Introduction

Globalization is a phenomenon that has reduced geographic distances while enhancing differences among core countries, peripheral and semi peripheral ones (^{DINIZ, 2020}). This phenomenon also has its effects on the educational internationalization (EI) process, which has controversially become relevant to several institutions. Such event is strongly stimulated by documents published by international institutions, such as the World Bank (WB), the World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), aiming to guide educational programs around the world. Thus, internationalization aspects emphasized are exclusively the positive ones, those that will help educational institutions adopt internationalization as a crucial strategy (^{SOUZA, 2018}).

EI can be understood as an immersion into an intercultural and global dimension on the institution purposes, functions, and services, in order to improve the quality of education and research offered to students and employees, contributing to the society development (^{DE WIT; HUNTER; HOWARD; EGRONPOLLAK, 2015}). Nevertheless, as stated by ^{Knight (2008)}, EI outline presented nowadays is complex and diverse, which requires broader discussion about its bases, approaches, politics, and strategies.

As a consequence, internationalization can be an individual’s empowerment strategy (^{FREIRE, 2013}), as well as a strategy for social justice practices (DINIZ-PEREIRA; ZEICHNER, 2008), through the use of intercultural and linguistic redirecting procedures offered by an internationalized curriculum (^{LUNA, 2016}).

Considering the stated above, it is understood that the internationalization of educational institutions located in semi peripheral countries, such as Brazil, can be put into practice by using strategies for the Internationalization of the Curriculum (IoC), starting from the institution and its institutional actors’ interests. Throughout IoC process, the teacher performs one of its main catalytic roles (^{MIURA, 2006}; ^{MORAES, 2018}), furthermore, they are seen as active actors in designing activities for this aim (^{STALLIVIERI, 2016}).

Miura’s studies show two kinds of EI actions which are more easily observed in Brazilian institutions: “(a)institutional settlements, cooperation programs, joint research, students/teachers’ technological development and mobility” (p. 72), and (b) measures taken on teaching, such as organizing IoC in courses, by offering some curriculum subjects in foreign languages, promoting language learning as a cultural habit, and investing in intercultural education.

In this sense, in order to bring further contributions to studies already carried out about IoC (^{LEASK, 2015}; ^{LUNA, 2016}; ^{MIURA, 2006}), and considering the need to incentive teachers to think over some issues, our aim on this study is to show some Brazilian language teachers’ considerations about the topic. We also aim to discuss IoC suitability in Brazilian educational scenario as a strategy for building collaborative, symmetric, and contextualized senses of EI. Such discussion was based on principles of Critical Applied Linguistics (CAL). Data was collected by applying a questionnaire to teachers who belong to GECAL – UnB (Group of Critical and Advanced Studies in Languages – at the University of Brasília, Brazil).

This article is organized as follows: apart from this introduction, there are two further sections and final considerations. The next section shows some remarks about curriculum and the IoC process, pointing out on how it collaborates to promote social justice and reduce inequalities and discrepancies. The second one approaches CAL theoretical and methodological principles guiding data generation and analysis, followed by a discussion on the possibility of internationalizing Brazilian curriculum regarding Brazilian language teachers’ perspective and remarks.

The Internationalization of the Curriculum

IoC is pointed out as one of the main institutionalized measures for EI (^{MIURA, 2006}). Thus, we regard it as essential to initially state our definition of curriculum.

^{Süssekind & Santos (2016)} present two kinds of curriculum: notarial curriculum, and curriculum as a complex discussion. The notarial curriculum is an ‘officialized’ document which is able to “store meanings, and whose authority consists of a homogeneous and unambiguous interpretation, written by ‘authorized personnel’” (^{SÜSSEKIND; SANTOS, 2016, p. 279}). Due to the fact of “being stored, these meanings lose their historical and situational nature and serve only to control practices (nonconformist ones) hindering its multiple expressions of logic and knowledge” (^{SÜSSEKIND; SANTOS, 2016, P.279}).

The curriculum organized from this perspective enhances the hegemony of knowledge and ‘stored’ meanings, which are reinforced and disseminated on social practices, influencing society formation. This way, the curriculum erases teachers’ autonomy and makes students’ differences invisible.

As a counterpart to the idea of notarial curriculum, ^{Süssekind and Santos (2016, p. 273}, as emphasized by the authors) understand curriculum “as a complex and ecological discussion”, which potentializes the hindering of situations that bring value to the difference. This concept emerges from the authors’ understanding that the curriculum is part of routine establishment, which comprises different kinds of knowledge and subjectivity. According to these researchers, curriculum

Involves our history, our memories, the contexts we live within, allegories that design ourselves and that unfold into the classroom, and, also, knowledge defined as academic, educational, and scientific, regarding gender, race, creed, among others, tearing down the walls that separate school from life (^{SÜSSEKIND; SANTOS, 2016, p. 280}).

In this sense, ^{Süssekind and Santos (2016)} invite us to envisage other possibilities while designing a curriculum, where ecology of differences prevails over a single kind of knowledge that serves global capital. They also remark teachers’ and researchers’ responsibility on the daily struggle for the adoption of curricular practices in harmony with the ‘ecology of differences” and “social justice”.

We agree with the defense of a curriculum designed on daily social interactions of educational curricular practices, among dissension and (re)cognition of differences. Starting from this conception, as well as from the statement of language teachers’ active role in materializing the curriculum, we discuss the IoC process.

According to ^{Luna (2016, p. 37)}, IoC offers the opportunity to make spaces for diversity, where practices, languages, knowledge, and cultural aspects are intertwined. The author summarizes that IoC

is about assuring the insertion of multicultural perspectives belonging to and searched by all in a broader classroom, where everyone is able to articulate different kinds of knowledge, practices, and cultures. In other words, IoC is developed by intellectual activities that question knowledge monoculture, as well as by curiosity about absent paradigms, identification of emerging paradigms, and their potentials as grants for the curriculum (^{LUNA, 2016, p. 37}).

Considering this, both teachers and students must take part as agents responsible for IoC collaborative construction, guided by the recognition of differences and by attitudes and practices that question homogenization and westernization as practices that reinforce privileges of hegemonic groups and languages. It is important to use such perspectives “as an incentive to criticize and destabilize the dominant paradigms” (^{LUNA, 2016, p. 38}).

Underpinned by the discussion about plurilingualism existing in Brazil (^{SAVEDRA, 2010}; CAVALCANTE; MAHER, 2018), it is crucial to refer to the epistemological reorganization that has been in course throughout CAL, setting as an example the fact that language “[…] is now viewed as a resource that people draw on and constantly recreate, together with other semiotic resources, in order to achieve their communicative purposes” (^{CAVALCANTI; MAHER, 2018, p.1}). This non-essentialist view of language is what gives sense to multilingualism as a complex phenomenon marked by several speech practices and countless modalities. From this perspective, multilingualism is not seen any more as the static coexistence of different languages, but as “a set of ideologically-loaded communicative resources, always unequally distributed, on an always uneven playing field” (^{HELLER, 2012, p. 32}). In multilingualism, there are identities in infinite conflict.

This way, CAL has the purpose of making spaces for a radical hope, searching for a change in the relationship between knowledge and reality (^{PENNYCOOK; MAKONI, 2020}). Issues about tolerance, diversity, equity, and democracy get growing importance in this context.

As soon as we consider linguistic education from a multilingual and multicultural point of view in semi peripheral countries, we contest dichotomies created by and inherited from the structuralist view of language, such as monolingualism/ bilingualism, native speaker/ foreign speaker, native language/ foreign language, among others. Multilingualism, thought in a broader way, questions linguistic stratification, empowers language expressed in local communities, and is intrinsically associated with issues referring to social activity, interactional situations, history, and language speakers’ perspective (^{PENNYCOOK; MAKONI, 2020}).

Multilingualism is understood as a phenomenon which goes beyond mere contact or interaction between different languages, it also involves linguistic blending. This concept can be applied to the context of the English classroom, for instance, where the teacher accredits the use and promotes the contact and contrast of different languages by the students. The main goal is to provide alternative strategies to perform supportive and inclusive language practices (^{ROCHA, 2010}).

The discussion about multilingualism points out IoC complexity and diversity. IoC implementation may vary according to each country’s political-social-cultural-economic situation. The linguistic issue plays a crucial role on this process, and that is the reason why English has been adopted as a subject-offer language at some universities, as an strategy for IoC implementing (^{STALLIVIERI, 2016}).

In this context, ^{Leask (2015)} invites us to build an inclusive IoC, based on empowering critical practices which allow school, teachers, and students to reframe power relationships through the use of curriculum. It is important that the participants in this “complex conversation" (^{SÜSSEKIND; SANTOS, 2016}) get involved both locally and globally, that is, “think globally to act locally” (^{LEASK, 2015}).

In order to materialize IoC process, ^{Leask (2015)}, presents a negotiating path with strategies named in cycle and sequence as: Review and Reflect; Imagine; Revise and Plan; Act, and Evaluate.

Regarding ^{Leask (2015)}, we understand that Review and Reflect can represent identifying elements related to IoC at one’s performance venue. Imagine is understood as negotiation and dialogue for carefully selecting empirical material (speeches, written texts, and imagery) to be used, observing ideology, representations, and cultural meaning. Revise and Plan is understood as designing possible ways to internationalize the Curriculum, ways that can be articulated and/or customized to time, space, values, and limitations at each institution. Act would be analyzing ways to incorporate the strategies and distribution of international and intercultural dimensions throughout the curriculum. Finally, Evaluate would be a continuous cyclic feedback process, through critical analysis of all the steps of this IoC process (^{LEASK, 2015}).

From these assumptions, we aimed to make visible the reflections of language teachers in the Brazilian context, in order to discuss IoC as a tool to redirect educational practices to a more collaborative logic.

Possibilities for the Internationalization of the Curriculum from language teachers’ perspective

As soon as we focused, on this study, to discuss IoC into the Brazilian educational scenario, putting in evidence the reflections of language teachers as EI agents, CAL showed up as a suitable theoretical and methodological tool to produce and analyze empiric data.

CAL leads the language scientist to imply oneself into the research process, without getting satisfied with the mere description of their object of study, but also committing to the breakdown of scientific neutrality (^{RAJAGOLAPAN, 2003}). On this approach, language is seen as an engaging and transforming social practice to social relationships (^{FREITAS; PESSOA; 2012}), which makes us wonder about the initial assumption that the speeches of the participant language teachers are socially and historically marked, and supposedly crossed by political and ideological connotations (^{RAJAGOLAPAN, 2003}).

While analyzing empiric data in the light of CAL, we assume a critical attitude, committing to elaborate alternative theories which show the relationship between the researcher and their object of study, based on their own experiences (^{RAJAGOLAPAN, 2003}). For this purpose, the researcher needs to engage in the voices of subjects to be studied because this is the only way to access analytic categories closer to the reality under investigation (^{MOITA LOPES, 2006}). Considering the complexity of the real, as well as the social phenomena deriving from it, LAC is not bound to any specific method. On the contrary, it seeks interdisciplinarity, aiming to problematize questions concerning language use (^{SIGNORINI, 1998}).

Data were collected by applying an online structured questionnaire designed by using Google Forms as a tool. The questionnaire is organized as follows: an initial section containing participants identification data (gender, age, work institution, teaching time, academic qualifications on graduation and post-graduation levels; followed by a second question containing the following questions: (1) What does internationalizing education in Brazil mean? (2) How do you perceive the Internationalization of education in your educational institution? (3) What is to internationalize the language curriculum? (4) While planning your lessons, which strategies do you use, or could use that represent the internationalization of the curriculum?

After being made, the questionnaire was distributed to participants through their email addresses and through a WhatsApp group created specifically for interaction among teachers and professors belonging to GECAL/ UnB, attached with a certification of consent emphasizing that participation was voluntary.

After the deadline for submitting answers, we had 12 questionnaires answered by the teachers/professors. 91.7% of the participants are female while 8.3% are male. Concerning age, 16.7 are aged between 36 to 40, 33.3% are aged between 41 to 50, and 50% are above 50 years old. As for the institutions they work at, there are representatives from universities, colleges, Federal Institutes, and language institutes.

Regarding their graduation degree, most of them have a major in languages (Portuguese, English, Spanish). Concerning post-graduation studies, their qualifications are distributed as follows: 8.3% have a specialization degree, 41.7% have a master’s degree, 25% have a doctorate, and 25% have a post-doctorate one.

The answers given by teachers and professors concerning IoC actions perceived in their educational institutions, elements composing the empiric material used on curriculum implementing, and IoC possibilities were literally copied from the online form. After that, data collected was meticulously analyzed. At first, several readings were carried out in order to build meanings that would indicate the path suggested by ^{Leask (2015)} to the IoC.

Considering that language teachers have been facing IoC demands on their workplaces, either dealing with students from different nationalities or incorporating educational approaches with an intercultural bias on their lessons, it is important to remark what they think about this issue. Although IoC has been present into teachers’ routine, who become facilitators for the process, and who are able to bring activities that help “students’ development of intercultural competences” (^{STALLIVIERI, 2016, p. 167}), they have been facing the lack of opportunities to reflect not only about EI, but also about the internationalization of subjects they are in charge of.

Thus, our aim when we had questioned language teachers and professors belonging to GECAL/UnB about their understanding of IoC, as well as its relationship with educational possibilities to incorporate IoC to linguistic education was to enhance their voices in order to contribute to the construction of an internationalized curriculum with more significant suggestions.

For this aim, we applied the steps of the EI process developed by ^{Leask (2015)} as categories to analyze the empiric data collected. These steps are: (a) Review and Reflect; (b) Imagine; (c) Revise and Plan, and (d) Act.

REVIEW AND REFLECT – on this first step, it is expected that teachers reflect about the IoC level into the institutional context they are immersed in (^{LEASK, 2015}; ^{LUNA, 2016}). When we questioned them about strategies, aims, and assessment set in their contexts, we obtained the following answers:

It is possible to observe that, for participant language teachers, IoC is present in institutionalized measures, such as training [1] and exchange programs [2 and 3], and on teachers’ strategies [4 and 5], when they suggest studying “different kinds of anglophone pronunciations” or approach “issues such as bilingualism, plurilingualism, world Englishes, etc.” when they bring “texts written by African authors” and “audio and video media showing different peoples, their cultures, accents” and provide practical activities that allow the use of different linguistic repertoire.

The EI elements mentioned show a construction from daily actions of the “complex conversations” to support a curriculum that assures the insertion of multicultural perspectives, linked to different kinds of knowledge, practices, and culture. This practice confronts dominant paradigms and implies a broader understanding of language, which starts to be seen beyond the view of a mere product representing a state-nation, but also arranging spatial, sensorial, and linguistic materializations to social interaction (^{CANAGARAJAH, 2018}).

IMAGINE – The second step involves questioning ideology present in our thoughts, authors and texts selected to build course curriculum (^{LUNA 2016}).

Based on the answers given, we have identified some ideology that language teachers consider crucial to support the curriculum, such as: local reality social and cultural aspects [6 and 9]; the development of competences to act as “world citizens”, the promotion of a “more global and intellectual teaching” [8 and 9]; and the emphasis on collaborative construction.

It is noticeable that speech elements mentioned in quotes 6 to 9 reflect a curriculum perspective oriented to social justice. This approach tries to establish a dialogue with cultural and linguistic diversity, and it emphasizes knowledge built from the context where the curriculum is implemented. Thus, it tries to educate a global citizen who is not only “able” to deal with and respond to internationalization demands, but also able to see other possibilities to be in the world, valuing collaborative social practices.

It is a curriculum that stimulates individuals to assume an attitude of resistance towards the world. As mentioned by ^{Rajagolapan (2003, p. 114)}, it is possible to learn how to ‘digest’ foreign cultural influences in order to stimulate the emerging of “[…] a new identity, not by fully denying the previous one, but actually improving it, due to a healthy dialogue between the conflicting cultures”. Thus, we understand that when a curriculum is seen as a power instrument, an approach of internationalization like this has the potential to [trans]form citizens on behalf of a society that promotes a culture of peace.

REVISE AND PLAN – This step occurs into the concern about IoC possibilities. According to ^{Luna (2016)}, it would be considering which changes are possible to the teachers’ educational context.

As can be seen from the answers, strategies envisaged by teachers are centered on a linguistic bias [10, 11, and 12]. Teachers point a possibility of exchange between people interested in learning English and Portuguese, as well as adopting “a language that allows access to multiple intelligences inside the classroom”.

Despite pointing out the integration of digital technologies [11], this resource is presented as a mediation tool for cultural and linguistic connections.

Another aspect in evidence is the value given to local knowledge, through “connection to real life”. Thus, there is an invitation to “tear down the walls separating school from life”, including emotions, memories, and life histories in the curriculum (^{SÜSSEKIND, SANTOS, 2016}.

Furthermore, teacher planning lets explicit the breakdown with knowledge monoculture (^{LEASK, 2015}), through the inclusion of different kinds of learning, culture, and knowledge exchanges, as well as the exchange between teachers and students from several parts of the world.

ACT – The step of acting, according to ^{Luna (2016, p. 50)} is associated with the inclusion of “[…] diversified teaching strategies according to the group multicultural profile […]”, and to the addition of contents with several epistemologies.

The speeches give evidence to the wish to create multicultural spaces for recognizing the differences and the importance of collective and collaborative construction. In other words, teachers and professors recognize that IoC can be carried out through less hierarchical measures, which promote a breakdown with hegemonic principles disseminated by knowledge monoculture.

This purpose follows the idea stated by ^{Moita Lopes (2006, p. 13)}, when the author invites us to the “social life retelling as a reestablishment of the way to produce knowledge”. It is crucial to understand that the action step for IoC depends on other steps, because it provides the cycling movement of revising, reflecting, and planning what is possible to rewrite the ways to internationalization through the curriculum.

Conclusion

Considering the implications of globalization to the different axes supporting a country’s hegemony, namely economy, politics, and culture, we have observed in the last decades a significantly growing movement around global geopolitics. Regarding this, far beyond reducing distances or contributing to technological development, globalization has brought into light the internationalization phenomenon, which has been discussed as an issue by most diverse international organizations. Out of these organizations, those guiding education in the world started to envisage internationalization as a process that tries to insert an intercultural and global perspective in curricular practices of an educational institution, aiming to contribute not only with its development, but also to prepare global citizens, able to promote a significant dialogue in various social contexts.

Therefore, in this article, we initially posed some theoretical considerations about the internationalization of the curriculum, in order to remark language teachers’ reflections about it. We assumed IoC as a suitable strategy for internationalization in educational institutions located in semi peripheral countries, like Brazil. Approaching aspects related to (inter)multiculturalism, diversity of languages and kinds of knowledge, the curriculum has become a strategic field to face social inequalities and asymmetries. The internationalized curriculum is not set to impose foreign culture over national one, but, on the contrary, invites both for a dialogue.

Based on an ethical commitment, guided by CAL, we bring up voices of the language teachers and professors belong to the Group of Critical and Advanced Studies in Languages (GECAL/UnB), to reflect about IoC in Brazil. This movement, based on IoC steps suggested by ^{Leask (2015)}, and critically discussed by ^{Luna (2016)} – review and reflect, imagine, revise and plan, and act – we found that the elements of internationalization identified by teachers and professors are related to exchange actions, course contents, and teaching strategies. On the teachers’ answers, we observed ideological questioning, which leads to hierarchical breakdowns and invites us to promote cultural and linguistic exchanges throughout the IoC process, on the behalf of interculturalism and collaboration.

This way, we envisage the active role these professionals can perform concerning the building of the internationalized curriculum. Thus, a critical and attentive approach is required from language teachers, for the power of giving new significance to curriculum components, beyond the ability of articulating global demands to local experiences, aiming to produce new knowledge and to promote social justice.

Finally, we consider essential that governmental institutions invest in strategic internationalization language teachers’ programs for continuous development, order to offer them adequate conditions and the necessary know-how to perform their active role in the internationalization of the curriculum.