Ethically engaging international students: student generated material in an active blended learning model

Sylvie LomerLoretta Anthony-OkekeManchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Corresponding author:

Sylvie Lomer Sylvie.lomer@manchester.ac.ukOrcid: 0000-0002-6541-4453

Ethically engaging international students: student generated material in an active blended learning model

AbstractIn the context of increasing international mobility in higher education, educators experience multiple challenges in the classroom. In the UK, policy discourses often frame international students as desirable resources. However, international students are frequently problematized as in academic deficit. Cultural reasons are posited for different patterns of participation in seminar discussions and critical engagement. This deficit narrative is neo-imperialist. A critical and ethical pedagogy should position international students as equals and as co-contributors. This article suggests that by changing pedagogical structures of traditional higher education classroom in the UK, subverting norms for epistemological interactions, international students can be empowered to engage actively and critically. This approach draws on the principles of Active Blended Learning to develop an ethical pedagogy, with equitable epistemic access for internationally mobile students. This paper explores how a module designed in keeping with ethical pedagogy (Madge, Raghuram and Noxolo, 2009) succeeded in critically engaging students.

Keywords: internationalisation; pedagogy; active blended learning; student engagement

Introduction

Nearly 4 million higher education (HE) students travelled abroad in 2015 (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics 2017). The UK is the second largest destination country for international students, hosting 310,575 non-EU students in 2014/15 (Higher Education Statistics Agency 2017), 14% of HE students. International students generate both important revenue and global reputation for HE. But competition for international students is intensifying and ex-imperial powers and the USA must now contend with heightened marketing from newer entrants like Australia, New Zealand and Canada (Marginson 2008).

While there is considerable interest in international student mobility (ISM), particularly in its ‘determinants’ (e.g. Mazzarol and Soutar 2012), there is little critical research on internationalising pedagogy (Madge, Raghuram, and Noxolo 2015). Instead, the literature focuses on challenges raised by international students’ presence in UK classrooms. International students are often described as lacking the language and academic skills to

1

participate effectively in British academic life (Lomer 2017). Their presence is also argued to arouse intercultural tensions with home students, particularly during group work and seminar discussions (Turner 2009). Their silence is often misunderstood as failing to think and participate (Marlina 2009). Chinese students especially are frequently described as passive, uncritical, and reliant on memorisation (Clark and Gieve 2006). Much of the pedagogic literature addresses these challenges without engaging with Madge et al.’s call to “challeng(e) normalising conceptions that present the internationalisation of HE in ways that objectify and homogenise students and acknowledging how ‘knowledge’ has itself altered because of these educational agents” (Madge, Raghuram, & Noxolo, 2015, 688). If these authors are correct, it follows that pedagogies must change, that there is a “need for creating genuinely international pedagogies with a reflexive and critical approach to internationalization” (Welikala 2011, 3).

Developing critically engaged, genuinely international pedagogies is an ethical matter. The consumer model of international HE implies that international students should pay for the privilege of ‘high quality’ ‘Western’ education. International students are valued for their economic contributions to host economies, supporting the UK by £25.8 billion (Universities UK International 2018). They are also valued for their contributions to HE, where they ‘offer a window on the world’ benefitting home students, enhancing education quality by facilitating internationalisation, even while apparently undermining it by their problematized academic abilities (Lomer 2017). Yet international students lack a democratic voice in host country politics and can be considered vulnerable to exploitation (Marginson et al. 2010). Positioning international students as economic and educational resources, who simultaneously enhance and undermine the quality of education for home students, constitutes an ethical dilemma for contemporary HE.

This paper outlines a pedagogic approach that seeks to partially resolve this dilemma, by developing principles and practices to restructure the classroom and curricula, positioning international students as co-creators of knowledge and content, rather than resources. I show that international students can and do engage actively and critically when the pedagogic structures are in place to appropriately empower them. This resolves genuine pragmatic concerns about the challenges of participation and engagement in international classrooms, and is consistent with epistemic change and flux in a globalised context. I propose that this constitutes an ethical approach to internationalisation.

Why do we need an ethically internationalised approach?

Internationalising the curriculum is a contested, critical and ethical endeavour that requires destabilising assumptions about education and epistemology. Developing an ethical approach requires tackling two key dimensions of contemporary internationalisation: imperial and colonial legacies, and the consequent problematisation of international students.

Imperial and colonial pedagogic legacies

Imperial and colonial legacies shape (but do not determine) the contemporary landscape of ISM, inform attitudes and representations of international students, and intersect with epistemologies, consequently affecting curriculum.

Education is embedded in unequal globalised fields of power (Marginson 2008; Ploner 2015), and ISM reflects this distribution. Students travel for their education in search of educational, social and cultural capital (Brooks and Waters 2009; Beech 2014). A country attracts international students through symbolic capital - meanings attached to, for example, a ‘British

2

education’. This capital derives from the nation’s past, which for countries like the UK and France, means imperial history (Sidhu 2006). Ex-imperial countries are typically perceived to offer HE of greater ‘quality’ and labour market value. These countries gained material advantages which facilitated HE development through colonial exploitation (Pietsch 2013; Perraton 2014). Today, education in ex-imperial powers is associated with elite distinction, power and symbolic value, built on the legacies of empire. By definition, HE in ex-imperial powers is understood to be ‘better’ and the knowledge disseminated therein to be ‘correct’.

This presumption of epistemic superiority is premised on ‘culturalist’ understanding of Western Eurocentric knowledges as the universal norm, and indigenous knowledges as marginal (Battiste 2005). De Sousa Santos considers this tendency central to colonialist mentalities, which implicitly posits that international students travel to study because they or their home education systems are deficient (de Sousa Santos 2007). International students therefore experience attempts to assimilate them into Western pedagogy (Welikala 2011). In Australia, for example, generic critical thinking courses impose Western logics, yet fail to problematize the notion of critical thinking itself (Song and McCarthy 2018). Even where intercultural learning is nominally valued, students are positioned as exchanging knowledge based on essentialised cultural or national differences, meaning that international students effectively ‘subsidise the internationalised curriculum’ (Doherty 2008). A critical and ethical pedagogy (Friere 1970) for internationalised HE would seek to redress these dynamics.

The pedagogic practices of UK HE must be contextualised within this framework of ex-imperial power dynamics. For instance, the perceived expertise of British lecturers, valued by international students (Trahar 2010), derives partly from this legacy. Practices such as Socratic questioning, on which seminar discussion expectations are premised, originate from a Eurocentric philosophical tradition. Curricula based on knowledge derived primarily or exclusively from Western sources and authors are neo-colonial, for they achieve domination while preaching independence (Nkrumah 1965). The challenge for ethically internationalised pedagogy is to decolonise both teaching materials (Le Grange 2016) and learning design.

Problematizing the international student

From an institutional, as well as a national policy, perspective, internationally mobile students are desirable subjects for recruitment. They represent embodied ‘cosmopolitan capital’ (Brooks and Waters, 2011), a physical manifestation of the institution’s capacity to attract people from overseas, valued for the ‘diversity’ they bring. Whilst nominally positive, such discourses position international students as ‘Others’, categorised in opposition to the presumed homogenised norm of the ‘home student’. This constructs international students as subalterns (Kumaravadivelu 2016), whose voices are silenced in the rush to recruit (Ploner 2015) and ascribed with a range of academic and cultural deficits (Lomer 2017). “They are often still depicted as subjects who are acted upon in the context of study; rarely are they envisaged as complex agents who alter the academic worlds around them through their knowledge practices” (Madge, Raghuram, and Noxolo 2015, 6). International students are forced to accept the ‘ways of teaching’ of the UK, even where they perceive them to be ineffective or insulting (Tian and Lowe 2009).

International students are frequently described as lacking: language ability, academic skills, motivation, and willingness to participate (Lomer 2017). This portrayal is as prevalent in policy and institutional discourse as in, unfortunately, the academic literature. However, critics of this depiction highlight a range of flaws in this narrative. Many ‘deficits’ are not unique to international students but are common to home and international students alike

3

(Jones 2017). Ascribing individual behaviour, such as particular approaches to study, to national origins is implicitly neo-imperialist (Bullen and Kenway 2003; Devos 2003). This conceptualisation is “trapped within a set of nation-centric assumptions” (Rizvi and Lingard 2010, 194), and is left largely unproblematic. For example, it is often asserted that ‘East Asian’ students have particular patterns of “reproductive and surface level approaches to learning” (Kettle 2005; Clark and Gieve 2006). But the construction of ‘East Asian’ is hardly a meaningful category (Collins 2006), homogenising multiple nationalities, diversity within and between nationalities, and individual differences. Nor is national culture monolithic or static (Marlina 2009). Yet these ‘cultural snippets’ (Straker 2016) are rarely offered as explanations of ‘British’ or ‘European’ students. Such culturally essentialist accounts fail to consider how teachers’ attitudes (Marlina 2009), expectations of the teacher-student relationship (Welikala 2011), students’ agency (Kettle 2005) and pedagogy also shape students’ behaviour. In particular, the silence of international students can be pathologised by dominant home students, ignoring how socialisation amongst UK students produces expectations of continuous noise in groupwork contexts, regardless of its productivity (Turner 2009). A critical pedagogy for internationalised HE would instead seek to humanise international students (Friere 1970), by valuing students as individuals with knowledge (Ryan and Viete 2009), regardless of their particular learning practices. It requires of lecturers that we make cultural understandings mutually explicit in an iterative process which examines both the macro cultural group and the individual as agent and person in relation to the culture (Trahar 2010).

As Trahar (2010) argues, the teaching and learning practices of internationalisation in the UK are rarely subjected to critical scrutiny, laying the blame instead squarely on international students themselves. Instead, most classrooms “remain configured according to implicit local norms that silently privilege home students over others” (Turner 2009, 245). Ryan and Viete (2009) depict a similar resistance to change amongst Australian universities, where academic genres and norms are described as unchanging and generic, rather than dynamic and discipline/context specific. Yet even mundane academic practices, like moving chairs into a circle for seminar discussion, structures how students interact. It is therefore not sufficient to seek the (ample) evidence which contradicts negative stereotypes of international students, showing that they wish to participate and do, under the right conditions (Tian and Lowe 2009), engage in a range of complex and sophisticated ways (Kettle 2005). An ethical pedagogy for internationalisation requires that educators reflect on our own practices and seek to make them transparent to students, approaching as equal participants in the learning process.

Why the internationalisation of the curriculum is an ethical matter

Too often, institutions frame internationalisation as the recruitment of international students. It is assumed that all students will therefore be engaged in an ‘international experience’. However, the presence of international students does not automatically translate into changes to pedagogy and curriculum, and progress across the sector is slow in this regard (Montgomery 2013). The paradigm of internationalisation as internationally mobile bodies in classrooms and on campuses creates a false equivalence wherein an international student body equates to an international learning experience (Peacock and Harrison 2009). In this model, an international student body gives rise ‘naturally’ to intercultural learning opportunities. This draws on the reified notion of the international student as conveyor of national culture, and imposes an expectation that international students will engage in a cultural exchange with home students, to their mutual benefit. National policy in the UK depicts this exchange as providing a ‘window on the world’ (Lomer 2017), which many

4

students are willing to do, albeit with varying motivations (Mittelmeier et al. 2018). Thus, many of the challenges described in the literature on internationalising the curriculum are expressed in terms of the challenges to intercultural groupwork. These challenges include: academic pressure, language, mutual indifference, and privileged knowledge (Ippolito 2007).

Yet “to be relevant in the new global environment, today’s education must conceptualise everything with the age of globalisation and within the environment and complexity of the planet” (Gacel-Ávila 2005, 123). This suggests that curricular content should be global, frequently addressed in courses by enthusiastic individuals rather than by entire institutions, which typically focus on partnerships and recruitment, rather than pedagogy (Qiang 2003). Even arguments that place instructional design as central to internationalisation often propose separate curricula for international students – additional study skills courses, for example, rather than developing inherently international subject-based modules or programmes (e.g. Luxon and Peelo 2009). Leask and Bridge suggest that classroom interactions are as important as content, advocating for “the incorporation of an international and intercultural dimension into the content of the curriculum as well as the teaching and learning arrangements and support services of a program of study” (Leask, 2009 cited in Leask & Bridge, 2013, 81). Thus, internationalisation offers principles not just for what to teach, but also how.

An ethical epistemic approach to internationalisation of the curriculum must be grounded in an epistemology which emphasises uncertainty, shifting positions, and complex, interconnected meanings and interpretations (Bourn 2011). Such an approach is important for internationalisation, because it destabilises ethnocentric, colonialist assumptions of the ideological and pedagogical superiority of the host country, allowing for and requiring the incorporation of multiple perspectives, interpretations and understandings of ‘truth’. A critical pedagogy for internationalisation is therefore not ‘dumbing down’ of the curriculum or re-framing to ‘enable’ international students to succeed academically (Ippolito 2007); it is instead a deeply challenging intellectual endeavour.

Towards an ethical pedagogy for internationalisation

This paper offers an account of a preliminary attempt to design a module ethically internationalised in pedagogy and content. It seeks to demonstrate pedagogic contexts can be created in which international students are active, vocal and critical participants, without a significant added burden for staff.

The key principles for an ethical pedagogy for internationalisation are, for me, as follows: Adopt an epistemic stance which emphasises uncertainty, shifting positions, and

complex, interconnected meanings and interpretations Make macro (national) and micro (classroom, institution) cultural understandings in

teaching practices transparent Treat students as individual agents and persons, as equal participants in the learning

process Work towards decolonising content, teaching methods and learning design

My specific objectives in implementing this pedagogy were to:1. Engage students in the process of determining, creating and evaluating course content2. Embed discussions of pedagogy in the content of the module and reaching

collaborative decisions about teaching and learning practices3. Encourage students to make autonomous decisions about course content

5

4. Draw upon a wide range of case studies from multiple countries to avoid a Western-centric curriculum

5. Destabilise expectations of expertise and power relations between teacher and student by positioning students as equals and validating their knowledge

6. Incorporate the explicit teaching of skills throughout the module.

Higher Education in International Contexts was developed as an option on three MA Education programmes, with cohorts of predominantly international students, mainly Chinese nationals, with IELTS levels of 6.5 entry requirements. It adopted active and blended learning (Buckley et al. 2010; Palmer, Lomer, and Bashliyska 2017). Active learning positions autonomous learners at the centre of educational design, developing understanding through tasks, exploration, and group work (Reece and Walker 2007). Its socio-constructivist epistemology stresses collaborative, inclusive, and independent learning. Blended learning incorporates digital, online modes of teaching and learning as complementary to taught sessions (Henrie et al. 2015; Powell et al. 2015), affording opportunities to embed active learning into pedagogy. The learning objectives were to:

Introduce students to key concepts in HE studies Develop students’ understanding of globalised systems of higher education Enhance students’ critical awareness of issues of power and inequality in international

HE

The content and context of this module offered the ideal opportunity to pilot an ethically internationalised pedagogy. It followed the typical module design of the MA Education programmes, as follows:

6

Table 1: Module Design

To embed an epistemic stance emphasising uncertainty and complexity, seminars used student generated content. After each session, students wrote a blog post of 250-300 words using Wordpress (Objective 1). After lectures, students researched a case study of the lecture theme in a particular country. Students could select any case study (Objective 3), provided they evidenced and sourced to explicitly defined and collaboratively discussed academic standards (Objective 6). Each student could only blog on their own country of origin once, to help collectively achieve a global perspective (Objective 4). I explained the rationale for having student generated material rather than tutor generated: that they would learn about a wider range of issues and countries (Objective 2). I also explained why regular writing as a part of active learning could be beneficial. Seminar discussions were based entirely on this student generated material (Objective 5). After seminars, students compared case studies based on discussions and related them to the lecture theme. This moves students away from the transmission model of learning, in the traditional epistemic structure of HE, towards an uncertain, multivalent epistemology. I discussed these epistemic goals in the first lecture, and referred students back to them whenever questions resorted to looking for a ‘right answer’.

Methodology

I conducted an insider action research project to explore student engagement in the context of this pedagogy. This article represents the reflection stage of the action research trajectory (Embury 2017). It capitalises on my insider knowledge while foregrounding student voice, in a ‘naturalistic’ approach (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007). The research aim is eventually to contribute to bringing about wider pedagogical change within the department and beyond (Coghlan and Shani 2017).

Data collection

An overview of the multiple modes of student engagement in the various learning activities was sought. I used mixed methods to examine student engagement, namely student surveys and document analysis of student blogs. Data has been collected over two years of module delivery.

Students were invited to participate in a tailored online survey, in addition to the standard university Course Evaluation Questionnaire (UEQs), because such standardised questionnaires are often subject to selection bias associated with low response rates (Goos and Salomons 2016). Surveys are typically used in large-scale studies of student engagement in the context of technology-enhanced learning (Meadows et al. 2016), but was adopted here to increase response rates from UEQs and reduce selection bias. I also used a survey because internal departmental decisions are heavily influenced by the availability of numeric data and this is critical to encourage wider institutional change. The tailored survey was developed to explore the extent to which students report engaging actively and critically in this particular pedagogy. A Google Form survey was used to elicit students’ self-reports of the frequency, regularity and nature of engagement with teaching and learning activities in a combination of Likert scale questions from strongly disagree to strongly agree (e.g. “I know more about HE than before”), multiple choice questions (e.g. “On average how many hours per week did you spend on the module?), and open questions (e.g. “What other learning activities did you do for the module, if any?”). A Google Form was used because students were already familiar with the format from learning activities. Questions were designed based on previous research

7

exploring the factors in active blended learning (Palmer, Lomer, and Bashliyska 2017) and included both positive and negative statements (e.g. “I know more about HE than before / I did not learn much on this module”) for reliability checking. 27 students responded to the Google survey in 2017 (response rate 81.8%), and 28 students in 2018 (response rate of 82.4%). This contrasts with a response rate on the UEQs of 33% and 29% respectively.

Also, a preliminary document analysis was conducted on student blogs. This content analysis counted the number of blogs and associated these with usernames to triangulate against student self-reports and provide an overview of engagement in online learning activities. I identified examples of criticality and of social learning through the comment function. Using the blogs as data offered a naturalistic, pre-existing source of information which imposed no additional burden on students. These two data sources offer a measure of triangulation on the different modes of student engagement (du Plessis 2017), through in person discussions in class (as covered in the survey) to engagement in the blogs (through the document analysis).

Ethics

The University Ethics policy classifies this type of research as course evaluation, as “a structured process of assessing the success of a programme in meeting its goals and to reflect on the lessons learned” (University anonymised, 2019). Formal ethical review was therefore not required as this survey was intended for the improvement of teaching, although this development will hopefully extend beyond the module and institution. Ethical principles in the design of the data collection were nevertheless followed. Firstly, voluntary informed consent was practiced: students were verbally informed that participation in the Google Survey was voluntary, anonymous, and would inform future decisions about course design and delivery, as well potential publications. The Google Survey included a statement prior to the first question to reiterate this information. The survey was conducted entirely anonymously, thus conforming to GDPR standards as advised by the University. Extracts from blogs are reported using pseudonyms students chose for their username and are presented without grammatical correction. Secondly, the questions were designed to avoid any emotional hardship. Thirdly, to minimise the demands of research on students, the survey was conducted during class time. Where students chose not to complete the survey, the time was spent on assignment preparation with support from the lecturer, to minimise any sense of coercion. Due to the dual roles of researcher and lecturer, it is possible that some students experienced social pressure to participate (Coghlan and Shani 2017). However, this was mitigated by the course culture which had consistently encouraged disagreement, critical reflection, and reducing power imbalances between lecturer and student. I verbally reiterated multiple times that it was perfectly fine not to complete the survey, to complete it later and to opt out of any questions. The research intentionally made use of existing data sources, namely blogs and comments, to further minimise the research burden. Because the survey was conducted anonymously, students were not able to retrospectively withdraw from the study.

Data analysis

Numeric data from the Google Survey and UEQs has been analysed descriptively, since the aim was to capture indicators of student engagement. Qualitative data from the Google Survey and UEQs were summarised by question by the Graduate Teaching Assistant, to minimise selection bias from the main lecturer. A content analysis was conducted on blog entries (manually counting frequency by username and week, compiling titles and case study countries). During this process, examples which showed explicit engagement with the

8

module objectives (e.g. criticality, decoloniality, etc) and pedagogy were identified for further analysis. Extracts from these examples were mapped to objectives to demonstrate extent of student engagement.

Limitations

Information on student engagement in the Google Survey relies on retrospective self-reporting. However, the majority of responses appear to triangulate with my observations as lecturer with limited inflation of positive reporting. Options for the collection of more intensive qualitative data, allowing for the co-construction of knowledge about the pedagogy with students (Groundwater-smith and Mockler 2015), were constrained by available resource. Future extensions of the research will draw on the wider teaching team to explore options for more intensive qualitative data collection led by students as co-researchers.

Results

Here, I draw on mixed methods data to explore how international students engaged in the module designed to pilot an ethically internationalised pedagogy. On the UEQ, the majority of students (over 90% of respondents in both cohorts) reported a favourable view of the module in response to the item “Overall, I would rate this unit as being excellent”. In response to an open-ended item on the Google survey (“Please describe your overall view of the module, in your own words”), students described it as “inspiring”, “engaging”, “an effective way to collectively learn over time”, “really interesting”, “useful”, “great” and “enjoyable”. This is further evidenced by their engagement in the blogs.

Blogs

Students typically wrote between 6 and 7 blog entries (see Figure 1), more than required for assessment, indicating engagement beyond the performative. On the survey, students all reported that their learning was enhanced because of the freedom they had to choose their own focus and case study. All students reported that their writing skills had improved through writing the weekly blogs, and this had deepened their understanding of the issues related to HE.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

2016-172017-18

9

Figure 1 Number of blogs written by student

The quality of blogs generally, though not universally, corroborates this perception showing clear evidence of learning from the lectures and seminars. For example, one student wrote in a case study on HE quality:

“Due to their status and prestige, highly performing research universities often attract and select the brightest students and their mostly affluent families, but not necessarily guarantee the highest levels of education gain, or in other words, ‘value added’ may be less than expected. It may be attributed to the fact that there are no widely accepted methods or frameworks for measuring teaching quality and assessing the impact of education on students.”

This represents a very sophisticated level of analysis, for a 250 word blog. Often, students developed criticality as they connected multiple themes from the in exploring a case study. For example, one student wrote:

“Degree mills and fake certificates are controversial issues of commercialization and commodification in HE. I remember that we discussed HE as a quasi-market during our last class, and I think it could also be complete marketization in some extreme cases, and that is why “degree mills” emerged. Further, I consider that if a university becomes a business, the value and quality of a university will decrease (In the sense that its autonomy and academic freedom will be impaired).”

This connects two key module themes, marketisation and quality, exploring a wicked problem for HE. Students’ self-reports of blogs enhancing their learning are thus evidenced in the blogs themselves. These two extracts indicate that students engaged successfully with uncertain and interconnected epistemic stance fundamental to this ethical international pedagogy. They also expose ideological dominance in HE systems (Zepke 2016), and illustrating approaches to learning beyond the stereotypical ‘reproductive and surface level approaches to learning’ (Kettle 2005; Song and McCarthy 2018).

I provided feedback on the blogs to support students’ blogging practice, and to prompt further reflection and support this critical approach. For example, in response to a blog which presented tensions in China between a tradition of expansion and increasing pressures to sustain high quality HE, I wrote: “Interesting – a very similar situation of quality assurance and tight funding to the UK! It would be interesting to look at the 985 and 211 programmes in connection with this.” This blog was then used in seminar discussions to explore the competing pressures around quality in HE in different contexts. Similarly, in response to a blog “Comparison of Accreditation and Quality Assurance Systems”, I responded: “That’s a really useful distinction to make. I think it’s important to also recognise that in quality assurance systems, accreditation is usually present as well, but with as you say the added layer of continuous enhancement.” This illustrates the interdependence between students’ learning practices (blogging) and my teaching activities. Using comments to highlight links and explicitly incorporating students’ research into my summaries in seminars and as examples in lectures legitimated their contributions as valued knowledge. This approach explicitly treats students as “complex agents who alter the academic worlds around them through their knowledge practices” (Madge, Raghuram, and Noxolo 2015, p. 692). This goes beyond simplistic ‘essentialising’ of critical thinking as divorced from subject knowledge (Song and McCarthy 2018).

Autonomy was a key principle in the learning design of this module, and students were therefore free to select their own case study for blogs, conduct their own research and select their own focus in the final assignment (with guidance and approval). This freedom, consistent with Zepke’s approach of fostering empowered learners (Zepke 2016), meant that a wide range of countries were included in case studies, contributing to a less Western-centric learning experience. Figure 2 shows the countries included. The size corresponds to the frequency with which the country was included in a single case study (excluding comparative entries). A few countries do still dominate, due to the prevalence of literature available from these countries in English or students’ native languages. However, this still represents a

10

positive move towards a less colonial curriculum, engaging with knowledge beyond the Western episteme (Tikly 2004). For instance, one blog touched briefly upon New Zealand’s wānanga, universities established on Maori epistemology and pedagogy (Taniwha 2014), illustrating that alternatives to the neo-imperial colonial paradigm of HE do exist.

Figure 2 Case study countries

Students reported that they learned more because they could choose their own focus and case study for the blog (100% in 2016-17; 96.4% in 2017-18). This demonstrates that incorporating autonomy in structured ways into learning design is valued by students and encourages engagement, as Kettle (2005) suggests in contrast to frequent problematisation of international students. However, most also reported that they “had too much freedom to choose what and how they learned”. This suggests that autonomy can be troubling to students, even while it productively engages them. For this pedagogy to be truly ethical, attention to autonomy and individuality of students as agentic learners must be carried out with appropriate support to ensure that autonomous learning feels secure. Rather than constructing a ‘moral discourse’ around an idealised model of the fully independent student, an ethical pedagogy should recognise “the inherent interdependence of learning as a social practice” and support students towards a positive sense of autonomy (Goode 2007). This is clearly an area for future development in the module.

The topics also reflected substantial engagement in the challenge to think decolonially, such that many of the students wrote on topics like linguistic imperialism and neo-colonialism. These themes appeared throughout the blogs in various weeks. Figure 3 presents a selection of blog titles.

11

Figure 3 Blog titles

The blogs often showed students’ reflections on the coloniality inherent in many of the module themes. For example, one student wrote in a comparative blog entry exploring the theme of mobility:

“In contrast, even though there is a trend of Chinese students moving and studying in South Korea, from the intellectual colonialism perspective (see Rhee and Sagaria, 2004), the impact of Chinese students return from Korea would not that significant and deep compared to those return from the United States (as they have more chance to teach in the universities) (sic).”

This indicates that the concept of ‘intellectual colonialism’ introduced in the second lecture has been applied to the subsequent topic of mobility and explored through comparison of the relative impact of Chinese student mobility to South Korea and the USA. Another student addressed the topic of linguistic imperialism, skilfully synthesising across multiple case studies from their colleagues:

“Many countries like Hong Kong, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Malaysia and Singapore just to name a few teach the English language at various levels of their education system ( See for example the the blogs by @Lassssia, @ lenkaflor, @evolzr, @catherine77777777) According to Keith (sic), this promotes British ideologies and domination in the curriculum and by extension the wider society.”

From this comment, it is appears that during the seminar, this blogging group discussed issues relating to education systems more broadly and related them to the lecture theme of coloniality. This student has then related this to her own reading and explored the power dynamics at play. Students are co-constructing knowledge in this example, by incorporating learning from the blog entries of their peers in subsequent work. This suggests that the approach to blogging of an individual case study, seminar discussion, followed by a comparative entry does encourage students to act as and treat their peers as valid sources of knowledge, equal in status to the lecturer. Survey results appear to support this interpretation, as in both years, all respondents reported that they felt the lecturer viewed them as equals.

I sought to further encourage the co-construction of knowledge by using the examples from blogs in my lectures and referencing the student-author. For instance, a blog entitled “Finland: charge tuition fees for international students” explained that previously Finland had not imposed fees on international students. I highlighted this example in the seminar discussion, as many students had not realised that high international tuition fees were not universal. This led to a deepening of the debate on the nature and impact of marketisation in HE. Fostering links between blog entries was another way to scaffold co-construction of knowledge. On a blog entitled “Comparison of State Funding And Accreditation Between HE in Portugal and India,” I responded: “This is a really good comparison.

12

You’ve selected a couple of issues and compared them carefully. However, I would suggest that you avoid using Wikipedia in the future as it may contain unreliable information. Have a look at what @xieli3444 has written about India.” Individualised feedback was thus provided to each student, while scaffolding links between case studies. The Wordpress function of tagging this author invited her into the discussion, whereupon she wrote: “Yes, just like India HE, due to the fact that India is a developing country, India pays more attention to the development of economic, government should cultivate talents to promote economic development such as IT services.” This textual interchange reflected the classroom practice of verbally signposting where commonalities were emerging in discussion, when I would frequently invite individuals to repeat a point made in small group conversations to the group at large and instigate comparisons or links with other observations I had overheard. However, all students bar two stated on the Google survey that they would like more personal feedback from the tutor on their blogs, suggesting that this approach to feedback, while it supported the co-construction of knowledge, was not felt to be sufficient for students to be secure in this new genre of blogging. Meeting this desire without increasing staff resources is the primary challenge for rolling out this pedagogy on a larger scale.

Seminar discussions

Seminar discussions were generally lively based on my observations while teaching, with the majority of student contributing at least in their small group discussions, and a smaller proportion in the plenary as well. Most students claimed on the Google survey that they made contributions either every week or ‘most weeks’ to seminar discussions and lectures, with a notable improvement in 2017-18 in the numbers of students who participated every week. Students stated that the seminar discussions were a good way to ask classmates questions about their blogs, particularly when they had not read each others’ blogs. As Figure 4 shows, most students claimed to read other classmates’ blogs in most weeks or every week (66.7% in 2016-17; 85.7% in 2017-18). However, judging from my observations in seminar discussions, they often read blogs after hearing oral summaries in the seminar discussions, which they then read to write their comparative blogs. While not the original plan, students were able to systematically begin their seminar discussions by summarising their own blog, lending confidence to students typically shy of participating in discussions as they knew they had a valuable contribution to make.

Never Once or twice Most weeks Every week0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2016-172018-19

Figure 4 Frequency of reading other students’ blogs

13

63% of students in 2016-17,and 43% in 2017-18, reported on the Google survey that the seminar discussions were the most valuable learning experience on the module, ranking them higher than lectures, writing blogs or reading others’ blogs. They welcomed the opportunity to revisit the blogs they posted and discuss why they chose particular case studies to write about. In the survey, most students said that they felt that their knowledge was a valuable contribution in the seminars. Students agreed with survey items stating that the seminar discussions ‘usually stayed focused on the topic of HE’, ‘often changed [their] way of thinking or taught [them] something new’ about the topic and ‘[they] learned more because [their] knowledge contributed to the seminar group. However one student said: “seminar is helpful for students to illustrate their opinions but sometimes if the questions are not well explained by teacher, the discussion can be out of the topics”. A peer review of teaching commented on how interactive the sessions were, and noted that the majority of students during the observation were engaged in substantive discussion of the topic. This shows how course design can influence student behaviour, creating the opportunity for Chinese international students, as Turner (2006) also observed, to be highly active and engaged, in contrast to the usual stereotype of the ‘shy’ or ‘reserved’ East Asian student. The reciprocal classroom dynamic called on all students to share acquired knowledge, rather than “indigenous knowledge” (Zhou, Knoke, and Sakamoto 2005), knowledge held by virtue of their cultural or national heritage. By framing students as co-researchers rather than repositories of cultural knowledge (Doherty 2008), this pedagogy makes seminar discussions an authentic exchange of knowledge.

Every week Most weeks Once or twice0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2016-172018-19

Figure 5 Frequency of contribution to seminar discussions or lectures

On the Google survey, 100% stated that they agreed or strongly agreed in 2016-17 (92.9% in 2018-19) that writing the blog posts made the seminar discussions more focused, and they enjoyed the seminar discussions more because of the blog posts (85.2% agreed or strongly agreed in 2016-17; 92.9% in 2018-19). The blog extracts quoted above (quote 2, p.13) support this, showing the seminar discussions inform subsequent blog posts. In a student’s words, “I think the group seminar is a very good option for learning from each other.” Positioning students as co-researchers facilitates discussion as each student has a role that the lecturer cannot fill. Designing the seminar activities to rely absolutely on student contributions creates a productive sense of peer pressure, as failure to contribute can be seen to diminish the learning experiences of classmates. The student-generated content approach,

14

by offering ownership of knowledge and learning processes (Zepke 2016), encourages meaningful seminar discussions and high rates of participation, suggesting that deficit explanations for international students’ apparent lack of participation lies in the learning design rather than the students’ skills or culture.

Conclusion

These results suggest that overall the module demonstrates the effectiveness of the critically engaged and ethical pedagogy for internationalisation in enhancing student engagement. The high rates of engagement with writing and blogs and, particularly in the second year of course delivery, the commenting indicate that students were active in the process of determining, creating and evaluating course content. Adopting this approach of using blogs to embed student-generated content in the module enabled students to be highly engaged in this process. In particular, because the module encouraged multiple modes of participation (verbal and direct in the taught sessions, textual in the blogs and comments, and indirectly through reading others’ blogs and referring to them in their own writings), students’ active intellectual engagement can be acknowledged, even if they remain ‘silent’. This contributes to undermining the stereotype of the ‘quiet’ and therefore disengaged international student (Jones 2017; Straker 2016; Turner 2009; Trahar 2010; Tian and Lowe 2009), a critical step to establishing an ethically international pedagogy.

The module addressed HE and incorporated reflections on pedagogy into a number of lectures, building a transparent and reflective approach to the classroom pedagogy in learning design decisions, intended to unseat expectations (Welikala 2011). This transparency encouraged buy-in from students as they understood the importance of writing blogs and engaging seminar discussions, rather than viewing these as performative (Palmer, Lomer, and Bashliyska 2017). Explicit reflexivity of pedagogy also showed that I as the lecturer held myself to the same standards as I held students in their reflective account.

Encouraging students to make autonomous decisions about case studies, the focus of their blogs and the direction of the seminars fostered a sense that students were equal participants in the learning process, and encouraged engagement. Students’ confidence increased as a result of the knowledge gained. This encouraged students to see themselves as co-researchers equal to the lecturer. The module design required autonomy, such that it was impossible to ‘infantilise’ or problematise certain students as overly dependent (Goode 2007), because they all engaged in the same weekly tasks. This autonomy also included a wider range of case studies, meaning more globalised content, than would have been possible through traditional teaching methods. This ‘activities approach’ to internationalisations (Qiang 2003) and is not an adequate substitute for a fully integrated institutional approach, but is within the power of teaching staff to undertake. Students were encouraged to think critically about imperialism and decolonisation in the academy, within an epistemic framework of uncertainty and complexity (Bourn 2011). Students engaged with these concepts and applied them to later themes of the module. However, case studies and key readings remain dominated by Western countries and Western authors, in part due to the nature of the literature and the influence of bibliometric indicators in search engines, biased towards well-known authors, heavily cited work and therefore to Western countries and English-language articles (Altbach 2015). Nevertheless, this module design successfully supports students as agents with valued knowledge practices (Madge, Raghuram, and Noxolo 2009).

15

This paper presents a case study rather than a comprehensive examination of approaches (Leask and Bridge 2013) and there are caveats. Firstly, the module topic, international HE, facilitated embedding a transparent pedagogy and explicitly decolonial approach. While these principles transfer to other subjects, incorporating discussions of pedagogy in unrelated modules will be more challenging. Yet attention to epistemic stances and academic practices associated with knowledge construction in disciplines, and the implications for pedagogy and learning design, would be appropriate in any subject. Secondly, this was an optional module so students rejecting the pedagogy could change units, effectively self-selecting. So engagement might decline in compulsory units. Thirdly, small cohorts facilitated relationship building, which could prove challenging in larger groups. This pedagogical approach therefore needs testing in other disciplinary and instructional contexts before claiming broader applicability. Finally, this was a predominantly international, but this approach, because it does not use prior knowledge, would be relevant and beneficial for cohorts of both home and international students.

This paper offers an exit from the ethical dilemma posed by juxtaposing representations of international students as both financial resources and educational liabilities. This pedagogic approach encompasses a set of principles and practices that seek to restructure the classroom and curricula to position international students as co-creators of knowledge and content. This encourages students to participate in discussions and engage in multiple modes, is consistent with epistemic change and flux in a globalised context, and is realistically achievable in terms of staffing and resourcing.

References

Altbach, Philip G. 2015. “The Tyranny of Citations.” International Higher Education 43: 3–5.

Battiste, M. 2005. “Discourses of Difference; Cognitive Imperialism; Culturalism and Diversity.” In Decolonizing Ourselves, Building Alliances: An Aboriginal/Black Dialogue at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work. Toronto. http://www.usask.ca/education/documents/profiles/battiste/diversity.pdf.

Beech, Suzanne E. 2014. “Why Place Matters: Imaginative Geography and International Student Mobility.” Area 46 (2): 170–77. doi:10.1111/area.12096.

Bosanquet, Agnes. 2010. “Higher Education Guarantees Global Citizenship , or Does It ?” In: Proceedings of the Enhancing Learning Experiences in Higher Education International Conference, Edited by:Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. .

Bourn, Douglas. 2011. “From Internationalisation to Global Perspectives.” Higher Education Research & Development 30 (5): 559–71. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.598447.

Brooks, Rachel, and Johanna Waters. 2009. “International Higher Education and the Mobility of UK Students.” Journal of Research in International Education, 1–31.

Buckley, Charles Alan, Edd Pitt, Bill Norton, and Tessa Owens. 2010. “Students’ Approaches to Study, Conceptions of Learning and Judgements about the Value of Networked Technologies.” Active Learning in Higher Education 11 (1): 55–65. doi:10.1177/1469787409355875.

Bullen, Elizabeth, and Jane Kenway. 2003. “Real or Imagined Women? Staff Representations of International Women Postgraduate Students.” Discourse : Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 24 (1): 35–50.

16

Clark, Rose, and S. N. Gieve. 2006. “On the Discursive Construction of ‘the Chinese Learner.’” Language, Culture and Curriculum 19 (1): 54–73. doi:10.1080/07908310608668754.

Coghlan, David, and Abraham B Shani. 2017. “Developing the Practice of Leading Change Through Insider Action Research : A Dynamic Capability Perspective.” In The SAGE Handbook of Action Research, edited by Hilary Bradbury, 3rd ed., 47–54. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education. 6th ed. London: Routledge.

Collins, Francis Leo. 2006. “Making Asian Students, Making Students Asian: The Racialisation of Export Education in Auckland, New Zealand.” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 47 (2): 217–34. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2006.00308.x.

Devos, Anita. 2003. “Internationalisation , and the Discursive Construction of " The International Student " Academic Standards , Internationalisation , and the Discursive Construction of ‘ The International Student .’” Higher Education Research & Development 22 (2): 155–66. doi:10.1080/0729436032000083616.

Doherty, Catherine. 2008. “Student Subsidy of the Internationalised Curriculum: Knowing, Voicing and Producing the Other.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 16 (3): 269–88. doi:10.1080/14681360802346655.

Embury, Dusty Columbia. 2017. “Action Research in an Online World.” In The SAGE Handbook of Action Research, edited by Hilary Bradbury, 529–35. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Friere, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books.Gacel-Ávila, Jocelyne. 2005. “The Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Paradigm for

Global Citizenry.” Journal of Studies in International Education 9 (2): 121–36. doi:10.1177/1028315304263795.

Goode, Jackie. 2007. “Empowering or Disempowering the International Ph.D. Student? Constructions of the Dependent and Independent Learner.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28 (5): 589–603. doi:10.1080/01425690701505409.

Goos, Maarten, and Anna Salomons. 2016. “Measuring Teaching Quality in Higher Education : Assessing Selection Bias in Course Evaluations.” Research in Higher Education. Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/s11162-016-9429-8.

Grange, L. Le. 2016. “Decolonising the University Curriculum.” South African Journal of Higher Education 30 (2): 1–12. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.20853/30-2-709.

Groundwater-smith, Susan, and Nicole Mockler. 2015. “From Data Source to Co-Researchers ? Tracing the Shift from ‘ Student Voice ’ to Student-Teacher Partnerships in Educational Action Research.” Educational Action Research 24 (2): 159–76.

Henrie, Curtis R, Robert Bodily, Kristine C Manwaring, and Charles R Graham. 2015. “Exploring Intensive Longitudinal Measures of Student Engagement in Blended Learning.” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16 (3): 131–56.

Higher Education Statistics Agency. 2017. “Higher Education Student Enrolments and Qualifications Obtained at Higher Education Providers in the United Kingdom 2015/16 | HESA.” Statistical First Release. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/12-01-2017/sfr242-student-enrolments-and-qualifications.

Ippolito, Kate. 2007. “Promoting Intercultural Learning in a Multicultural University : Ideals and Realities.” Teaching in Higher Education 12 (5–6): 749–63. doi:10.1080/13562510701596356.

Jones, Elspeth. 2017. “Problematising and Reimagining the Notion of ‘International Student Experience.’” Studies in Higher Education 42 (5). Taylor & Francis: 933–43.

17

doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1293880.Kettle, Margaret. 2005. “Agency as Discursive Practice: From ‘Nobody’ to ‘Somebody’ as an

International Student in Australia.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 25 (1): 45–60.Kumaravadivelu, B. 2016. “The Decolonial Option in English Teaching: Can the Subaltern

Act?” TESOL Quarterly 50 (1): 66–85. doi:10.1002/tesq.202.Leask, Betty, and Christopher Bridge. 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. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.746566.

Lomer, Sylvie. 2017. Recruiting International Students in Higher Education Representations and Rationales in British Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Luxon, Tony, and Moira Peelo. 2009. “Internationalisation : Its Implications for Curriculum Design and Course Development in UK Higher Education.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 46 (1): 51–60. doi:10.1080/14703290802646172.

Madge, Clare, Parvati Raghuram, and Patricia Noxolo. 2009. “Engaged Pedagogy and Responsibility: A Postcolonial Analysis of International Students.” Geoforum 40 (1): 34–45.

———. 2015. “Conceptualizing International Education: From International Student to International Study.” Progress in Human Geography 39 (6): 681–701.

Marginson, Simon. 2008. “Global Field and Global Imagining Bourdieu and Worldwide Higher Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 29 (3): 303–15. doi:10.1080/01425690801966386.

Marginson, Simon, Claire Nyland, Erlenawati Sawir, and Helen. Forbes-Mewett. 2010. International Student Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marlina, Roby. 2009. “‘I Don’t Talk or I Decide Not to Talk? Is It My Culture?’-International Students’ Experiences of Tutorial Participation.” International Journal of Educational Research 48 (4): 235–44. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2009.11.001.

Mazzarol, Tim, and Geoffrey N. Soutar. 2012. “Revisiting the Global Market for Higher Education.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 24 (5): 717–37. doi:10.1108/13555851211278079.

Meadows, Chris, Kate Soper, Rod Cullen, Catherine Wasiuk, Colin Mcallister-gibson, and Phil Danby. 2016. “Shaping the Future of Learning Using the Student Voice : We ’ Re Listening but Are We Hearing Clearly ?” Research in Learning Technology 24 (1063519): 1–19.

Mittelmeier, Jenna, Bart Rienties, Dirk Tempelaar, and Denise Whitelock. 2018. “Overcoming Cross-Cultural Group Work Tensions : Mixed Student Perspectives on the Role of Social Relationships.” Higher Education 75 (1). Higher Education: 149–66. doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0131-3.

Montgomery, Catherine. 2013. “A Future Curriculum for Future Graduates? Rethinking a Higher Education Curriculum for a Globalised World.” In Cross-Cultural Teaching and Learning for Home and International Students, Internationalisation of Pedagogy and Curriculum in Higher Education, edited by Janette Ryan, 171–81. Abingdon: Routledge.

Nkrumah, Kwame. 1965. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd.

Palmer, Elizabeth, Sylvie Lomer, and Ivelina Bashliyska. 2017. “Overcoming Barriers to Student Engagement with Active Blended Learning.” Northampton: University of Northampton, Institute for Learning & Teaching. https://www.northampton.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/10/Student-Engagement-with-ABL-Interim-Report-v3-October-2017.pdf.

Peacock, Nicola, and Neil Harrison. 2009. “‘ It’s so Much Easier to Go with What’s Easy ’ :

18

‘mindfulness’ and the Discourse between Home and International Students in the UK.” Journal of Studies in International Education 13 (4): 487–508.

Perraton, Hillary. 2014. A History of Foreign Students in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pietsch, Tamson. 2013. Empire of Scholars Universities, Networks and the British Academic World, 1850–1939. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Plessis, Anna Elizabeth du. 2017. “Design and Intervention of an Educational-Leadership Program : Student Voice and Agency , Expectations and Internationalization.” International Journal of Higher Education 6 (1): 251–68. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n1p251.

Ploner, Josef. 2015. “Resilience, Moorings and International Student Mobilities – Exploring Biographical Narratives of Social Science Students in the UK.” Mobilities 0101 (February). Routledge: 1–20. doi:10.1080/17450101.2015.1087761.

Powell, Allison, John Watson, Patrick Staley, Susan Patrick, Michael Horn, Leslie Fetzer, Laura Hibbard, Jonathan Oglesby, and Su Verma. 2015. “Blending Learning: The Evolution of Online and Face-to-Face Education from 2008 – 2015.” Promising Practices in Blended and Online Learning. Vienna, VA: INACOL, The International Association for K-12 Online Learning. http://www.inacol.org/resource/blending-learning-the-evolution-of-online-and-face-to-face-education-from-2008-2015/.

Qiang, Zha. 2003. “Internationalization of Higher Education: Towards a Conceptual Framework.” Policy Futures in Education 1 (2): 248–70. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00836-8.

Reece, Ian, and Stephen Walker. 2007. Teaching, Training and Learning: A Practical Guide. Tyne and Wear: Business Education Publishers Limited.

Rizvi, Fazal, and Bob Lingard. 2010. Globalizing Education Policy. Abingdon: Routledge.Ryan, Janette, and Rosemary Viete. 2009. “Respectful Interactions: Learning with

International Students in the English-Speaking Academy.” Teaching in Higher Education 14 (3): 303–14. doi:10.1080/13562510902898866.

Sidhu, Ravinder. 2006. Universities and Globalization: To Market, to Market. Abingdon: Routledge.

Song, Xianlin, and Greg McCarthy. 2018. “Governing Asian International Students: The Policy and Practice of Essentialising ‘Critical Thinking.’” Globalisation, Societies and Education 16 (3). Taylor & Francis: 353–65. doi:10.1080/14767724.2017.1413978.

Sousa Santos, Boaventura de. 2007. “Beyond Abyssal Thinking: From Global Lines to Ecologies of Knowledges.” Binghampton University Review 30 (1): 45–89.

Straker, John. 2016. “International Student Participation in Higher Education: Changing the Focus From ‘International Students’ to ‘Participation.’” Journal of Studies in International Education 20 (4): 299–318. doi:10.1177/1028315316628992.

Taniwha, Rosina. 2014. “Wānanga - A Distributive Action.” In Maori and Pasifika Higher Education Horizons, edited by Fiona Cram, Hazel Phillips, Pale Sauni, Clark Tuagalu, and Henry T. Frierson, 15:37–48. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/S1479-364420140000015010.

Tian, Mei, and John Lowe. 2009. “Existentialist Internationalisation and the Chinese Student Experience in English Universities.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 39 (5): 659–76. doi:10.1080/03057920903125693.

Tikly, Leon. 2004. “Education and the New Imperialism.” Comparative Education 40 (2): 173–98. doi:10.1080/0305006042000231347.

Trahar, Sheila. 2010. Developing Cultural Capability in International Higher Education: A Narrative Inquiry. London: Routledge.

Turner, Yvonne. 2009. “‘Knowing Me, Knowing You,’ Is There Nothing We Can Do?” Journal of Studies in International Education 13 (2): 240–55.

19

doi:10.1177/1028315308329789.United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics. 2017.

International Student Mobility in Tertiary Education. Paris: UNESCO.Universities UK International. 2018. “International Facts and Figures.” London: Universities

UK International. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/international-facts-and-figures-2018.aspx.

Welikala, Thushari. 2011. “Responding to Cultural Scripts for Learning : Addressing International Pedagogies Meaningfully.” In American Education Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, 1–11. New Orleans.

Wu, Jen-Her, Robert D. Tennyson, and Tzyh-Lih Hsia. 2010. “A Study of Student Satisfaction in a Blended E-Learning System Environment.” Computers & Education 55 (1). Elsevier Ltd: 155–64. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012.

Zepke, Nick. 2016. Student Engagement in Neoliberal Times Theories and Practices for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-3200-4.

Zhou, Yanqiu Rachel, Della Knoke, and Izumi Sakamoto. 2005. “Rethinking Silence in the Classroom: Chinese Students’ Experiences of Sharing Indigenous Knowledge.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 9 (3): 287–311. doi:10.1080/13603110500075180.

20