Search

Globalisation has placed a growing importance on English language speaking and listening. Prior research indicates that many international students from Asia, studying in Australia, face serious learning difficulties and lack confidence in speaking and taking a proactive role in classrooms. The paper reports on data gathered in interviews with students from five Asian nations, which suggest that these learning difficulties are grounded in weaknesses in students' prior learning experiences--focused on grammar and reading skills in teacher-centred classrooms, not conversational skills--and in beliefs about language learning instilled during schooling. The paper proposes strategies for overcoming these problems.

Internationalisation of Australian higher education was initially characterised as growth in the number of international students. While the economic benefits brought by this student cohort and the challenges associated with teaching them are well noted in the literature, their academic contributions are hardly acknowledged. Using a qualitative research approach, the paper explores the extent to which international students facilitate the internationalisation of the curriculum and the intercultural learning of domestic students. Interviews with academic staff in one university in Australia indicated that international students brought a diversity of cultures that inspired teachers in their teaching. While academic staff members positively value these potentials, they argued that domestic students remained neglectful and unaware of the changing cultural environment. It was a challenge for staff to get domestic students to utilise the cultural resources represented by the students. Some implications were discussed concerning ways in which the process of internationalisation can be progressed in a more effective way.

While extensive discussion has been devoted to internationalising the curriculum in a response to the presence of international students, little is known about how academic staff members perceive the presence of this student cohort. Using data collected through semi-structured interviews with 80 academic staff from four different faculties in one higher education institution, this study investigates staff understanding regarding international students, with particular attention given to how disciplinary differences shape their responses. Findings indicate that staff from "soft" and "hard" disciplines hold different instructional beliefs, which then affect their teaching and learning practice. Discussions are provided on how these differing conceptions of teaching fit into the context of academic development with respect to international education. (Contains 4 tables.)

While the economic benefits created by international education export are well documented, few systematic and qualitative analysis studies have been conducted to examine how academic staff perceive the presence of international students in their institutions. Using interview data from 80 academic staff from different disciplines in one higher institution in Australia, this study examines whether the presence of international students has an impact on staff teaching practice. Some of the academic staff reported that they made no adjustments to their teaching. They treated all students as one student group. Other staff members said that there have been changes in their teaching in response to the presence of international students in their classroom. The paper discusses some of the underlying causes of these responses, and implications for the practice of international education. The discussion of the findings is informed by Bennett's Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, which helps us understand how people respond to cultural differences.

International education has generated complex problems of governance. As well as being beneficiaries of educational services and consumers of a product, international students are also migrants, workers and beings with civil rights. Arguably, the regulation of international student security as consumer protection fails to recognize this full range of human rights. The research consisted of 70 semi-structured interviews with international students at two institutions in New Zealand, which has devised a unique consumer protection regime embodied in the New Zealand Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students. Student problems in relation to language difficulties, finances, accommodation, personal safety and freedom from discrimination, and social integration are discussed. The study finds that support services do not fully cater for the needs of international students nor accord them the full range of potential rights. The Code covers some but not all aspects of student security; and the fact that international students know little about the Code constrains its efficacy as a regulatory framework.

Student security is a composite social practice that includes the domains of consumer rights, entitlement to a range of welfare supports and pastoral care, and freedom from exploitation and discrimination. Three traditions shape the systems used for managing and regulating international student security in the nations that export education: pastoral care, consumer protection and quasi-citizenship. Each has different implications for the positioning of students as agents. This study used semi-structured interviews with 70 international students from nine countries in two contrasting universities. It investigated the provision of international student security, including the distinctive New Zealand regime of security, regulated by the National Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students. This Code binds provider institutions and the International Education Appeal Authority, and permits Code-based claims by students from providers. The study found that international students in New Zealand have varying expectations of student security, which draws eclectically from all three traditions. There are gaps in the coverage of pastoral care, including the areas of financial matters and intercultural relations. Where the Code does provide protection, its provisions are not always fully implemented, such as for accommodation assistance. More seriously, there is little knowledge among students of the Code of Practice and their Code-based entitlements, and almost no knowledge of the Appeal Authority. Numerous students testified to poor information flow. This limits not only their capacities as quasi-consumers and their access to pastoral services - so that in practice, the New Zealand system is similar to the Australian system, which is explicitly limited to consumer protection - but even their ability to fully utilize consumer protection. This defect renders the promise of a regulated pastoral care regime grounded in active student agency largely inoperative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]