the University. I outline in broad terms the concepts and global themes of inclusion, internationalisation and English for Academic Purposes, considering how they interplay across the Higher Education landscape and create the structural conditions and backdrop that led to the key issues I aim to address. In doing this I explicitly and deliberately position the local and contextualised scholarship project and findings within a much broader, global conversation that is relevant not only for Higher Education institutions within the ‘inner circle’ countries but for all institutions that have ‘internationalisation’ as part of their core strategy, particularly when part of this strategy demands elements of English as a medium of instruction.
Aims and Purposes
Macro level discourse around finances and student recruitment have a direct effect on the micro level of the classroom. It is here that the real impact of a university’s internationalisation policy is felt, as teachers and students need to learn, but often fail, to work together across and between cultures, languages and educational backgrounds. This book, then, aims to address the questions raised by this need in terms of student education, focusing on the nexus of language, disciplinary content and knowledge communication specifically at taught post-graduate (TPG) level. In doing so, I touch on key issues of internationalisation, inclusion and of teaching excellence in Higher Education.
I position language as central to all three concepts and argue that the teaching and learning of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) can be both a driver of and a solution to many of the questions arising from both internationalisation and inclusion agendas. In doing this, then, it is necessary to outline and problematise the label ‘international student’ and consider what issues are highlighted through working with these students, and whether they are any different to those raised by working with other student demographics. The drive for internationalisation should not be considered in isolation of a wider shift in approaches to higher education, and who should and does have access. The growth of an international student body (itself nothing new) has coincided with the push for access for all and an emphasis on social justice and inclusion. I therefore also consider internationalisation within a framework of inclusive education, outlining the current state of the debate here. It is this context we must begin with.
What is Inclusive Education?
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’
