The relevance of an internationalised home curriculum for all students is generally acknowledged. Other than study abroad, the home curriculum gives programs of study full control over the way students learn international, intercultural, and interdisciplinary perspectives. However, misconceptions, lack of strategies, lack of skills of academics, and lack of connection between stakeholders present major obstacles to internationalising teaching and learning “at home”. The practical trajectory outlined in this chapter presents programs of study with the opportunity to focus on employability skills instead of on a semantic discussion on internationalisation. By linking this orientation on employability skills with the articulation of intended learning outcomes (ILOs), a pathway for developing employability skills in all students will be created. Within this pathway, international, intercultural, interdisciplinary, and future-focused dimensions serve to enhance students’ acquiring employability skills. The trajectory presented here evolved out of action research on internationalisation with academics. During the action research, taking employability skills as a starting point emerged as an enabler for the internationalisation process. It helped to overcome lengthy and semantic discussions on the meaning of internationalisation. After that, international and intercultural dimensions are included in these employability skills. These skills are then translated into ILOs. This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in Internationalization and employability in higher education on 19/25/06, available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781351254885.
MULTIFILE
Long before the COVID pandemic, we had already realised that traditional forms of internationalisation had their limitations. Mobility of students had remained limited to a small minority of students, a ‘cultural elite’. We had also become aware that student mobility was mostly from the global north to the south and that some of its effects were unwanted, and could lead to ‘white saviourism’. Finally, before the COVID pandemic we were already discussing the CO2 imprint of mobility and considering ‘greener’ forms of mobility of students and staff. More than twenty years ago, around 2000, attempts had already emerged to bring the benefits of internationalisation to all students through internationalisation at home. At the time, this was defined as “Any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student and staff mobility”. This definition did not mention explicitly that all students were targeted and also omitted the purpose of these activities.
Increasingly, internationalisation at home and internationalisation of the curriculum are adopted by universities across the globe but their systemic implementation is a complex process. For instance, academics and academic disciplines understand and approach internationalisation differently, as previous studies have shown. However, there is little research on the role of such disciplinary perspectives in relation to different internationalisation practices and interventions. Using the Becher-Biglan framework of academic tribes, this exploratory study compares 12 undergraduate programmes at a Dutch university of applied sciences and addresses the question if the different disciplinary approaches to internationalisation as identified in previous studies are also reflected in the choices of internationalisation at home activities. The findings show there is more variation in the range of activities rather than in the types of activities and that it is within the rationales underlying those choices where the influence of disciplinary perspectives is more visible.
