The monolingual framing of international education in Australia

Anthony J. Liddicoat & Jonathan Crichton

Research Centre for Languages and Cultures, University of South Australia

Abstract

The concept of international education in Australia is moving from a discourse of attracting

students from other countries to one of concern with internationalising curriculum and pedagogy.

This internationalisation is motivated by a reconsideration of the appropriateness of curricula to

prepare students for the globalised world of work. If one examines universities’ approaches to

internationalisation, however, it becomes clear that the dominant ideology of internationalisation is

framed from a English-speaking perspective in which English-language monolingualism is

constructed as both the basis for and the content of teaching and learning. The monolingual mindset

is characterised by: an emphasis on knowledge created in and communicated through English; little

attention to the linguistic and cultural context in which knowledge will be used; neglect of the “non-

English” competences and capacities of learners and construction of learners’ English second

language as a deficit and of English language learning as remediation; the “invisibility” of the

linguistic and cultural context of English; perceptions that education offered in the first language of

students is suspect (easy options, low standards of teaching, etc.); and little consideration of

knowledge and discipline practices as culturally and linguistically contexted. These characteristics

demonstrate that internationalisation is discursively constructed as an English language

phenomenon and the valued dimensions of international education are located within the value

structures of English which determines the flow of knowledge, learning purposes and practices,

academic values and the attribution of value to knowledge as a commodity.

Introduction

International education in Australia faces a discursive dilemma. The dilemma arises in part

from the multiple ways in which international education is understood. Liddicoat (2004) has

identified three ways of internationalising education in Australian universities’ policies:

internationalisation of the student body through recruitment, internationalisation of student

experiences through exchanges and internationalisation of the curriculum. These construct the

international in very different ways, without acknowledging that such differences exist. They focus

on different participants and have different goals and underlying assumptions. Nonetheless, the

discourse attempts to resolve these into one overarching institutional endeavour called international

education. The result is tension between the national and international, the monolingual and the

plurilingual, the monocultural and the pluricultural which is resolved largely through ignoring the

potential conflicts and disconnections which underlie international education. The basis for ignoring

such tensions lies in an institutionalised monolingual mindset (Clyne, 2005, 2007) or monolingual

habitus (monolinguale Habitus) (Gogolin, 1994) which is capable of ignoring linguistic and cultural

aspects of diversity as salient phenomena.

Clyne (2005, 2007) has identified a monolingual mindset as a pervasive feature of Australian

society in spite of a long history of multicultural policy. In the Australian monolingual mindset, the

assumed realities of social practices around language are treated as self-explanatory and are

undiscussed and unproblematised. This mindset is transposed into the academic setting in which it

manifests itself in particular ways (c.f. Bourdieu, 1979). While the basic features identified by

Clyne permeate academic culture, there are further elements of the institutional habitus which have

particular relevance for the current study. The institutional manifestation of the monolingual

mindset privileges a single language (English) within what is in reality a plurilingual context. This

privileging of one language denies the legitimacy of the plurilingual reality or its relevance to

institutional practice. This privileging grows out of a habit of min which views monolingualism as

the natural state in which people operate (Ellis, 2006) to the extent that it renders invisible the

culturally contexted nature the privileged language and the linguistic practices of its speakers. Not

only is this state considered normal but it becomes normalised through the institutional value

system which allocates symbolic power only to the privileged language through a system of rewards

for competence in this language and a corresponding denial, devaluing or problematising of

competence in other languages (Bourdieu, 1982). This allocation of symbolic power to a single

privileged language not only ignores of devalues competence in other languages but is also applied

to intellectual products produced and communicated through those languages and the intellectual

traditions associated with them. Within the monolingual mindset there is not a habitus which

informs only a view of languages but one which informs a broader world view. It is the intersection

of constructions of languages and world view that constitutes a part of the dilemma Australian

international education faces. In international education, this mindset and its discursive

consequences become most apparent when viewed from one of the multiple perspectives outlined

above: the internationalisation of the student body.

This paper we examine how education provided for international students and the contexts in

which and the practices through which such education is provided construct an unproblematised

monolingual English version of educational and social realities. We do this by examining three

contexts in which the monolingual mindset is played out. The first of these consists of the ways in

which the linguistic repertoires and associated capabilities, practices and knowledge of plurilingual

students are constructed. The second is the conceptualisation of the factors which constitute the

employability of international students. The third context is quality assurance and the ways in which

language and culture are treated in the evaluation of transnational1 educational programs. These

three contexts provide only a partial picture of the monolingual mindset as it applies in education

because the mindset is pervasive and we would argue underlies all discourse and practice in

international education.

Language and the international student

The majority of international students in Australia are bilingual or multilingual having

completed a substantial part of their education in another country. The proportion of these students

can be inferred from Table 1.

Table 1: International students’ enrolments by country/region of origin, 2006

(Source: Australian Education International, 2005)

Country/region Enrolments Percentage

China 46,075 27%

India 25,431 15%

Malaysia 14,932 9%

Hong Kong 9,948 6%

Indonesia 8,772 5%

Singapore 7,862 5%

Other Europe 8,401 5%

Thailand 4,891 3%

South Korea 5,590 3%

Sub-Saharan Africa 5,296 3%

North America 5,458 3%

Bangla Desh 3,501 2%

Other Southern and Central Asia 3,157 2%

Vietnam 2,618 2%

Japan 3,413 2%

Taiwan 3,854 2%

North Africa and Middle East 3,901 2%

Sri Lanka 2,491 1%

Other South East Asia 1,633 1%

Latin America 2,046 1%

UK and Ireland 2,084 1%

Other North East Asia 206 0%

Oceania 642 0%

Total 172,202 100%

In selecting these students, Australian institutions consider two factors – the successful

completion of secondary schooling and an English language proficiency test – that is, Australian

universities want evidence of academic preparation and English language proficiency. What is less

widely acknowledged is that for the majority of international students, these two things are

independent. Academic preparation has been undertaken in another language, and more importantly

in another academic culture, while English has been taken as a school subject, often with additional

intensive study. The students have been socialised into one system of education and have begun to

enter a community of practice around academic literacy and language use. These capabilities have

not been developed through English, and often not through text-types and educational practices

which have ready equivalents in English-speaking educational traditions (Liddicoat, Scrimgeour

and Chen, in press). The prior evaluation of these students has been conducted through their normal

school language, while their English language experience has tended not to involve academic

language.

On arrival in Australia, their previous academic experience becomes in many ways irrelevant

and their performance and abilities are evaluated only through their command of the English

language and the valued text types of English-speaking academia. Their identity as bilingual or

multilingual people who have previously been highly successful in education is not taken into

consideration within the context of their education in Australia. Rather, it is only their capabilities

expressed through their additional language which have any merit or which are subject to any

consideration.

What emerges is a discourse of inadequacy around international students, who are frequently

perceived as less capable students than their monolingual English counterparts and their language

abilities are understood primarily as a deficit in English. The students themselves often experience

shock because, although they have met the university’s entrance criteria and have been previously

considered good students, in Australia they are considered unsatisfactory and are at risk of failing

(Coley, 1999). Associated with this discourse of inadequacy are a range of problematic behaviours

which have been noted as typical of international students. The most common allegations

concerning teaching and learning are that international students are reluctant to participate in

classroom discussions; they are unwilling to give responses; they do not ask questions; they are

superficial learners; they are passive and over-dependent on the teacher (Chalmers & Volet, 1997;

Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Ho, Peng, & Chan, 2001; Liu & Littlewood, 1997; Tsui, 1996). In addition,

there is an extensive discourse on the predisposition of such students to plagiarise. A typical claim

is that Asian writers practice unintentional plagiarism – that is reproducing plagiarism because of

lack of awareness of what plagiarism is or how it was to be avoided, or that that plagiarism is in

some ways acceptable in their writing. (Hayes & Introna, 2005; Holmes, 2004). These behaviours

are constructed as a cultural property of students which makes them difficult to educate or as simply

an inability to participate in expected ways (for an alternative account see Cheng, 2000). Devos

(2003) notes, also in the Australian context, international students may be subject to contempt and

resentment because of their inadequacy in English and viewed as a corrupting influence on

academic standards. What is not present in the discourses around international students is the

consideration of their effectiveness as students in another language. Academic staff frequently do

not know what discipline or other knowledge students bring to their classrooms, what text types

they control, how they understand the relationships and processes of the classroom, or what their

previous educational experience – and successes – have been. Moreover, most academic staff are

not in a position to be able to access this information.

This discourse of inadequacy, based as it is on a monolingual view of bilingual abilities, is

associated with a discourse of remediation (McKay, 1981). Universities frequently establish English

language programs for international students which are located outside the academic work of the

university and which are typically located together with study skills. This constructs the English

language proficiency as a lack, more importantly as a lack of a basic skill, rather than as the

successful, although incomplete, acquisition of another language. English language learning is not a

part of the learning program provided by universities – the knowledge of English is considered a

pre-requisite for learning not an element of and focus for education itself. It is English language

support not English language education (see for example Burrell & Kim, 1998; Cownie & Addison,

1996). In such programs the division between knowing and speaking English continues to be

maintained as the program develops language skills rather than the ability to express knowledge

through a language. In this way, English language programs have come to be part of a “helping

profession”.2 This is further reinforced by the location of English language programs outside

academic work in most universities – English is commonly grouped with “study skills” and taught

by “non-academic” staff in programs which are not credit bearing.

At all points, what the learner knows or can come to know through his/her first language does

not enter into the equation and the first language remains in the background as irrelevant to the task

at hand rather than as a resource for learning. For example, university libraries do not provide

materials in the first language of the learners to support their learning from English language

materials and lecturers do not make available or assist students in locating support materials in their

own language. In the discourses around international students, the first language and culture are

constructed more as a problem than a resource: the language creates the writing problems which

have to be overcome (see for example Connor, 1996); the culture creates the difference which

hampers their participation (see for example Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Jin & Cortazzi, 1993).

In this way, the linguistic market place of the tertiary institution allocates value to English; in

fact as Gogolin (1994) argues, it constitutes English as a value in its own right. In such a context,

other languages are attributed low value (or non at all) and control of these languages confers little

on the individual (Bourdieu, 1981). It is through English and its symbolic value that international

students are viewed. To the extent that they demonstrate competence in English, they are perceived

as having intellectual legitimacy within the institutional context. The monolingual mindset requires

that multilingual students function as if they were monolingual students and constructs their

multilingualism in deficit ways. This situation however does not simply limit itself to the academic

context, but rather spills over into assessments of their human capital potential beyond the

educational context.

Language, content knowledge and “employability”

In late 2006 a report on the English language levels of international students contributed to the

development of a discourse about the employability of international students. The report (Birrell,

2006) showed that of students applying for permanent residence visas in Australia do not have the

necessary level of English to be employable in Australia. This finding became the topic of

considerable media discussion focusing around Australian employers’ evaluations of international

students:

Managers at a Sydney recruitment agency told the [Higher education Supplement] that

foreign graduates’ English was “appalling” (O'Keefe & Illing, 2007)

I’ve done a lot of interviews with employers, and we’ve all reached the same

conclusion: no matter what their work ethic, (the students) are not equipped for

professional-level work in Australia. (Morton & Alexander, 2007)

The delay was likely to result in another jump in the number of overseas students who

graduate from Australian universities but cannot communicate in a professional

workplace, an immigration expert said yesterday. (Hart, Edwards, & Illing, 2007)

The issue being raised here is one of genuine importance and concern as it is highly

problematic if students’ education in Australian institutions does not meet required levels of

language proficiency to function in their areas of work. What is of interest in the discourse around

questions of employability is the construction of Australian education institutions’ concern with

employability in Australia. The Australian workforce is constructed as the natural site of future

employment for graduates and English language is the expected language as work. Such a

construction is, however, based on a disputable assumption. It is indeed the case that many, if not

the majority of, international students undertake education in another country intending to return to

their home country and to develop their professional lives in and through multiple languages.

However, the discursive construction of vocationally oriented education programs is as vocationally

oriented education for the English-speaking world.

The discourse around issues of employability reveals a silence in Australian approaches to

international education in that there is a concern for employability only within the Australian

context. The question of employability of Australian graduates in other countries is not even raised

as an issue. In addressing issues of employability there are actually a number of considerations

which need to be addressed:

disciplinary knowledge

general workplace communication abilities

discipline specific language knowledge

Of these three domains, disciplinary knowledge and discipline specific language knowledge

are not considered as issues for employability raised in the media coverage or in universities’

discussion around this: it is only the general communication abilities which are so treated. No

reference is made to discipline specific language or even to disciplinary knowledge, although

Birrell’s (2006) original report does question how well students do in fact control discipline

knowledge given their problems of language proficiency. The privileged discursive construction of

international students emerging is in terms of their (in)adequacy as English-speaking professionals

in English-speaking workplaces, with the (in)adequacy being constructed in terms of something that

such students should have (English-language knowledge) rather than something that universities

should provide (discipline knowledge and discipline specific language). The solutions proposed, are

to tighten or improve language assessment practices or to raise required levels of English for

admission to Australian institutions – locating the deficiency in students’ preparation for study

rather than students’ preparation for work.

If the question of employability is moved outside of the monolingual and monocultural

working context constructed in this discourse, the nature of the problems begins to look different.

This can be seen clearly in the features of business courses offered by Australian universities –

courses which currently attract significant numbers of students from outside Australia.

In the case of disciplinary knowledge, there is a clear focus on the Australian context in many

courses. For example, common textbooks used for accounting courses at Australian universities,

such as Accounting Handbook (CPA Australia, 2006, and other editions), Australian Financial

Accounting (Deegan, 2007), Accounting (Marshall et al., 2007) are centrally and usually overtly

designed for the Australian context and marketed for Australian students. These texts focus on

Australian accounting legislation and practice and are oriented to the requirements of Australian

accrediting bodies. The same texts seem to be used in both general accounting courses and those

included in programs labels as “international business” or “international finance”. The Australian

focus is found also in business law texts: Law in Commerce, (Sweeney & O'Reilly, 2004),

Australian Business Law, (Latimer, 2007), Australian Commercial Law (Turner, 2006) and

Business Law of Australia, (Vermeesch & Lindgren, 2005) Even where textbooks are explicitly

international, the framing of international is English-based. For example, the textbook International

Macroeconomics (Makin, 2002) claims that it is not country specific in that it has case-studies

drawing on examples from the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, International

Finance (Moosa, 2004) is Australia-focused, while Fundamentals of Multinational Finance

(Moffett, Stonehill, & Eiteman, 2005) is a American textbook with American case studies.

This survey of textbooks indicates that the disciplinary knowledge provided by Australian

institutions is heavily biased towards Australia and where the focus is international towards the

English-speaking world. Opportunities for students to study the accounting laws and practices of

their own countries are limited and few text books even include examples drawn from the home

countries of international students in Australia. Taken collectively, these textbooks presume that the

education being given in English-speaking contexts is going to be applied in English-speaking

contexts. The international focus is an English-speaking one and the knowledge which will be used

is knowledge of the English-speaking world created in and communicated through English.

Similarly the opportunities to develop the discipline specific language of home country

professionals are very limited. Few universities offer courses to students which equip them for the

linguistic demands of exercising their professions in their own first languages or outside the

English-speaking world. Students wishing to qualify as CPAs in their own countries must pass a

CPA examination. Most countries require that the CPA examination be conducted in the languages

of that country. For example, the English language information of the Japanese Institute for CPAs

explicitly states that the examination, which consists of both multiple choice questions and an essay,

is conducted only in Japanese (JICPA, 2007a).3 For some international students in Australia, such

as those from India, Malaysia or the Philippines, taking the examination in English is one

possibility, but for the majority they require a mastery of the professional discourse of accountancy

in their own language. Moreover, this is not simply a question of passing an examination, but also

in working as a professional, as records and reports are required in the language of the society in

which they will be used. Currently, Australia institutions do not provide opportunities for

international or domestic students to develop the professional discourse in any language other than

in English.

This brief review of the practices of business education courses in Australia show that

universities’ concerns about employability do not consider the full range of possible employment

contexts for their students. What is not being considered in the Australian context is the extent to

which Australian education prepares international students for employment in their home countries.

It fails to do this in two main ways. The first is in the area of content with a focus only on laws and

case studies of Australia or other English-speaking countries. The second is the neglect of the

learners’ own language and the language of their future employment in the preparation of graduates

to enter the world of work. Employability has been reduced to a simple equation with the level of

English language proficiency. For bilingual and multilingual students, proficiency in English is only

one dimension of employability and may not even be the most significant dimension for those

students who return to their country of origin.

Linguistic and cultural context in quality assurance

The internationalisation of education raises issues for quality assurance which have yet to be

fully recognised in the Australian context. These issues centre on the need to move from a

monolingual model of education which tacitly assumes English language and culture as the measure

of quality in teaching, learning and assessment, towards an understanding that international

education necessarily involves the interplay of multiple languages and cultures. Currently in

Australia, this interplay is perceived to refer only the extent to which the ‘English language skills’

of international students are sufficient to undertake courses in English. As noted above, this

perception casts students’ first languages as a problem which needs to be overcome if genuine

learning is to occur, rather than a measure of students’ expertise in studying and working in

internationalised contexts.

In relation to quality assurance, this monolingual mindset has been reflected in an assumption

that the maintenance of standards of teaching, learning, assessment and course content depend on

their being conducted in English. The assumption that quality depends on English has been coupled

with a lack of acknowledgment of the ways in which language mediates teaching, learning and

assessment. The consequence is that the languages and associated cultures of international students

do not figure in the assessment of quality, except to the extent that they are perceived to reduce the

students’ capacity to learn in English; and the linguistic and cultural context of English itself is not

recognised as mediating the process and substance of education. It is as if the perceived

‘naturalness’ of English as the language of teaching, learning and assessment has rendered invisible

the fact that English, like any language, is not only a structural code but a means of communication

between people, reflecting at every point of use their particular understanding of the linguist and

cultural context.

That language in this sense is not recognised in the quality assurance literature is highlighted

in a recent report (Scarino, Crichton & Papadmetre, 2005) in which the authors explain that “hardly

represented in the internationalisation literature on quality policy or practice is the language (i.e. the

medium) or culture of instruction except in relation to the (English) language proficiency of

International students” (p. 5). And in these cases the literature addresses only the context of

studying at the English speaking provider campus, not in programs delivered from English speaking

countries to the students’ own country (for example, Tootell, 1999). Further ways in which

references to languages are dependent on English include the learning of additional languages by

English speaking students (Knight, 2003) and references to the language policies of countries in

which English speaking educational institutions might deliver programs (see, for example,

Marginson & McBurnie, 2004). The emphasis on English and lack of attention to the interplay of

languages is also seen in reports on quality assurance such as James (2004) on quality assurance in

Australia, and the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (2005) on the need to

develop a national Australian quality framework for transnational education.

The need to recognise in quality assurance policy and practice that international education in

all its forms per force involves the interplay of multiple languages and cultures is becoming more

pressing as Australia enters what Gallagher (2002) has termed the “third phase” of international

education. According to Gallagher, the first phase “was mainly individually driven by academics

and students seeking to expand their knowledge and networks through exchange of scholarship” (p.

1). The focus of the second phase has been the recruitment of students internationally to study in

Australia, and to a lesser extent the development of distance modes of course delivery and the

movement of teachers and educational providers overseas. Gallagher argues that in the third phase

the provision of education overseas will become increasingly important, bringing quality assurance

issues to the fore.

The challenges for quality assurance posed by delivering higher education programs

internationally underscore the reality that international education represents, whether it occurs

‘locally’ or ‘offshore’, a global contact zone (Singh & Doherty, 2002) of linguistic, cultural and

educational diversity, innovation and change, involving “an interrelated and complex mix of student

culture, host institution culture, international education-related culture, professional academic

culture, and national culture” (Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996:202). Martin (2003) in an analysis of the

2002 Australian University Quality Audit (AUQA) reports has identified this linguistic and cultural

complexity as a challenge for quality assurance, in particular the issue of teaching involving

languages other than English as “likely to be a risk management sleeper in the system” (p. 26).

Quality assurance practice is however yet to attend to the interplay of multiple languages, and

to recognise that all languages, including English, mediate according to their particular linguistic

and cultural contexts the experience of teaching, learning and assessment (Scarino, Crichton &

Papadmetre, 2005); in other words, to recognise that knowledge and disciplinary practices are

linguistically and culturally contexted.

Contributing to the ‘invisibility’ of language in this sense is an approach to quality assurance

which focuses on procedural questions – rather than the substance of teaching, learning and

assessment in particular discipline areas and the linguistic and cultural context in which these occur.

In the Australian context, this approach is exemplified by the AUQA processes for assessing the

quality of university programs. These aim to evaluate the extent to which policies and procedures

comply with a university’s own claims – in other words they are both procedurally focussed and

self-referential. The external audit seeks evidence to substantiate claims made by the institution

itself, not in relation to an external reference which invokes at any point the linguistic and cultural

context of disciplinary practice. Without such a reference the issue of what ‘standard’ to invoke in

establishing quality becomes problematic in international education, in which more than one

language, each with its “own interpretative bent” (Sadler, 1995:9), is involved. In contrast to this monolingual emphasis, there are strong precedents beyond current

Australian quality assurance practices for recognising the linguistically and culturally contexted

nature of educational practice and disciplinary knowledge. Assessment is a good example.

Assessment is a crucially area because it is in the assessment process that standards are set, applied

and become accountable – where the quality of teaching and learning is at stake for students and

universities. The substantial part of the literature on international assessment focuses on tests

conducted internationally to compare the academic performance of students across disciplines. This

literature consistently emphasises that the linguistic and cultural context of assessment is a key

consideration in establishing and maintaining validity, and therefore needs to be considered in

interpreting and comparing test results. In relation to the monolingual emphasis in quality

assurance, the key messages in this literature are that the linguistic and cultural context of test

development and administration affects all aspects of assessment including how tests are understood

by students, how construct equivalence is established, the level of students’ performance, and in

what terms ‘levels’ of performance are to be understood (see, for example, van de Vijver &

Poortinga, 2005; R.K. Hambleton & de Jong, 2003; Sireci, 2005). A related issue raised in this

literature is that the ‘literal’ translation of tests does not offer a way of addressing these

complexities (R.K Hambleton, 2005). In a point that is supported by the literature on translation

more generally (Venuti, 2000)(see for example, Venuti, 2000), the literature on international

assessment emphasises that quality in the development of tests – and by implication in the ‘content’

of all learning materials – for students of different languages and cultures needs to involve detailed

and sensitive attention to the linguistic and cultural contexts of the relevant languages and

languages users.

This emphasis on linguistic and cultural considerations in the international assessment

literature, and the lack of attention to this in quality assurance in Australian higher education,

supports the overarching argument of this paper that the monolingual mindset in international

education does a disservice to both students and universities. In particular, it highlights the need to

recognise that languages other than English are resources for all students, rather than problems, and

that disciplinary knowledge and practice are at all points linguistically and culturally contexted.

Conclusion

The term “international education” like all terms is subject to definition and its defining is a

linguistically and culturally located process. The contexts examined above point towards a paradox

in the ways in which the located process of definition is played out in Australian educational

discourse. For many, the term “international” itself would seem to preclude any monistic

construction as it implies diversity at a fundamental level – the interaction between nations.

However, the construction of the international in Australia is one which sets at least part of this

diversity aside – it sees diversity through the monolingual mindset as outlined in the introduction to

this paper and in so doing normalises the monolingual and evaluates diversity with reference to this

monolingual norm. The result is a monolingual, monocultural form of international education

(Eisenchlas, Trevaskes, & Liddicoat, 2004).

Such an internationalism is paradoxical because even though it is monolingual and

monocultural it still frames the consequences of linguistic and cultural diversity. It does this by

constructing diversity as a core problem of international education: it is diversity of language and

culture which produces problems for teaching and learning, for employability and for quality

assurance. The monolingual mindset can allow only for diversity as problem because diversity itself

conflicts with the conceptualisation of monolingualism as normal and normative. The educational

response is therefore aimed at solving diversity (e.g. through language learning as remediation,

raising English proficiency levels required for acceptance into courses, evaluating the “translation

equivalence” of courses and programs, etc.) not engaging with it. International education which

engages with diversity implies problematising monolingualism and monoculturalism and calls

existing institutional resources and imperatives based on them into question. In fact, such a

problematising involves reconstructing the plurilingualism of the other as an asset and the

monolingualism of the self as a deficiency (c.f. Ellis, 2006) – a lack of capacity or resources

required to live and work within the diversity implied by the word “international”.

The construction of diversity as problem does not remove the dilemma at the heart of the

international education endeavour; it simply provides a rationale for responding to the diversity of

others. In particular, for international education in Australia, it requires that knowledge created,

communicated and used in English must be privileged and other knowledge marginalised or

rendered suspect. It is only through this privileging of English that participation in international

education can be justified within the monolingual mindset. The result is, however, that international

education becomes a one-way process of knowledge exchange – a form of intellectual imperialism

in which only one language and its associated practices and applications is valued. Its imperialism

lies within the establishment of a value system in which those outside the English-language

intellectual tradition are complicit in maintaining the value system. The value allocated to the

language, its intellectual tradition and its contexts of application submerges, devalues and silences

other languages. As Gogolin (2002:133) notes the monolingual mindset “is built and secured by the

traditions of the educational system itself; the less conscious the individual teacher is about its

existence, the more effectively it operates”. In this way, the monolingual mindset itself becomes the

knowledge which international education reproduces and transmits, neutralising its own discursive

dilemma.

Moving beyond monolingualism in international education involves developing new

understandings of learners and their life worlds, of disciplines and of how quality is understood and

evaluated in education. This would involve institutes and educators in a reflective process of:

recognising, ascertaining and connecting with students’ previous knowledge,

experiences and academic practices and languages;

recognising, ascertaining and responding to students’ goals and aspirations and the

ways in which these interact with disciplines and languages;

accepting the need for and role of discipline specific literacy practices in the languages

in students’ linguistic repertoires and developing educational responses to these;

developing strategies for resourcing students as disciplinary specialists in the

languages in their linguistic repertoires;

recognising disciplines as inherently linguistically and culturally contexted and that

this has implications for educational practices; and

recognising teaching and learning as inherently linguistically and culturally contexted

and reflecting this in processes, practices and agendas of quality assurance.

Such activities imply a perception of education as being situated with complex patterns of linguistic

and cultural diversity in which issues of language and culture are always present and must always

be addressed. Such a perspective is not relevant only in the context of “international education”,

however this is understood, but is fundamental to any educational work which responds to the

diversity of student populations.

Notes

1. “Transnational” is used in this paper in the sense of programs delivered by an Australian

university in another country, either in English or in the language of the country concerned.

2. Within the discourses of English for Academic Purposes, the term “multilingual” itself has

often come to signify students with English language difficulties (for example, Canagarajah,

2002; Sowden, 2005 ) – that is multilingualism denotes a diminished competence in English

which needs remediation rather than seeing multilingualism as adding to the linguistic

repertoire. “Multilingual” is used specifically for those students who have English language

difficulties, and is not applied to other possible groups of students with more than one

language, such as English native speakers with additional languages.

3. The question of language is not raised at all in the Japanese language information on the

same test – this advise is given only to those who access the information in English (see

JICPA, 2007b).

References

Australian Education International. (2005). 2005 Annual International Student Statistics [Retrieved

25 November, 2005, from

http://aei.dest.gov.au/AEI/MIP/Statistics/StudentEnrolmentAndVisaStatistics/2006/2006An

nual_Stats.htm.

Birrell, B. (2006). Implications of low English standards amongst overseas students at Australian

universities People and Place, 14(4), 53--64.

Bourdieu, P. (1979). La Distinction. Critique sociale du jugement Paris: Minuit.

Bourdieu, P. (1981). Questions de sociologie Paris: Minuit.

Bourdieu, P. (1982). Langage et pouvoir symbolique Paris: Arthème-Fayard.

Burrell, K. I., & Kim, D. J. (1998). International students and academic assistance: Meeting the

needs of another college population. In P. L. Dwinell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Developmental

Education: Meeting Diverse Student Needs (pp. 81--96). Morrow, GA: National Association

for Developmental Education

Canagarajah, S. ( 2002). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical

relationship Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1(1), 29--44.

Chalmers, D., & Volet, S. (1997). Common misconceptions about students from South-East Asia

studying in Australia Higher Education Research & Development, 16(1), 87--98.

Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students' reticence revisited System 28(3), 435--446.

Clyne, M. (2005). Australia’s Language Potential Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Clyne, M. (2007). Are we making a difference? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30 (1),

3.1--3.14.

Coley, M. (1999). The English language entry requirements of Australian Universities for students

of non-English-speaking background Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 7--

17.

Connor, U. M. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman

(Ed.), Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 169--206). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Cownie, F., & Addison, W. (1996). International students and language support: A new survey

Studies in Higher Education, 21(2), 221--231.

CPA Australia. (2006). Accounting Handbook 2007: Incorporating all the Australian equivalents to

international financial reporting standards as stated at 15 November 2006 Sydney: Pearson

Australia.

Deegan, C. (2007). Australian Financial Accounting (5 ed.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Department of Education Science and Training. (2005). A National Quality Strategy for Australian

Transnational Education and Training: A Discussion Paper Canberra: Commonwealth of

Australia.

Devos, A. (2003). Academic standards, internationalisation, and the discursive construction of "the

international student" Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2), 155--166.

Eisenchlas, S., Trevaskes, S., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). Internationalisation: The slow move from

rhetoric to practice in Australian universities. In A. J. Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas & S.

Trevaskes (Eds.), Australian Perspectives on Internationalising Education (pp. 141--149).

Melbourne: Language Australia

Ellis, E. M. (2006). Monolingualism: The unmarked case Estudios de Sociolingüistica, 7(2), 173--

196.

Gallagher, M. (2002.). On the cusp – a new phase in the internationalisation of Australian education

[Paper presented at the 16th Australian International Education Conference, Hobart.

Gogolin, I. (1994). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule Munste& New York:

Waxman.

Gogolin, I. (2002). Linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe: A challenge for educational research

and practice European Educational Research Journal, 1(1), 123--138.

Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple

languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.),

Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Hambleton, R. K., & de Jong, J. H. A. L. (2003). Advances in translating and adapting educational

psychological tests Language Testing, 20(2), 127--134.

Hart, C., Edwards, V., & Illing, D. (2007, January 30). More uni English woes tipped [The

Australian

Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets

in the way of learning Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213--231.

Ho, D. Y. F., Peng, S., & Chan, F. S. (2001). Authority and learning in Confucian-heritage

education: A relational methodological analysis. In F. Salili & S. Y. Chiu (Eds.), Multiple

Competencies and Self-Regulated Learning: Implications for Multicultural Education (pp.

29--47). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing

Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning and intercultural communication: Ethnic

Chinese Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 294--307.

James, M. (2004). Quality assurance and recognition of qualifications in higher education:

Australia. In Quality and Recognition in Higher Education: The Cross-Border Challenge.

Paris: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

JICPA. (2007a). Becoming A CPA in Japan Retrieved 15 November, 2007, from

http://www.hp.jicpa.or.jp/english/e-cpaexam.html.

JICPA. (2007b). 公認会計士試験情報 [Information on the CPA Examination]. Retrieved 15

November, 2007, from http://www.hp.jicpa.or.jp/ippan/so_cpa_info/examination.html.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1993). Cultural orientation and academic language use. In D. Graddol, L.

Thompson & M. Byram (Eds.), Language and Culture. Clevedon, UK: British Association

of Applied Linguistics (BAAL) and Multilingual Matters

Knight, J. (2003). Internationalization of Higher Education Practices and Policies: (2003) IAU

Survey Report Paris: International Association of Universities (IAU).

Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy ELT Journal, 50(3), 199--212.

Latimer, P. (2007). Australian Business Law CCH Australia: Sydney.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). Internationalisation as a concept in higher education: Perspectives from

policy. In A. J. Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas & S. Trevaskes (Eds.), Australian Perspectives on

Internationalising Education (pp. 13--26). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Liddicoat, A. J., Scrimgeour, A., & Chen, T. (in press). Intertextuality in Chinese high school

students’ essay writing. Language and Education, 22

Liu, N. F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in

classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371--384

Makin, A. (2002). International Macroeconomics London: FT Prentice Hall.

Marginson, S., & McBurnie, G. (2004). Cross-border post-secondary education in the Asia-Pacific

region. In Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and

Challenges. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Marshall, D., McCartney, J., van Rhyn, D., McManus, W., & Viele, D. (2007). Accounting: What

The Numbers Mean (2 ed.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Martin, A. L. (2003). Institutional Audit Reports. Analysis and Comment Report to Australian

Universities Quality Agency. Retrieved 15 December, 2004, from

http://www.auqa.com.au/qualityenhancement/publications/occasional/publications/

McKay, S. (1981). ESL/Remedial English: Are they different? English Language Teaching

Journal, 35(3), 310--315.

Moffett, M., Stonehill, A., & Eiteman, D. (2005). Fundamentals of Multinational Finance (2 ed.).

Moosa, I. (2004). International Finance: An Analytical Approach (2 ed.). Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Morton, A., & Alexander, H. (2007, January 29). English skills row over foreign students – One-

third may stay despite low ability The Age, p. 3

O'Keefe, B., & Illing, D. (2007, 31 January). Bishop demands proof of favouritism [The Australian,

p. 21

Sadler, D. R. (1995). Comparability of Assessments, Grades and Qualifications [Paper presented at

the AARE National Conference, Hobart.

Scarino, A., Crichton, J., & Papademetre, L. (2005). A framework for quality assurance in the

development and delivery of offshore programs in languages other than English: University

of South Australia

Singh, P., & Doherty, C. (2002). Navigating cultural sensibilities: Respect and provocation as

pedagogical partners [Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in

Education Annual Conference, Brisbane

Sireci, G. S. (2005). Using bilinguals to evaluate the comparability of different language versions of

a test. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting Educational

and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Sowden, C. (2005 ). Plagiarism and the culture of multilingual students in higher education abroad

ELT Journal, 59(3), 226--233.

Sweeney, B., & O'Reilly, J. (2004). Law in Commerce (2 ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis/Butterworths.

Tootell, K. (1999). International students in Australia: What do we know of the quality of their

education? [Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education

(AARE) Conference, Melbourne.

Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey & D.

Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom (pp. 145--167). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Turner, C. (2006). Australian Commercial Law (26 ed.). LBC information Services: Sydney.

Venuti, L. (2000). Introduction. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader. London:

Routledge

Vermeesch, R. B., & Lindgren, K. E. (2005). Business Law of Australia (11 ed.). Sydney:

Butterworths.

van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2005). Conceptual and methodological issues in

adapting tests. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting

Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum