliefs, reflection on 
current practice, gathering and learning information from a variety of 
resources, and opportunities for the social construction of knowledge.  
Academic staff development cannot be a single process which fits all 
staff, in all schools, in all universities.  If we teach in the ways we 
are taught then academic staff will need to experience learning in new 
inclusive ways in order that they may provide inclusive curriculum for 
their students.


References

Bruffee, K.A. (1993) Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, 
Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge Baltimore: The John 
Hopkins Press

Crowther, F. and Gaffney, M. (1994) An Analysis of Teachers' 
Professional Development Needs through a Focus Group Strategy. 
Canberra: Quality of Schooling Branch, DEET

Fullan, M.G. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change (2nd Edn) New 
York: Teachers College Press

Louden, W. (1994) What Counts as "Best Practice" in Teachers' 
Professional Development? Perth: Edith Cowan University

Parker, L. (1996) 'Internationalising the Curriculum: Towards Critical 
Pedagogy in Higher Education'.  Paper presented at AARE Conference, 
Singapore
 
Reid, I. (1996)  Higher Education or Education for Hire? Rockhampton: 
Central Queensland University Press

Yaxley, B. (1992) 'Stories of Teaching: How Can They Help?' in 
Reflections, Jan.

[F1]




Dr Anna Alderson,  Paper presented at AARE Conference Singapore, 
November 1996
7