Advancing Internationalization in the Formal Curriculum: Content Integration and Inclusive Design

Abstract

Despite the growing attention of Canadian universities to curriculum development as part of their internationalization efforts, there is still a lack of understanding of what constitutes an internationalized formal curriculum from the perspectives of diverse community members. This exploratory, interpretive case study aims to contribute to the ongoing internationalization efforts to foster an enriched education experience that benefits both domestic and international students. It highlights perspectives from international postgraduate students regarding the approach of internationalizing formal curricula in a Canadian university. The findings presented in this article elaborate on these students’ earnest request for content integration in an internationalized formal curriculum. The findings also emphasize the importance of being aware of practice traditions in a learning site and incorporating inclusive course design to reduce potential inequalities and the risk of system exclusion.

Introduction

Internationalization has become increasingly significant within Canadian universities and the government, both actively engaging in this global movement (Canada, 2019; Viczko & Tascón, 2016). While Canadian universities have various approaches to adopting internationalization, many researchers express concerns about the increasingly entrenched focus on economic growth, revenue generation, competition for talents, branding, and ranking both within Canada and on a global scale (Garson, 2023; Trilokekar et al., 2020). Regarding these concerns, international educators suggested institutions make efforts to address the tensions between the interim, neoliberal approaches and the more inclusive, ethical approaches to internationalization (Chen, 2022; de Wit & Leask, 2017; de Wit, 2019; Garson, 2023; Hudzik, 2015; Ledger & Kawalilak, 2020; Rizvi, 2016; Stein et al., 2019).

Furthermore, many international educators expressed skepticism about the extent to which teaching and learning have been prioritized locally in the process of internationalization (Beelen & Jones, 2015; Brewer & Leask, 2021; Leask & Bridge, 2013). Mestenhauser (1998) observed that although certain themes of international education, like international relations, were deemed important and represented the national interests of the majority, they were not fully integrated into the core interests of curricula. Many faculty members could have been more enthusiastic about their responsibilities in international programs (Mestenhauser, 1998). Mannion et al. (2011) asserted that without transformation, international education might be perceived as a tool promoting a hegemonic desire to impose a Western perspective, thus limiting the space for self-determination, autonomy, and alternative ways of thinking, doing, and being.

Indeed, more recent conceptualizations of internationalization in higher education, such as those by de Wit et al. (2015) and Hudzik (2015), have gained widespread attention, emphasizing that this agenda should be more comprehensive and serve the interests of all students, staff, and society. Ideally, internationalization should have become a central concern in program development and curriculum planning. Despite this vision, many academic staff are still frustrated by what they perceive “as a hollow shell behind the rhetoric” surrounding internationalizing curricula (Green & Whitsed, 2015, p. 3). Resistance to this transformation still exists and is influenced by various contextual factors (Green & Whitsed, 2015).

In Canada, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) (2009) and the Association of Canadian Deans of Education (ACDE) (2014) have advocated for incorporating internationalization into the Canadian curriculum. Observably, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, an increasing number of Canadian higher education institutions have placed greater emphasis on this initiative. These institutions widely embrace the conceptualizations of internationalization at home (IaH) from Beelen and Jones (2015) and the internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) from Leask (2015), using them as frameworks for their curriculum internationalization efforts. IoH “is the purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments (Beelen & Jones, 2015, p. 69). IoC refers to incorporating the “international, intercultural, and/or global dimensions into the content of the curriculum as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching methods, and support services of a program of study” (Leask, 2015, p. 9). However, the literature addressing curriculum internationalization and offering guidance on the specific curriculum modifications required for this process in Canadian higher education institutions remains limited (Clarke & Kirby, 2022).

Moreover, amongst the constrained yet expanding body of literature on diverse participants’ perceptions and experiences of curriculum internationalization, researchers have predominantly examined the perspectives of academic staff (Green & Whitsed, 2015; Renfors, 2021; van den Hende et al., 2023). However, a notable gap persists in scholarly articles concerning how students interpret, experience, and envision internationalization in their formal curricula, demanding further investigation (Fakunle, 2019; Jones & Caruana, 2010). Additionally, only a few of the researchers (e.g., Cheng et al., 2018; Rasi et al., 2015) have delved explicitly into the perspectives of postgraduate students.

Against these backdrops, to contribute to the scholarly exploration of the internationalization of the formal curriculum in Canadian higher education, and to gain more insights into international postgraduate students’ interpretations, experiences, and expectations of internationalization in their formal curricula, I conducted an interpretive case study from 2021 to 2022 in a Canadian university setting. Recognizing the benefits of advancing internationalization in the formal curriculum for both local and international students, I opted to include international students in the participant sample, confident that my nearly eight-year experience as an international postgraduate student in Canada provided me with the insight to effectively navigate dual roles as both an insider and an outsider in this study. In this paper, I present and discuss part of my findings to address two research questions:

How do international postgraduate students interpret an ‘internationalized’ formal curriculum and describe such a curriculum?

What types of activities do international postgraduate students consider engaging in when they envisage internationalization in the formal curriculum?

Research Design

I adopted an interpretivist paradigm (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and Merriam's (1998) interpretive case study approach, which allowed me to delve into a bounded unit, offering a thorough depiction of the research site and attaining a profound insight into how international postgraduate students interpret, experience, and envision internationalization in their formal curricula. The bounded unit was delimited to the perspectives of international postgraduate students about the formal curriculum within graduate programs offered by an education school at a research-intensive university in a Canadian city.

Key Concepts and Theoretical Lens

Many scholars emphasized that the curriculum extends beyond content delivery and includes all elements, resources, and activities that facilitate learning and teaching, within and beyond the formal classroom (Barnett & Coate, 2004; Leask, 2015). In this study, I concentrated on the formal curriculum, which encompasses the prescribed set of courses and activities that learners are required to undertake as an integral part of their degree program.

Furthermore, I used Kemmis et al.'s (2014) practice architectures theory as the theoretical framework. This theory emphasizes that practices are situated, indeterminate, and shaped by different types of practice architectures in given settings (Kemmis et al., 2014). It enables exploration of the content and conduct of practice, as well as the arrangements that enable and sustain it. More specifically, this theory suggests that sayings, doings, and relatings are central to understanding the nature of practices (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 31). Drawing on these concepts, I explored research participants’ interpretations of ‘internationalized’ curricula and their responses to aspects of the formal curriculum that they considered as ‘internationalized.’ I also examined the relatings that participants intentionally or unintentionally constructed in their descriptions.

In addition, Kemmis et al. (2014) conceptualized that individuals within social practices interact and engage in mutual learning within intersubjective spaces (p.137). These spaces are already shaped by existing arrangements, encompassing cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements that both influence and are influenced by individuals in these spaces (Kemmis et al., 2014, p.4). Accordingly, I analyzed these arrangements based on the participants’ expressions, which influenced their interpretations, experiences, and expectations of curricular internationalization. In brief, by employing the practice architectures theory, I delved into the complexities of the process of internationalizing the formal curriculum, considering both the participants’ ascribed meanings and the contextual influences that shape their perceptions and interactions.

Methods

My research data were collected from October 2021 to September 2022 from two main sources: public documents and semi-structured interviews, with a third complementary source being my reflexive research journal. To gain a better understanding of and offer a descriptive introduction to the relevant internal and external landscapes of the case study site, I collected related documents and conducted qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2014). The analyzed documents included: 1. strategies and reports from governments or organizations (e.g., AUCC) that foregrounded the internationalization agenda in the context of higher education at the national and provincial levels; 2. documents from the case school and its university addressing internationalization and related themes; 3. descriptions posted on institutional websites concerning the approach to curriculum internationalization.

Moreover, I conducted one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with nine volunteer participants (see Table 1). The length of interviews varied from approximately 60 to 90 min. Pursuing their first graduate degree in Canada, all participants were enrolled in thesis-based graduate programs that required students to complete coursework and pursue independent and original research culminating in a thesis under the supervision of a faculty member. Their specializations spanned Learning Sciences, Language and Literacy, Adult Learning, Curriculum and Learning, as well as Leadership, Policy, and Governance. Among the participants, two are from Southern Asia, three from Eastern Asia, and one each from North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Southern Europe, and Western Asia. In accordance with the requests from some of the participants and the undertaking I made as part of the ethics review for this study, detailed information about their nationalities is withheld. For analysing interview data, I adopted Braun and Clarke's (2022) reflexive thematic analysis approach, following their suggested six-stage process.

Table 1.

Information of Research Participants.

Name	Gender	Program	Year(s) in program	Course delivery method	Geographic regions of origin
Sarah	Female	PhD	3–4	In person, on campus	Western Asia
Monica	Female	PhD	3–4	In person, on campus	Eastern Asia
Mastay	Male	PhD	2–3	In person, on campus	Sub-Saharan Africa
Alex	Male	MA	2–3	In person, on campus	Eastern Asia
Lee	Female	PhD	1–2	Online	Eastern Asia
Omar	Male	PhD	1–2	Online	Southern Asia
Bora	Female	PhD	1–2	Online	Southern Europe
Ali	Male	MA	Less than 1 year	Online	Southern Asia
Sophia	Female	PhD	Less than 1 year	Online	North America

Note. PhD: Doctor of Philosophy program in Educational Research; MA: Master of Arts in Educational Research.

Study Site

The participants were enrolled in a publicly-funded university that provides a wide range of academic and professional programs, with English as the instructional language, emphasizing a strong commitment to research. Following the release of Calls to Action by Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015, the university has been expanding its Indigenization initiatives in its program and curriculum development. Additionally, in response to initiatives set forth by Universities Canada (2017) and the Government of Canada (2019), there has been a notable surge in campus-wide discussions and events aimed at promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).

Moreover, in line with the university's strategic plan, a global engagement plan was launched in 2020 and articulated three overarching goals: 1. Increasing the diversity of the campus community; 2. strengthening global and intercultural capacity among all members; and 3. enhancing global partnerships. International recruitment has been set as the key strategy for achieving the first goal. In 2021, international postgraduate students comprised over 30% of the university's total postgraduate student population, and this demographic continues to grow steadily. Nevertheless, this strategy appeared to be less workable for the faculty of education. From 2021 to 2023, there was a consistent rise in the percentage of international postgraduate students, climbing to around 7%, which still constitutes a relatively small portion of the total postgraduate student body in the faculty. Many factors, such as limited grants for postgraduate students in the faculty, may contribute to this situation, but they are not my focus here.

In addition, to achieve the goal of enhancing global and intercultural capacity, the deliberate integration of international and intercultural dimensions in both formal and informal curricula has been acknowledged as crucial. Still, specific guidelines on relevant curriculum modifications have yet to be published.

Emergent Themes

This section is organized based on two main themes that emerged during my analysis: embarking on the deliberate expansion of content diversity; promoting inclusive course design to reduce inequalities.

Embarking on the Deliberate Expansion of Content Diversity

Among the study participants, course content emerged as the primary factor for assessing the level of internationalization within a formal curriculum. According to their perspectives, an internationalized formal curriculum encompasses course content that embraces perspectives, practices, and issues pertaining to various countries and nations across the globe. The participants substantiated this notion by offering illustrative examples, including diverse religious viewpoints, Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of thinking, Western and non-Western philosophical traditions, distinct educational professional practices, and current global educational concerns. The participants’ comments indicate that the inclusion of diverse elements can be achieved through three distinct avenues.

Broadening the Scope of Readings and Topics

First, Monica, Omar, Sarah, and Sophia were among the participants who suggested the inclusion of materials authored by researchers with different national or cultural backgrounds in the required reading list. This proposal implies an underlying assumption that individuals with different backgrounds are more inclined or capable of offering international or intercultural perspectives. However, Sophia also raised a pertinent question: If the practice of involving diverse perspectives is interpreted as a practice of incorporating perspectives that represent diverse philosophical traditions, such as Hinduism and Taoism, then the extent to which and how adding articles written by researchers from different countries could genuinely internationalize the course content? Sophia noted, “Just because you use an author from a different country doesn't necessarily mean it's internationalized because it could still be the same school of thought.”

Another intriguing aspect arises from Omar's response, highlighting the significance of incorporating readings authored by individuals with diverse national or cultural backgrounds in a Canadian higher education institution. Omar said, “When I come to a multicultural country like Canada, I expect an internationalized curriculum to include reading and resources…written by people who come from different parts of the world.” For international postgraduate students like Omar, including such readings holds great significance as it amplifies the representation of diverse voices within the formal curriculum and, more broadly, within an already multicultural and multi-ethnic society.

Second, Ali, Bora, and Sophia proposed that course readings should encompass diverse perspectives and case studies related to various regions worldwide. Bora highlighted the importance of not solely focusing on countries like Canada and the United States but also considering other contexts. Yet, Bora gained insight during her reflection into why most of the course readings on multilingualism revolved around specific countries. She realized that the academic literature on topics such as multilingualism is often authored by researchers in countries like Canada, where multiple languages are commonly spoken, leading to context-specific research tailored to these particular societies. Bora articulated her ‘newfound’ understanding, stating, “Now I kind of understand why the course material that we get to read is about the context, for example, of Canada and the neighbour United States, where have a higher percentage of immigrants.”

Interestingly, Sophia raised a question about the importance of publishing articles that present diverse perspectives or cases. She mused that: “Maybe a big part of internationalization starts with the journals,” which “are the gatekeepers for what people are allowed to learn and allowed to know of the different research that is going on.” Failure to publish an article presenting a unique perspective means that “all other students and academics lose that opportunity to learn from that school of thought” (Sophia, interview). In other words, the internationalization of academic publishing can significantly impact the diversification of course readings.

Third, comments made by Mastay, Bora, Sarah, and Ali suggest that an internationalized formal curriculum should include current globally relevant issues. For instance, Mastay highlighted an internationalized assignment, stating, “The assessment is trying to look at what is going on globally…[and] is being focused on what is happening in the world… So, as a student, what can you think, what can you design, to…solve twenty-first-century situations”.

Bora and Sarah raised concerns regarding the international import and export of educational practices or theories. Bora emphasized that an education practice or system deemed “the best” (Bora, interview) in one country may not yield similar results when adopted by other countries. She argued that internationalizing the curriculum should confront this reality and its associated issues. Sarah viewed the importation and adoption of educational practices and theories from the West into other countries through a lens of hegemony. She asserted that “internationalization means breaking this hegemony of Western culture.”

Emphasizing Equality and Solidarity

Furthermore, participants underlined an equal and solidarity-based approach when suggesting an internationalized formal curriculum that incorporates international, global, and intercultural perspectives. The international and global perspectives are apparent in their suggestions to include diverse viewpoints, practices, and issues from different countries and nations worldwide, as presented in the preceding section. In addition, the intercultural perspective emerged in the language and discourse they used, such as when Omar stated, “Internationalization…has to do with diversity…[and] has to accept diversity.” Sarah also expressed, “There is an effort to make it international, like, inclusive.” Additionally, Bora stressed the importance of acknowledging other cultures. She elaborated, “Just bringing them together [and] recognizing the differences and these pieces…[but] would not lead towards one united piece that, let's say, is more westernized.”

These sentiments resonate with Schriefer's (2017) concept of intercultural communities. According to Schriefer (2017), intercultural communities foster “a deep understanding and respect for all cultures,” where “everyone learns from one another and grows together” (para. 4). This contrasts with cross-cultural communities, which focus on “the comparison of different cultures,” often positioning one culture as “the norm” while comparing or contrasting all other cultures to the dominant one (Schriefer, 2017, para. 3). In light of Schriefer's (2017) conceptualization of intercultural, my research findings underline the need for a more equal and solidarity-based relationship among the norms, perspectives, and practices associated with different countries and nations. Such a relationship is crucial for the internationalization of curricula and the facilitation of intercultural learning.

Promoting Inclusive Course Design to Reduce Inequalities

Research participants drew on their existing understanding of international education or internationalization in higher education to discuss the concept of an internationalized formal curriculum. Moreover, the notion of inclusiveness emerged in their comments, suggesting that the level of inclusion directly influences the degree of internationalization within a formal curriculum and the level of student engagement. Inclusion, as defined by Tienda (2013), encompasses “organizational strategies and practices that promote meaningful social and academic interactions among persons and groups who differ in their experiences, their views, and their traits” (p. 467). According to Green's (2019) insights, engagement refers to a student's dedication and absorption in their learning and a sense of belonging to their learning communities. These factors significantly impact a student's academic development and well-being. Based on these understandings, the participants’ perspectives reveal four key aspects that underpin the principle of inclusion.

Culturally Responsive Readings

Monica and Alex pointed out that the course readings should incorporate materials that reflect the social backgrounds (e.g., the country of origin) or identities (e.g., the ethnic identity) of the enrolled students. This implies the need to update the readings to align with each student cohort's specific backgrounds or identities. Monica, who identifies as Asian and is attentive to Asian perspectives, suggested, “If you have students from another social background like Germany or Spain, maybe you should update your course… For example, in the readings required for us to read, I remember there is no Asian scholar talking about educational philosophy.” Similarly, Alex, who is also Asian, expressed, “[In] several course materials, I remember very clearly is…they were only talking about white students and their black counterparts… I am open to reading materials like these, but I want that the reading materials… culturally respond to my identity.”

International Perspectives in Discussions

Fostering inclusivity also entails actively seeking and validating perspectives and ideas from international students within classroom discussions. Ali provided an illustrative example by stating, “There are stereotypes about men going in mathematics [but] not women. This is totally [the] opposite in my part of the world…we also had nuances such as religion…which is a big role in how women participate in their lives.” According to Ali, these different perspectives and ideas represent valuable “alternatives” and “alternative forms of knowledge” that should be evoked and included into the formal curriculum (Ali, interview). In addition to Ali's perspective, other students, including Lee, Monica, Mastay, Bora, and Sarah, also shared similar ideas. For instance, Mastay articulated,

I had that moment and then I realized that our curriculum has been internationalized… We got to a point in time in some of our discussions in the classroom [where] we don't really focus on Canada as a whole but we look at different ideas from other colleagues in other countries. So we looked at different colleagues from across the world about how they are responding to this.

Intercultural Classroom Dynamics

Mastay, Monica, Alex, and Omar emphasized that inclusivity necessitates accommodating the diverse pedagogical styles and practices that international students have encountered in their prior educational experiences, as well as addressing the potential challenges they may face. For example, Mastay noted that the teaching and learning ways he was familiar with differed from those he encountered at the current institution. These differences presented what he referred to as “intercultural issues” that he had to navigate to integrate into and actively participate in the new learning environment.

Mastay encountered what he referred to as intercultural issues, which arose due to different ways of positioning professors and students and perceiving their relationships across different cultures. In many instances, the teacher/student relationship may resemble that of a superior and subordinate, while in others, a more egalitarian relationship is prevalent. Furthermore, as Mastay transitioned from a background in basic science (mathematics) to the academic field of education, intercultural issues surfaced as he attempted to engage himself in the course content that focused on educational practice and intervention in real social situations. This adjustment presented a learning curve for him. Moreover, Mastay, accustomed to end-of-course assessments that evaluated student learning against clearly articulated standards or benchmarks, experienced concerns regarding understanding the expectations and assessment criteria for course assignments at his current program, which led to anxiety. Additionally, intercultural issues also manifested in Mastay's class participation. However, he acknowledged his instructor's understanding and accommodation, noting, “How the professor was going about the teaching approach clearly showed that the curriculum was being internationalized.”

Language and Communication Inclusivity

Monica discussed the challenge that she confronted in reading philosophical and abstract materials written in English (Monica, interview). She also discussed the challenge of articulating what she “was really thinking in the class” without hesitation and fear (Monica, interview). For Monica, instructors should understand such challenges and how students may feel when dealing with them; this support from instructors is paramount. Alex expressed similar sentiments, focusing on the challenge of writing academic articles in English. He also mentioned the encouragement that he received from his instructor to develop his own unique writing style. Omar also highlighted the challenges of English writing. He argued that instructors should accommodate the different writing styles of international students, including citing resources from their home countries. Furthermore, this consideration extends to various communication styles, such as whether students express their opinions directly or euphemistically. As Omar said, instructors “should be open to say: Okay; it's a different way to say things because this person comes from a different culture.”

Discussion

All participants shared the view that an internationalized formal curriculum includes courses incorporating diverse perspectives, practices, and issues related to different countries and nations worldwide. They described such a curriculum as one that incorporates a range of course content, with some participants also emphasizing the importance of promoting inclusion in course design. In general, these interpretations are consistent with the conceptualizations of IaH and IoC. The findings reveal a misconception that Leask (2015) points out, namely that: “The recruitment of international students will result in an internationalized curriculum for all students” (p.10). They also echo a notion that Beelen and Jones (2015) critique: “Simply providing a program in English is insufficient for it to be considered an internationalized curriculum” (p.64).

Notably, in suggesting course content, the participants placed significant importance on some dimensions, including nationality, philosophical tradition, ethnicity, and religion, which represent large cultural thinking commonly used, albeit not without potential drawbacks, in internationalization practices and discussions (Jones, 2022, p. ii). This finding may inspire educators like Jones (2022) to research and explore strategies for helping students connect these broad dimensions to more specific group and personal perspectives, fostering reflexivity, and cultivating cultural humility.

Moreover, Beelen and Jones (2015) and Leask (2015) both present a broader perspective that encompasses an entire program of study and highlights the interconnectedness of the formal and informal curriculum. However, the participants coincidentally concentrated on the micro level of individual courses. This tendency may be attributed to the interview questions’ particular emphasis on the ‘formal curriculum’ and these participants’ interpretations of this concept. Alternatively, it may stem from the idea noted by Sarah, “I know the curriculum is so much more than one course, but it starts with small steps.” Still, understanding the extent to which the tendency to focus on coursework is prevalent among international postgraduate students requires further investigation. This inclination may lead curriculum designers to review and redesign courses, especially the required and core courses, to internationalize the curriculum. It also presents potential challenges for the curriculum internationalization efforts framed by a holistic approach that aims to integrate or target extracurricular activities.

(Re)Considering Content Integration

In my study, emergent perspectives on content integration align with some research findings from Cheng et al. (2018). Cheng et al. (2018) explored the experiences of Chinese postgraduate taught students from Business and Engineering at a Scottish and an Australian university. Cheng et al. (2018) found that these students were eager for curriculum internationalization and highlighted the importance of content integration to foster a truly internationalized learning experience. However, the observation that the integration of content garnered significant attention and critical discussion from student participants contradicts the findings from Clifford (2010) and Rasi et al. (2015), who identified that students only occasionally or did not discuss course content and materials concerning an internationalized formal curriculum.

In Clifford's (2010) study, student participants, including international and non-international undergraduates and postgraduates, had diverse backgrounds across domestic and overseas campuses of an Australian public university. Interestingly, course content received little attention when discussing perceptions of an internationalized formal curriculum. Despite its obvious Australian focus, except for some reading materials and theories from America, most students believed their course content was already international and universally applicable. This trend was particularly noticeable among students from the domestic (Australian) campus. Furthermore, while some students in Clifford's (2010) study felt that adding texts from other continents could be beneficial, others argued it would not suffice to achieve intercultural understanding and learning.

In addition, despite identifying a noticeable bias in the curricular materials of a graduate media-education program, Rasi et al. (2015) were surprised to find that none of the Finnish or international postgraduate students they interviewed expressed any discontent or skepticism regarding potential cultural biases in those materials. Specifically, Rasi et al. (2015) perceived the bias in the curricular materials that favored institutions and authors from the United States and the United Kingdom. These materials were presented as exclusively legitimate and dominant in the field, neglecting materials from Finnish institutions or research data from Finland, even when available in English. In the view of Rasi et al., these materials’ focus on an ‘international’ perspective may not adequately value Finnish contexts, thus potentially limiting the curriculum's capacity to provide international students with the desired internationalization experience they sought by coming to Finland. Additionally, it may hinder the curriculum's responsiveness to the expectations of some international students who plan to work in Finland in the future.

In line with Rasi et al.'s (2015) views, participants in my research were also conscious of potential cultural biases present in their course readings. However, their concerns diverged from those of Rasi and her colleagues. In my research, the participants identified the predominant presence of domestic voices, particularly from Anglo-Canadian origins, in the course materials as the main issue, rather than a lack of domestic perspectives. Furthermore, the participants did not express concerns about the course content's potential limitations in exposing them to Canadian contexts or disappointing those with aspirations to work in Canada after completing their studies.

Many factors may contribute to the discrepancies discussed in this section. One significant factor could be the academic and professional knowledge and experience of the participants in my study, acquired through their undergraduate and/or graduate programs in the field of education. This knowledge and experience equip them with a relatively comprehensive and critical understanding of curriculum internationalization. Moreover, the efforts of Indigenization and EDI at Canadian universities in recent years may have broadened the participants’ understanding of internationalization. Additionally, it is vital to consider the potential influence of current trends in higher education or other sectors. For instance, the global trend towards increased interconnectedness and international professional mobility may have shaped current international students’ learning preferences and approaches to education.

Reducing Potential Inequalities

Upon closer examination, the participants suggested that intentional practices designed to engage international postgraduate students, rather than just having an international student population, are fundamental elements of an internationalized formal curriculum. Yet, these students have received education and immersed themselves in specific disciplines during their previous Bachelor's and/or graduate studies. Their ways of thinking, doing, and being have also been shaped by their other sociocultural experiences acquired through different positions such as classes, genders, and races. These diverse sociocultural backgrounds give the participants varied cultural capital and influence their unique dispositions (Bourdieu, 1986), encompassing knowledge, skills, and values, which, in turn, influence their perceptions of what is ‘appropriate’ in a formal learning setting.

Ideally, the diverse dispositions of the participants would be appreciated and foster positive and equitable outcomes in intercultural learning, aligning with Schriefer's (2017) conceptualization of an intercultural community. However, as Kemmis et al. (2014) pointed out, practice traditions exist in a learning space, which “encapsulate the history of the happenings of the practice, allow it to be reproduced, and act as a collective memory of the practice” (p. 31). If these practice traditions persist without awareness and efforts to break down barriers towards inclusivity, the diverse dispositions differing from those entrenched in local traditions are likely to be deemed “inappropriate,” resulting in marginalization or exclusion experienced by some students. In my study, three key types of practice traditions hindering the participants’ engagement and necessitating interventions surfaced in their comments.

First, knowledge acquired from or associated with Western contexts holds greater influence in facilitating students’ engagement with the formal curriculum, in comparison with knowledge obtained from or connected to non-Western contexts. This situation arises because of the stronger connection of teaching content to Western contexts, especially in North America.

Granted, some individuals may not consider that this practice tradition needs to be transformed, holding ideas like “individuals or groups within Canada may be excluded from post-secondary participation if attention, resources, and energy are diverted away from pressing issues of social justice in Canada and towards international contexts” (ACDE, 2014, p. 6). This risk of system exclusion (ACDE, 2014, p. 6) can be understood as follows: If course content is more focused on international contexts than pressing social justice issues in Canada, some students may be excluded and disengaged. Following a similar way of thinking, if the content only focuses on social justice within Canada and not on international contexts, some students, particularly international students, may feel excluded or perceive themselves to be excluded. Just like the resistance of some students to learning intercultural, international, or global content (Hytten & Bettez, 2008), the risk of system exclusion has no easy solution. Still, exploring these challenges can reveal more nuances and possibilities for creating an internationalized Canadian university curriculum.

Second, in a school of education, pedagogical styles and practices commonly employed in the academic field of education, as well as other disciplines in the arts and humanities within the Canadian or broader North American university context, are typically regarded as the norm.

Third, a rather high level of English fluency across all dimensions (e.g., speaking) is fundamental for students to actively participate in intercultural interaction and learning.

It is worth noting that the first and second types of practice traditions mentioned earlier were both emphasized by a participant. Additionally, the importance of English language fluency was underscored by two eastern-Asian participants who identified as graduates of English majors and English language teachers before enrolling in their current programs. Despite meeting the school's official requirements for English language proficiency and their prior studies and work experience, they lacked confidence in many learning occasions, particularly during the initial stages of their programs. These findings demonstrate that in real-world cases, various individual characteristics (e.g., linguistic and paralinguistic features), conditions (e.g., early stages of a program), and local practice traditions (e.g., English as the sole language of instruction) may concurrently contribute to hindering an international student's engagement in intercultural learning. Moreover, as interdisciplinary graduate programs gain popularity across faculties and universities, and the admission of students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds increases within a program, it becomes increasingly necessary to provide targeted support to those exploring new academic areas. Such support may include orientation programs, mentoring opportunities, language assistance, and cultural integration activities.

Conclusion

The present research sheds light on the significance of internationalization efforts in the formal graduate curriculum of Canadian universities and foregrounds the perspectives of international postgraduate students in this process. In this paper, I focused on presenting the findings on these students’ interpretations of an internationalized formal curriculum, as well as their expectations regarding the types of teaching and learning activities that should be addressed and incorporated in such a transformed curriculum. Additionally, I delved into related scholarly discourses to discuss the emerging themes from these findings surrounding the necessity for content integration and inclusive design, uncovering some complexities inherent in internationalizing formal curricula. I believe that by understanding these dynamics and nuances more deeply, educators and institutions can strive towards establishing a more timely, equitable, and inclusive learning environment in and beyond the classroom, benefiting both local and international students. Certainly, making more such efforts to enhance the quality of academic and support services for all students is a way of countering the interim and neoliberal approaches to internationalization in higher education.

Still, in different contexts, shaped by various theoretical frameworks and perspectives on global ethics, the extent to which the curriculum internationalization activities proposed by the participants in the present study can contribute to identifying and addressing systemic issues of equity and social justice locally or globally remain subject to further discussion.

Given that participants represented different ethnicities, specializations, countries of origin, and academic years in their programs, future studies could consider disaggregating student participants and focusing on a more homogeneous group. On the other hand, despite the participants sharing diversity in these aforementioned factors, they were all international, thesis-based postgraduates in the field of education. They likely held some similar perspectives on this topic. Hence, further studies are needed to explore ideas from non-international and course-based postgraduates in education and other academic areas.