LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

      In 2017 the UK government’s Department for Education provided guidance to the Higher Education sector to support them in ‘expanding their inclusive teaching and learning practice’ as a way of enacting the ‘Government’s social mobility agenda – [of] giving everyone, regardless of their background or circumstances, the chance to study at higher levels of education’ (Universities UK, 2017: 2). One of the main drivers behind this was the UK Government’s 2010 Equality Act which required ‘reasonable adjustments’ to be made to ensure those with disabilities were able to access education without discrimination. Whilst the guidance was produced by the Disabled Student Sector Leadership Group (DSLG), inclusive education is now understood to encompass far more than a consideration of what adjustments could be made to ‘usual’ teaching practices in order to accommodate those with a disability. Inclusive learning and teaching is a much broader concept, and requires a consideration of a diverse range of needs and potential barriers to accessing the curriculum that could be encountered by any student so that adjustments for difference do not need to be made. In this way, the inclusion agenda in Higher Education encompasses other access campaigns such as Widening Participation (WP), decolonising the curriculum, a focus on first generation students, as well as a concern for those with differing physical and learning abilities and mental health issues. Inclusion is thus defined as ‘issues relating to all students and to types of teaching and learning that fully and equitably include everyone in the classroom or in the programme cohort’ (Grace & Gravestock, 2009: 1) and ‘refers to the ways in which pedagogy, curricula and assessment are designed to engage students in learning that is meaningful, relevant, and accessible to all’ (Hockings, 2010: 1) Ultimately, inclusive learning and teaching acknowledges that the (somewhat mythical) ‘traditional’ student should not be the held up as the norm, and that consideration of diversity and of intersecting needs and differences should be made when planning a curriculum, programme or module, whilst also understanding that ‘students don’t want to stand out as different yet want to be recognised as individuals’ (Hockings, 2010). The drive for an inclusive curriculum must, therefore, include consideration of the similarly complex and intersecting needs of international students. In order to do this, however, it is necessary to understand, or at least problematise, what is meant by the term ‘internationalisation’ and ‘international student’.

Internationalisation as a Driver for Change

      Internationalisation has become increasingly prominent in Higher Education (HE) over the last decade. It is now deeply embedded in the structure and strategies of most Higher Education Institutions (HEIs); universities, at least in the UK, have become heavily reliant on the income brought by international student fees to support and maintain the institution. Many, if not most, HEIs have a Pro-Vice Chancellor (or equivalent) for Internationalisation, an International Office and an Internationalisation strategy which largely focuses on increasing international student recruitment and developing international research partnerships. While internationalisation in HE is seen as ‘the integration of an international or intercultural dimension into the tripartite mission of teaching, research and service functions of Higher Education’ (Maringe & Foskett, 2010 in Jenkins, 2013: 2–3), its main focus remains on developing a campus with a large number of international students, rather than on developing a truly international culture that is embedded across all HE practices.

      Concurrently, the media focus on the internationalisation of UK campuses can be broadly separated into two strands. The more negative reporting around international students highlights individual institutional stories of issues with academic integrity, including plagiarism and contract cheating. Students from outside the United Kingdom are a frequent focus of the blame for increasing cases of fraudulent academic practice and the dumbing down of education (see, for example, The Guardian, 2019b; The Times Higher Education, 2019). Within these stories there is little nuance; ‘International’ students are represented as a problem.

      When positive, the media focus is on the huge wealth these students bring into the country. In 2011, international students brought £10.2 billion in fees and spending to the United Kingdom (HM Government, 2013). Within the Higher Education press, these figures feed into the recurring debate with government around whether international students should be included in immigration figures or given visa extensions poststudy. Most of this debate seems to focus largely on the financial gains brought by the higher fees paid by these students and their spending power contributing to the national economy (see Adams, 2017 and Letters to Guardian Education, December 2016 for examples) and recent government policy echoes this focus. The picture thus created is of a choice being made in Higher Education where financial gain takes precedence over quality, integrity and academic rigour. Within all of this, there appears to be little focus on the cultural and knowledge gains of having an international student body; there is even less media attention paid to how we can work to fully engage and collaborate with these students (notable exceptions being Bothwell, 2017; Cooper, 2017; Mora, 2017; Moran, 2017), building a real sense of reciprocity and achieving the aim of showing ‘commitment to international solidarity, human security … [helping] to build a climate of global peace’ (Fielden 2011, in Margolis 2016: 52).

      Thus, the media image is in sharp contrast to the ideal of a global campus presented on most University websites, where a range of cultures and languages come together, either physically or virtually, to share ideas and to learn and conduct research together. Given the increasingly globalised and interconnected world outside HE, is difficult to argue with the ideal of an institution that reflects this representation and works to prepare its students for success within a globalised economy. Thus, ideals of knowledge exchange develop an ‘elective affinity’ (Zepke, 2015) with the more cynically financial push to increase international student numbers and benefit from their higher fee-paying structures. This ‘elective affinity’ is the essence of neoliberal policy making that EAP practitioners and international students increasingly find themselves at the sharp end of, arguably being seen as the physical embodiment of the marketisation of higher education across the globe.

      As the drive to internationalise increases, it is necessary to stop and question which of the pictures described above (if any) is the current reality, and to highlight how the shift is impacting both students and staff as they work and study together.

Who is an International Student?

      There is a large body of literature debating the terminology and implications behind the label ‘international student’ (Baker, 2016; Carroll, 2015; Margolis, 2016; Montgomery, 2010; Ryan, 2011). Many are now arguing that any student studying at tertiary level could and should be viewed and view themselves as an international or a global student (Leaske, 2013; Jenkins, 2013). Recent studies indicating the learning gain and increased employability attached to a period of study abroad (Universities UK, 2017) have added weight to the arguments around the concept of ‘internationalisation at home’ (see Beelan & Jones, 2015; Leaske, 2013), where opportunities for an international experience are provided to all students. From this perspective, all students, whether at university in their country of birth/citizenship or not can and should see themselves as international. Here, being an international student provides opportunity that is not currently available to all; the aim to open up the opportunity of global mobility to others is based within concepts of widening participation and education for social justice.

      However, within the UK HE context, the label ‘international student’ is used institutionally as a financial differentiation, denoting those students who are expected to pay higher fees because they hold a passport from a country outside the EU. University websites include pages specifically for ‘International’ students and include advice on, for example, visa applications, police registration and qualification equivalencies. In this sense, the label is simply of administrative use, allowing institutions to signpost those who need it towards the relevant information necessary to allow them to gain access to their chosen site of education.

      Although the administrative differentiation, working along financial lines, separates students into groups based on whether they are ‘Home’, ‘EU’ or ‘International’, these lines become blurred and almost irrelevant once learning begins. This differentiation does not, crucially, neatly separate those students for whom English is an additional

Скачать книгу