3.1 Internationalization of the Curriculum - IoC

Regarding Internationalization of the Curriculum, Betty Leask, an Australian researcher, has been building and elucidating it as a procedural tool for internationalization with her collaborators since 2012. The book Internationalizing the Curriculum, published in 2015, has significantly contributed to the development of internationalization in a more practical and linked way to the organizational and curricular processes of several universities. In addition, the author has frequently acted as a consultant in several HEIs around the world.

^{Leask (2015}) shows concern about the way in which the concepts of internationalization are reinterpreted in a globalized society, which pushes universities to develop curricula designed to teach students to live and work in a capitalist environment. This reverberates in the operationalization of higher education courses driven by learning outcomes idealized and expected by the job market. For the author, an imperialism imposes Western ways of thinking and doing, worldwide, in models that reproduce Eurocentric practices, programs and paradigms (^{LEASK, 2015}).

Although she uses the curriculum as a reference, the author presents a holistic view in which the curriculum unfolds between the formal/official, informal and hidden faces and is evident in the student's formative path. It is in this sense that ^{Leask (2015}) reflects and is dedicated to understanding the relationships established between the curriculum and the internationalization process, considering student learning as a central element in debates on education and higher education.

Curriculum internationalization encompasses all teaching and learning situations, considering the direct link with teaching methods and didactic assumptions that include the processes of learning selection, ordering, organization and assessment, and consequently affect processes, dynamics, interactions and skills developed by students. According to the author, internationalizing the curriculum is to consider and enable innovative changes and improvements in all possible university movements (^{LEASK, 2015}).

In the words of ^{Leask (2009}):

[…] curriculum internationalization is the incorporation of 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, 2009}, p. 209).

It is, therefore, a broad process that involves and relates forms of content, teaching, learning and assessment that incorporate international and intercultural dimensions. The curriculum becomes a product of this process as the instrument that allows students to carry out research and develop studies at the international level, considering cultural and linguistic diversities, so that, in this way, they develop international and intercultural perspectives as professionals and citizens acting globally.

Stating that internationalization in higher education occurs in a context of different cultures through different practices of knowing, doing and staying in the disciplines, ^{Leask (2015}) reflects on the curriculum from an intercultural perspective. The author recognizes the direct influence of professors in this process, as they define the trajectories and delimit the learning results they intend to achieve, both in terms of internationalization and the effective involvement of all students.

According to the author, when the focus is only on specific activities, contents or isolated experiences, such as academic mobility actions or foreign language courses, only parts of knowledge about international contexts are developed, commonly restricted to those involved in a specific action (^{LEASK, 2015}).

^{Leask (2015}) developed a framework that details the scope of this process, identifying the main elements to be considered for the internationalization of the curriculum. For the author, it is a device composed of different contextual layers, but, in practice, each axis occurs concomitantly and interactively with each other (Figure 2).

Fonte: ^{Leask (2015}).

Figura 2 IoC Framework 

The lower part of Figure 2 shows how each context must be thought of against the curriculum, that is, against the upper part of the device, as well as what each context incorporates and to which it corresponds. These layers will be briefly presented below.

Regarding the global context, ^{Leask (2015}) highlights that there is no equal distribution and sharing of policies and guidelines, on the contrary, internationalization presents itself as an oppressive and discriminatory movement in economic and intellectual terms, depending on the scenario, the goals and people who carry out the educational models, especially in Western countries.

In national and regional contexts, it is up to each conjuncture to determine its governmental policies related to internationalization. According to ^{Leask (2015}), the starting point and support for formulating these policies must be the reality of each context, as also pointed out by other scholars.

The local context encompasses the social, cultural, political and economic conditions that can offer both opportunities and challenges for the internationalization of the curriculum. From this, actions are undertaken, aimed at developing the students' skills to act as ethical and responsible local citizens, critical and reflective professionals who understand and act in the face of local-national-global relations.

As for the institutional context, along with the formal/official curriculum is the informal curriculum, which involves the various extracurricular activities and other services that students may perform in the context of higher education. Both reflect the university's mission and ethos, conveying many of its principles to students. For ^{Leask (2015}), they outline the total academic experience in the university environment.

Subsequently, the author presents how internationalization of the curriculum unfolds in interface to the presented contexts. Knowledge in and across disciplines is at the heart of this structure, as it is the basis of knowledge. She suggests that disciplines need to address the most diverse issues related to the world and seek solutions that go beyond disciplinary and cultural boundaries (HUDZIK, 2004). In any case, they will only be coherent if they focus on student learning and development (^{LEASK, 2015}).

As for the paradigms that relate different moments of student stay at the university, according to ^{Leask (2015}), although dominant paradigms are often related by professors when curricula are guided towards the development of skills and attitudes, the challenge is to explore these paradigms in the classroom to provoke the emergence of opportunities to reflect and act in active and critical ways, then both dominant and emerging paradigms need to be in evidence in this process.

Systematic development throughout the program, for all students, is about the development of international and intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable the internationalized curriculum based on careful cooperative planning between professors and coordinators of a study program. Developing skills, such as language skills and intercultural competence, for example, needs to be carried out across different disciplines, levels and through a series of strategies so that all students achieve the expected results. This is because, according to the author: "the disciplines are distinctive and different in many ways, an internationalized curriculum should and will look unique in different disciplinary contexts." (^{LEASK, 2015}, p. 14), thus, it is necessary to have clarity as to the reasons why the process is intended.

From this system, internationalized curricula emerge, defined by two main characteristics. The first one, due to the fact that it must occur in the context of “[...] different cultures and practices of knowing, doing and being in the disciplines” (^{LEASK, 2015}, p. 3). Secondly, the author highlights that, in the case of a faculty with the experience, skills or knowledge necessary to internationalize the curriculum, support from consultants and experts is necessary to define the desired results on internationalized learning to ensure that all students can meet the proposition.

Moreover, considering the requirements of professional practice and citizenship (local, national and global), elements of paramount importance in the elaboration of the curriculum are necessary, especially insofar as professionals from other organizations also work on it. In addition to preparing students to work in a globalized world, moral and citizenship issues must be accounted when planning an internationalized curriculum (^{LEASK, 2015}).

In this way, the Student Learning Assessment should reflect on the science of what is expected about the results achieved by students at the end of a program and/or training. This can be an important observation to assist in the planning of learning assessment tasks and experiences, jointly with regular feedback - formal and informal - on everyone's performance throughout the process, relating international and intercultural goals (^{LEASK, 2015}).

^{Leask (2015}) also discusses the process of implementing the internationalized curriculum. In the author's proposition, in this framework, IoC consists of a process that highlights the need to actively engage students and teachers in teaching and learning because, in this way, monitoring the systematic development of learning outcomes is possible. The definition of IoC is intrinsic to collective action, it is intentional and is intended to develop international perspectives, intercultural skills and the ability to think critically. Thus, they become lifelong learning skills (^{LEASK, 2015}).

IoC understands that students are involved and developed by different cultural contexts, such as social, human and academic beings, inserted in a broader context that also makes them economic agents. Through this approach, it is possible to work with differences, sharing equally valued experiences through interculturality and from different social and intercultural learning environments (^{LEASK, 2015}).

3.2 Internationalization at Home - IaH

As for Internationalization at Home, ^{Santos Filho (2020}, p. 18) considers this perspective as an advance in the discussions that permeate the “policies of internationalization of Higher Education”, for its potential to create opportunities and expand democratization of access to a greater number of beneficiaries, considering that mobility, or cross-border education, is a privilege for the few. For De Wit and Altbach (2020), inclusive approaches focused on IaH are possibilities to emphasize the shift from quantity to quality.

^{Beelen and Jones (2015}), reflecting on official publications, consider the need to update the existing restrictive view of Internationalization at Home originally launched by ^{Crowther et al. (2001}), who defined it as any internationalization activity not related to mobility. The authors propose the concept be used as “[...] 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).

This definition highlights that internationalization must permeate the basic curriculum of all courses, and not just elective/optional subjects, also emphasizing its intentionality aspect, since, otherwise, it may not reach the scope of the entire academic community. In this way, IaH can be used in opposition to mobility within the curricula, considering the fact that, worldwide, there is a low rate of students who perform it.

For the same authors, all students and other members of academic communities need to have the opportunity to benefit from internationalization, or in other words, to enjoy a domestic curriculum that promotes the acquisition of international skills that are similar to those acquired by mobile students (^{BEELEN; JONES, 2015}).

In this regard, ^{Beelen and Leask (2011}) point out that IaH is not a didactic concept, or even a goal, but a set of instruments and activities that aim to develop international and intercultural competences in all future professionals of the globalized world. The authors corroborate the ideals of Leask (2015) when discussing the fact that offering English classes, as an example, will not internationalize the curriculum, as the program content and learning outcomes also need to permeate internationalization processes, and this cannot, therefore, be reduced to just changing the instruction language.

The authors understand that there are a series of instruments to make internationalization possible in universities and which do not necessarily include mobility. In addition to the classic indications of international literature and lectures by experts from other locations, the appropriation of case studies and international practices, information sharing by students who have been abroad, if any, as well as the partnerships that can be raised through technological networks (^{BEELEN; JONES, 2015}). “[...] technology-based solutions can ensure equal access to internationalization opportunities for all students” (BELLEN; JONES, 2015, p. 64), considering the possibility of involvement with culturally distinct local and international groups.

Elspeth ^{Jones and Reiffenrath (2018}) clarify in practical terms the numerous ways, approaches and possibilities to internationalize at home, based on studies developed by the European Association for International Education (EAIE), when discussing internationalization of higher education, as shown in Chart 1.

The postulates by ^{Jones e Reiffenrath (2018}) provide a holistic view on the ways of developing IaH in line with the principles postulated in the literature by ^{Beelen and Jones (2015}). In this synthesis, the intercultural character of the application contexts is verified, as well as the numerous forms of reaching the academic community.

As stated by the concepts of internationalization of higher education, IaH cannot be summarized in specific actions, as the process of internationalizing the curriculum at home has a close relationship with the ability to be developed, applied and assessed by the academic team, and this is a critical success factor for its implementation. In Europe, for example, IaH is recognized as part of the European Commission's education policy agenda, aiding in the processes of building internationalization policies (^{BEELEN; JONES, 2015}).

The document European Higher Education in the World, issued under the seal of the European Commission - European Commission (2013), for example, determines the basic IaH priorities, which, along with digital learning guided towards higher education institutions and Member States should provide: a) the capitalization of international experiences and competences to develop international curricula for local and mobile students; b) increasing opportunities for students, researchers and collaborators to develop communication skills in the local language and in English in order to maximize the continent's linguistic diversity; and c) the development of international online collaboration and expansion of teaching delivery modes aiming at expanding access, internationalizing curricula and enabling new partnerships.

According to ^{Beelen (2019}), countries that adopt this approach offer training courses for internationalization at home, both at local levels and for sectoral conjunctures, citing the Netherlands as active participants in this movement. On the other hand, through action research that included teachers from the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway, four issues that make internationalization at home difficult were also identified, highlighted below.

The first issue is related to the lack of clarity on the terminology of the concept, as it is often mistakenly limited to the teaching of the English language or student mobility actions. Secondly, it is related to the absence of institutional policies that promote the IaH implementation. The third one is related to the previous one and concerns the professors’ lack of skills for such conduct, especially as most professors do not understand internationalization as an interconnected dimension to education. The fourth issue is related to the non-integration of those interested in IaH implemention, who operate, in most cases, in isolation, which reveals the negligence of the managers in the area (^{BEELEN, 2019}).

As explained above, IaH can be founded on institutional strategies so that all students engage this purpose in their lives, as citizens and professionals. For this, it is necessary to understand it conceptually; identify it from institutional potentialities and, thus, get involved with the foreign community; cover the entire institution; connect to teaching and extension processes and, finally, develop regional and global partnerships to assist in the financing of inclusive internationalization (^{BEELEN; JONES, 2015}; BEELEN, 2019).