Introducing Internationalisation at Home

Learning satisfaction under the Content and Language Integrated Learning approach

in Learning and Teaching
Author:
Mark Gosling National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan

Search for other papers by Mark Gosling in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Wenhsien Yang National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan

Search for other papers by Wenhsien Yang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

Abstract

Taiwan higher education institutions are employing two strategies: Internationalisation at Home (IaH) to promote domestic students’ international exposure and awareness, and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) to promote language skills and professional knowledge. Higher education institutions recognise the synergy of these two strategies and the opportunity through them to attract international students to study in an English-speaking classroom. What is not known is the reaction of the domestic CLIL students in English as a Foreign Language settings to the introduction of native English speakers into their classroom, and this is the focus of this exploratory study. Results suggest that the domestic students are largely positive about the engagement of the exchange students but also raise the issues of internationalised curriculum and intercultural mixing in the monolingual context.

Growth in tertiary education in North American and European countries is slowing, but in Asia it is exploding. In East Asia and the Pacific, enrolment is projected to increase from 69.4 million in 2015 to 257 million in 2040 (Calderon 2018). This growth in student numbers is matched by an increase in student mobility to and from the region and a movement of international student numbers away from the traditional centres to Asia. Worldwide these international students are expected to number seven to eight million by 2025 (Benson 2015), and while Europe is still a primary destination for these students, Asia currently claims 18 per cent, and this number is growing fast (OECD 2016).

In combination, these pressures give rise to several developments in Taiwan's higher education institutions. Firstly, an increase in the number of courses that focus on providing language skills, particularly to non-native speakers of English. Secondly, the promotion of Internationalisation at Home (IaH), which pays attention to domestic students who interact with the internationalisation on the home campus. Thirdly, what might be described as the other side of IaH, the need to create programmes attractive to international students studying outside their country of citizenship, either degree seeking or short-term exchange programmes.

A recent QS report indicated that a growing number of Asian students view employability as a major concern (QS 2019). Definitions of employability include hard and soft skills, the latter including language skills (Chen et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2006). In Taiwan, and other Asian countries, English competency is often considered to be an exit skill of importance equal to other content (e.g., Pan 2015; Wiriyachitra 2002; Zainuddin et al. 2019) and is seen by employers as an important competency (Zehrer and Mössenlechner 2009). An increasingly popular methodology responding to this demand is Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010), distinct from English Medium Instruction (EMI), which favours English as an instructional language rather than a language to be designed and taught. As the name suggests, in this approach the content is taught in the target language, frequently English, with a goal to support or gain second language competency.

It has not escaped the attention of education ministries and university administrations that courses with instruction in English not only promote English language competency but also the internationalisation of campus life and meet other national policies and objectives, including financial ones. Offering CLIL courses that are language accessible (i.e., in English) can attract international and exchange students, and indeed, this has been suggested as one of the motivators for growth of both CLIL and IaH (Ishikura 2015).

Thus, the goal of increasing English language competence and the goal of increasing the internationalisation of campus have been married in the hopes of increasing international competitiveness to open up education opportunities and revenue streams. Countries in the Asian region, as in Taiwan, have voiced ambitious targets for attracting international students and many are using or exploring CLIL-style programmes. This arranged marriage appears to be a win–win situation – except that it overlooks the reaction of domestic students. The introduction of international students, who may be native speakers of English (in Taiwan the target language of the CLIL programme) and whose stay is of short duration, while purported to be of benefit to the domestic students, is likely to create new issues. These issues may include problems of classroom management and mixed reactions from the domestic students. This situation is one likely to develop further in Asia, and this study is to elaborate on the issue.

Literature review

Goals of CLIL

CLIL has a dual focus whereby an additional language is used to teach a subject course, with the aim of the students both learning the content and enhancing their language skills (Coyle et al. 2010). CLIL has increasingly been adopted in both tertiary and secondary school curricula in European countries where national borders have become blurred, economies more integrated and intercultural communication skills become an essential requisite (Eurydice 2006; Tudor 2008). In recent times, it has been gaining traction within Asian universities, including in Taiwan (Yang and Gosling 2014). In most countries, as in Taiwan, the target language is English, the language that is perceived to enable the students to enter the global employment space.

Extensive studies have shown that CLIL learners demonstrate better achievements in linguistic performance and in receptive skills, such as listening, reading or vocabulary when compared to their non-CLIL peers due to the heavy inputs of and high exposure to the target language in class (e.g., Aguilar and Muñoz 2014; Coonan 2007; Dalton-Puffer 2008; de Zarobe 2015).

In addition, CLIL provides a number of non-linguistic benefits, such as increasing learners’ confidence, self-esteem, and motivation in learning the target language, decreasing learning anxiety, and developing a ‘can-do’ attitude towards language learning (Marsh and Langé 2000; Yang 2017). Do Coyle (2007) provided a pedagogical framework for CLIL called the 4Cs – Content, Communication, Cognition and Culture – which gives equal footing to the importance of culture in the learning process, a facet also important to the goals of IaH.

In Taiwan the Ministry of Education's (MOE) has recognised the potential of CLIL in increasing the Taiwan tertiary system's competitiveness to attract international students. Language, specifically the English language, is still the main influencer of where students decide to study abroad, and CLIL courses reach out to this demand. Tuition fees, ease of application and visa considerations are other influencers, and in these areas, Asian universities have some competitive strengths. In Taiwan, there has been a large increase in the number of CLIL courses being offered, with an increase to 1,470 in 2015, including 349 offering over 90 per cent of courses taught in English, and the corresponding number of international students has increased to 18,118, of whom 3,743 are international exchange students on short-term mobility programmes (Ministry of Education 2016).

Attracting exchange students brings resource benefits to a tertiary institution. These resources are not only financial but also, more importantly, include cultural and language advantages, which are recognised by the MOE as an area for promotion and are also suitable for IaH. These economic and competitive drivers have been recognised by other Asian countries which are developing similar programmes, although as yet, there is not an overarching programme of cooperation similar to the Erasmus programme in the European Union.

Goals of IaH

Internationalisation in education has been defined by Jane Knight as the ‘process of integrating an international perspective into the teaching/learning, research and service functions of a higher education institution’ (2001: 229). Around the world, this has fast become an important metric and goal for universities where the gains are believed to accrue to the institution and students alike. Seeking these gains, higher education institutions offer opportunities promoting student mobility and encourage overseas internships or study as part of the programme. However, some students are unable to take these opportunities due to cost or difficulties in transferring credits back to their home institution or because studying abroad can cause a delay in graduation (Shaftel et al. 2007). This inequality of access gives rise to the concept of IaH (Crowther et al. 2000; Wächter 2003) whereby ‘home students are able to receive (and should be entitled to expect) an international higher education experience despite their own lack of mobility’ (Harrison 2015: 6).

IaH is a large umbrella term. Jos Beelen and Elspeth Jones's definition of IaH is the ‘purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments’ (2015: 69). In a review of IaH, Neil Harrison (2015) outlined the three main avenues in which IaH brings internationalisation to campus. Firstly, it increases diversity on campus as a resource. This can be approached by several means, but within the context of this research, it is the introduction of international students and interaction with international students. Secondly, IaH promotes a culturally sensitive pedagogy, which allies with many of the underlying principles within CLIL. Finally, it contributes to an internationalised curriculum seeking to integrate knowledge and perspectives from diverse cultural and national contexts. This latter point is not a focus of the current study but arguably can be seen in the motivation to provide courses also of interest to international students.

IaH has been shown to offer several benefits for the institution and students alike. In a survey across several US campuses, Jiali Luo and David Jamieson-Drake found indications ‘that international interaction was consistently and positively correlated with college outcomes’ (2013: 99) and that there was an increase in the cross-cultural experiences of American students and a willingness to examine their own beliefs and values as a result of these interactions. The presence of international students can develop networks for future student recruitment and helps to meet higher education institutions’ strategies to respond to global trends (de Wit and Altbach 2021). Similarly, R. Lindsey Parsons (2009) showed positive effect on several outcomes, such as language proficiency and cross-cultural skills and Krista Soria and Jordan Troisi (2014) have even gone so far as to conclude that IaH does more for a higher education institution to promote students’ global, international and intercultural competencies than traditional study abroad programmes owing to the greater participation of the student population.

These studies have largely focused on international students coming to the United States and Australia; however, one study focusing on the effects on Korean students claimed similar growth in the domestic students’ intercultural learning and development (Jon 2013). However, there has been little attention given to international students’ impact in non-Western countries and the trend of the change in direction of student mobility towards Asia makes this a developing area (Lin 2020).

A synergy of CLIL and IaH

The potential synergy of CLIL and IaH has not escaped the attention of many institutions. CLIL develops domestic students’ language skills and cultural awareness, and English is still the most popular target language in most CLIL practices (Van Mensel et al. 2020). IaH is a platform to develop cultural awareness and exchanges on campus, and a means to do that is by attracting international exchange students. In Taiwan, and in Asia, offering courses taught in English marries these goals together (Yang and Gosling 2014). Indeed, studies have shown that language may be the strongest contact point between international and domestic students. Krista M. Soria and Jordan Troisi (2014) found that language skills such as CLIL students would be expected to possess were the only antecedent positively associated with student advances in cultural competencies, and Ciarán Dunne (2013) observed that language was the principal ‘utility’ the domestic students welcomed in the international students.

However, while there are proposed gains from the perspective of the Ministry of Education and university administration, it is not immediately apparent if those gains are realised or if the synergy is perceived in the same manner by the offspring of this arranged marriage: the students. Indeed, as may happen between siblings, there may be situations where they do not get along.

Domestic students’ reaction to international students

There is extensive literature examining the impact and results of student mobility on visiting or exchange students; however, there is less literature available on the impact upon domestic students in the home institution (Chen and Kraklow 2014; Peacock and Harrison, 2008). Further, there is little research on the domestic students’ reaction to and perception of the visiting international students, an issue raised by several authors (e.g., Dunne 2013; Jon 2013). This is an omission because the visiting students are perceived and introduced as a resource, and yet the domestic students are the dominant group taught on campus and so will be central to the relationship with the international students. The domestic students are likely to moderate or enhance the effects of the international students, and as the subjects of the proposed gains, there is a need for more research to understand these interactions.

Some studies on domestic students’ perceptions of international students have shown similar positive results to those of the research in IaH. Students at a North American institution reported gaining knowledge, attitudes and skills needed for effective intercultural communication, reflecting on their own culture, developing leadership and problem-solving skills, engaging with course content, and creating social and professional networks (Johnstone 2015). Also, students who had an interest in the study of a particular language quickly identified international students as a useful resource for them in their language learning (Dunne 2013).

However, there are also indications of a negative perception. Here, one of the chief issues raised is the expectation that the international students will negatively compromise the domestic students’ grades due to the challenges of different language skills and different ways of working (Peacock and Harrison 2008; Strauss et al. 2014). Students also have concerns that miscommunication may lead to embarrassment or inadvertent offence (Harrison 2015), and some domestic students reacted negatively to what were perceived as breaches of domestic norms of behaviour, such as time keeping and differing levels of respect shown.

Most of the studies looking at the reaction of domestic students have looked at cases where the visiting students joining the programme constituted a minority language group, such as Asian students attending a North American institution where courses are conducted in English. The opposite scenario, where the visiting students hold the desired target language, that is, North American native English speakers coming to institutions in Asia is considered in only a handful of studies. Jae-Eun Jon (2013) examined the introduction of fluent English speakers into a Korean classroom. In this case the visiting students were accorded a positive status as speakers of the global language, but at the same time, they were also presumed to have a poorer work ethic.

These positive and negative reactions from domestic students suggest some ambivalence to the presence of international students, and it is not clear what the reaction of domestic students in a CLIL programme will be to visiting students who are fluent in the target language. This exploratory study is to illuminate this under-researched situation. Specifically, the present research aims to study the following questions:

  1. 1.What is the reaction of domestic students to the inclusion of target language speakers jointly studying in a CLIL education environment?
  2. 2.Are there student gains from the synergy of CLIL and IaH goals?

Research methods

A mixed methods approach is appropriate for an exploratory study in an area not explored in the literature and is also an approach suggested as suitable for investigation into CLIL (Perez-Canado 2011; Yang and Gosling 2014). The approach combines quantitative and qualitative techniques to provide a better understanding than either technique can alone (Creswell and Plano 2007) and allows directed qualitative interviews to illuminate some of the suggested results determined through the quantitative surveys.

An online survey

For this research, an online survey instrument used questions developed by the researchers to fit with Coyle's 4Cs framework (Coyle 2007). The survey was written in both English and Chinese for easy comprehension and included five questions on demographic information and forty-two on expectations or evaluations of the integration with a five-point Likert scale. Neither researcher was involved in teaching the students, whose participation was entirely voluntary, and no course credits were offered for participation. This survey was administered at two time intervals, at the start (week one) and the end (week seventeen) of a semester in a CLIL class of twenty-seven learners with an additional eleven international, Canadian, students (thirty-eight students in total). The surveys showed good reliability with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.87 (pre) and 0.94 (post), above the level of 0.70 generally considered to be acceptable.

Participants

The participants were enrolled in the second year of a four-year degree-based CLIL programme in the hospitality field. All courses, except for the Chinese and general education courses, were instructed in English with a content-driven emphasis. CLIL is commonly used as a generic term to cover course designs ranging from very content-oriented to very language-driven provisions (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010). In this researched context, although English is used extensively across most of the courses in the programme, we still class it as a CLIL-based programme as the course was established to cater for both the aims of recruiting the international students and enhancing local students’ English proficiency, goals not explicitly addressed in EMI.

The international students were expected to learn content knowledge and gain international cultural experience. The domestic students are expected to develop both content knowledge and English skills from this CLIL programme. Additionally, the domestic students have an internship placement in the third year and a majority of them (72 per cent) chose overseas institutions or companies as their destinations. Thus, helping these local students to be equipped with intercultural knowledge to adapt to new environments is one of the programme's aims and the introduction of exchange students from Canada is considered a strong motivator to help reach the aim.

This degree-based CLIL programme required its students to reach Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) scores of at least 750 as a graduation benchmark, an equivalence of Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) B2 level. Most of the students’ proficiency ranged between B1 and B2 levels with some exceptions reaching a much higher level (i.e., over TOEIC scores 880, equivalent to CEFR C1 level) (ETS 2021).

Further interview

The surveys were followed up with a purposeful sampling of five CLIL learners in the programme for further interviews, each of which lasted for about one hour. The respondents were coded A-E, and these codes were used to identify the source of the comments offered in the discussion section (Table 1). The interviews were carried out in Mandarin Chinese by one of the researchers from a different department to the students. The students were in two groups in order to reach easy comprehension and open communication and then transcribed into English by the researchers and assistants. The interview transcripts were treated with the help of WeftQDA software to analyse qualitative content. It helped identify and record commonalities and differences within coded categories and generate the themes for linking to the quantitative results.

Table 1.

Details of the interviewed CLIL students

Interviewee Gender Nationality English level L1 Study buddy
A Male Taiwanese/American B2 Mandarin Chinese No
B Female Malaysian B2 Mandarin Chinese No
C Female Taiwanese B2 Mandarin Chinese No
D Female Taiwanese B1 Mandarin Chinese No
E Female Taiwanese B1 Mandarin Chinese Yes

Results

Overall, according to both the pre- and post-survey responses, the students’ attitudes towards having the Canadian students in the class were positive. Of particular interest in this exploratory study are the differences in the students’ perceptions before and after mixing with the Canadian students. Two questions proved to be significantly different. Firstly, there was a significant difference (t = 2.31, <.05) in the reported motivation in the students’ pre-survey (M = 5.11, SD = 1.13) and post-survey (M = 5.18, SD = 1.44). That the exchange students appeared to positively increase students’ motivation is the hoped-for result and was in line with expectations. Further support was offered in the open-ended questions on the survey forms, with students’ comments such as:

  • ‘More daily English conversation’

  • ‘More interactive and interesting classes’

  • ‘Enhances our English-speaking ability’

  • ‘Good exchange of student life’

Follow-up interviews indicated more and better use of English in the classroom: ‘The chances of speaking English still increase and so does listening. The latter has more chances than the former’ (C).

The introduction of the exchange students not only increased speaking opportunities but also encouraged self-policing to maximise these opportunities, students reported: ‘We even warn members to use English only, so the discussion is only conducted in English now’ (A).

Another significant pre- and post-survey difference was the expectation of how much the exchange students would dominate the classroom pre-survey (M = 3.93, SD = 1.54) and post-survey (M = 4.79, SD = 1.45) being significantly different and greater (t = 2.12, <.05). Students reported domination of Canadian students in the classroom: ‘The percentage of class talk uttered by the Canadian students and local students is 80 per cent versus 20 per cent’ (E).

Other students offered a breakdown of 70 per cent to 30 per cent.

Further analysis looked at significant correlations between the pre- and post-survey responses amongst subgroups within the domestic students (Tables 2 and 3). It should be noted that these correlations are taken from a small sample size and, so the observations were followed up with interviews as previously described.

Table 2.

Selected results for correlations between subgroups in the pre-survey

Pre-survey Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t-test
Non-Taiwanese Taiwanese
I am enthusiastic about having the exchange students being present. 6.75 0.50 5.61 1.23 1.80**
They will encourage me to speak more in class. 6.50 0.58 5.52 1.31 1.45*
Non-study buddy Study buddy
They will increase the time for language exchange practice. 5.76 1.26 6.00 0.63 0.44*
They will help me to be more confident in interacting with people from other cultures. 5.57 1.12 5.67 0.52 0.20*
Table 3.

Selected results for correlations between subgroups in the post survey

Post Survey Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t-test
Non-Taiwanese Taiwanese
I am enthusiastic about having the exchange students being present. 7.00 0.00 5.56 1.42 1.73**
Non-study buddy Study buddy
I am enthusiastic about having the exchange students being present in the future. 5.55 1.50 6.33 0.82 1.22*
They increased the time for language exchange practice. 5.73 1.24 6.67 0.52 1.79*

The class contained several non-Taiwanese students (Malaysian, Indonesian) some of whom were non-Mandarin speaking (but who are learners of English language). In the pre-survey, this group of students appeared to be more positive about the coming inclusion of international students, expressing the belief that it would lead to more speaking opportunities, an attitude which also held over to the post-survey.

Several of the domestic students were selected to be study buddies (N = 6) for the exchange students and were available to help the students in their daily life, from understanding academic procedures to opening bank accounts and so on. They would expect to have much higher levels of interaction with the exchange students, and this was reflected in the pre- and post-surveys by their more positive expectations and impressions. The converse is the supposition that the students who were not study buddies might have less interaction, and this was raised in the interviews: ‘Originally, I expected to talk with many exchange students and know them, but in the end, not at all’ (C).

This effect was perhaps compounded by the reported uneven interaction in the classroom. Several students in the interviews reported that instructors had not taken steps to increase interaction between the groups:

I suggest the teacher make a shift in our team members, so we have the chance to interact with all of them in class. (B)

Don't fix the members always in the same groups. (A)

This was also observed in the class assignments, which apparently were not always designed with the goal of increasing interactions:

We prefer to do projects with local students. It's easier to communicate and the way we do the homework is similar. (C)

Everyone did his own part and then we put them all together. (A)

One further area that did not register significantly in the surveys, but was remarked upon in the follow-up interviews, was that of culture:

They talked about their home cultures more often so we could know more about Canadian culture. (D)

We can know that different people with different backgrounds have different thinking. (C)

Perhaps, as the foregoing observations suggest, this interaction result was gained more passively by listening to the exchange students.

Discussion

This article has introduced the marriage between CLIL and IaH in the context of a Taiwanese polytechnic university and argues both frameworks bring common aims and overlapping goals to the relationship. This section considers the degree to which these aims and goals have been met and discusses the reaction of the domestic students.

By definition, a goal of IaH is to bring internationalisation to the campus, and this was achieved by the presence of the Canadian students and their daily influence on language. Indications from the domestic students were that they viewed the visiting students as a resource for their language learning as they provided a model of the target language and increased the consistency of language use in the classroom. Their presence required English to complete classroom tasks and reduced the fall back into Mandarin. This matches the Korean study where international students were accorded respect deriving from their possession of the global language (Jon 2013). Enhancing English language skills is one of the main reasons to implement CLIL, and the domestic students quickly recognised the utility of native speakers in their classroom and expressed a very pragmatic desire to interact with and befriend them, similar to earlier studies (Dunne 2013). This offers some explanation for the increase in student motivation.

A core element of IaH is the promotion of diversity, but this could create issues in the classroom and some of the Taiwanese students expressed some trepidation and perhaps less enthusiasm about having the visiting students in the class. They were positive about the need to use their English language skills in a realistic situation but were also pragmatic about the visiting students’ language advantages as a strength to be utilised. They were also mindful of the extra time and energy expended to achieve the goals. Taiwan students come from a Confucian heritage culture with a focus on study and were occasionally doubtful of the visiting students’ different work ethic. As Nicola Peacock and Harrison (2008) reported, sometimes it was just ‘easier to go with what's easy’ and get the job done without the international exchange students’ involvement. The converse of the Taiwanese students’ reaction was that the non-Taiwanese domestic students appeared to be more favourable to the introduction of the visiting students. The only speculation that can be offered is that the non-Taiwanese students expected, and perceived, an increase in the general English ability within the classroom.

The domestic students also reported the visiting students dominating the classroom to an extent greater than expected. This domination by the visiting students in the ‘talk’ aspects of assessment due to their stronger oral skills has been reported in earlier studies (Hou and McDowell 2014). However, not explicitly voiced by the interviewees and not immediately apparent is whether this domination was viewed favourably or unfavourably. We can speculate that some students welcomed the native-speaking students deflecting some of the instructors’ attention in the classroom, while other students found that they had less opportunity to speak out.

These issues suggest the need for more careful management of the interaction and assignments on the part of the instructors, as does the domestic students’ complaint that opportunities for mixing were missed in structuring groups or assignments. It has been argued that effective CLIL requires the adoption of differing didactics. To generalise, in Taiwan, as in many Asian classrooms, there is a tendency to employ a frontal teaching style and for there to be a more formalised distance between the teacher and students. The visiting Canadians are accustomed to a more interactive pedagogy, one that perhaps lends itself to the desired CLIL didactics. One way this was expressed was the domination of the visiting students in the classroom where they had confidence in using the language of instruction and had a cultural background of freely offering opinions and asking questions. These aspects were more challenging to the domestic students. This likely affected the classroom dynamics, and scholars in the CLIL field have remarked that there is a need for more training in delivering the CLIL approach (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2010; Ruiz de Zarobe and Lasagabaster 2010), a need which is perhaps also shown in this study.

Of course, IaH is not confined to the students but includes faculty as well, and in this case, it might have presented an additional challenge to the instructor who may have been teaching in what was for them a second language. The faculty was not the focus of this study but is undoubtedly affected by this meeting of CLIL and IaH and is probably an area for further study.

Diversity also happens outside of the classroom, and difficulties in interaction previously reported in the IaH literature are that international students are more likely to develop international relationships, while domestic students tend to stay within their own groups. Several reasons offered for this in addition to fear of grades being affected as a result of the challenges of working with international students (Strauss et al. 2014), include the difference in cultures, a passive xenophobia, and a fear of causing or experiencing embarrassment (Harrison and Peacock 2009; Urban and Palmer 2014). However, in this study, little resistance to mixing with the visiting students was reported which may be due to the small number of students, or it may be that the language needs inherent within the CLIL programme were enough to impel the students to overcome these obstacles. For many Asian CLIL programmes, the classroom is the only area where the target language needs to be used, and it is absent outside of the classroom. Language needs have frequently been offered as the main motivator to overcome these barriers and engender greater intercultural contact and, as such, lend positive encouragement to the marriage of CLIL and IaH. At the same time, some students observed that most of the opportunities for interaction and friendship were taken up by the students serving as study buddies. The remaining students did not get to spend as much time with the visiting students as they expected or wished. This follows other authors’ suggestions that a certain degree of management is required for meaningful interaction to take place between international and domestic student groups (Harrison 2015; Jon 2013).

It is also likely that the international outlook, one of the main goals of a CLIL programme, prompted the students to easily accept the visiting students in a positive light. This is where the goals of IaH and CLIL again overlap in the opportunity for the students as a resource for cultural exchange. Although content and language learning are explicit within the goals of CLIL, Coyle (2007) offered that culture permeates the whole framework and is an area where the marriage has strong appeal. In this study, the students appeared to be positive about the cultural exchanges and the opportunity to learn more about Canadian culture.

IaH seeks to internationalise the curriculum, and a simple observation is that a Taiwanese higher education institution offering the content in English is taking a big step towards meeting that goal. Indeed, for many of the international and domestic students, this is the attractive aspect of the course, and CLIL is arguably a pedagogic example of an internationalised curriculum. Within that curriculum, a gap, common to much research in CLIL, is the assessment of whether the approach is advantageous or disadvantageous for the learning of content. This question was not addressed in this study. However, an observation offered is that over time the curriculum will have to benefit and attract both student cohorts, and it is possible to speculate that there will be an ongoing evolution in content to that of greater internationalisation.

Conclusion

As has already been remarked, this study is of an exploratory nature and is focused on a small group. There is thus a need for a larger-scale longitudinal study, but with that caveat the study makes several contributions and points to some indications for the fields of CLIL and IaH.

Firstly, the changing demographics of international study suggests that there will be an increase in students studying in Asian universities coming from what have been considered as traditional bases of English. This is an under-researched phenomenon, and this study indicates that it can have positive results for meeting institutional and student goals. Most importantly, there appears to be positive motivation for the domestic students, and there are increased opportunities for gains in language learning and for intercultural exchange.

In this case, these results are achieved through a marriage of convenience between CLIL and IaH. This is an area of obvious expediency for university administrations that is likely to grow in the future, and this study suggests there are still areas that need attention and development. As with other CLIL programmes, there are challenges for the instructor, and there is a suggestion for more instructor training or guidance to achieve the most gains through student interaction and to ameliorate concerns regarding assessments and so on. In a CLIL programme, students perhaps have a greater awareness of the potential goals of intercultural interaction and a readiness to grasp the utility of native language speaking students, but there is still a need to engineer and accommodate intercultural mixing.

Finally, this study raises the importance of the consideration of the position and reaction of domestic students, particularly in the case of their reaction to students who have the desired target language. The domestic CLIL learners of this marriage between CLIL and IaH also have a voice that needs to be listened to.

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by the Ministry of Sciences and Technology, Taiwan (MOST 108-2410-H-328-002-).

References

  • Aguilar, M. and C. Muñoz (2014), ‘The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in Engineering students in Spain’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24, no. 1: 118. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beelen, J. and E. Jones (2015), ‘Europe calling: A new definition for internationalization at home’, International Higher Education 83: 1213. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.83.9080.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benson, K. (2015), International Trends in Higher Education 2015 (Oxford: The University of Oxford International Strategy Office).

  • Calderon, A. (2018), ‘Massification of higher education revisited’, Inside Higher Education, http://cdn02.pucp.education/academico/2018/08/23165810/na_mass_revis_230818.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, T.-L., C.-C. Shen and M. Gosling (2021), ‘To stay or not to stay? The causal effect of interns’ career intention on enhanced employability and retention in the hospitality and tourism industry’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28, no. 1: Article 100305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100305.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, Y.-L. E. and D. Kraklow (2014), ‘Taiwanese college students’ motivation and engagement for English learning in the context of Internationalization at Home: A comparison of students in EMI and Non-EMI programmes’, Journal of Studies in International Education 19, no. 1: 4664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314533607.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coonan, C. (2007), ‘Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observation-Introspection’, The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, no. 5: 625646.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coyle, D. (2007), ‘Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, no. 5: 543562. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coyle, D., P. Hood and D. Marsh (2010), CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

  • Creswell, J. and C. Plano (2007), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications).

  • Crowther, P., M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens and B. Wächter (2000), Internationalisation at Home: A Position Paper (Amsterdam: European Association for International Education).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008), ‘Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe’, in W. Delanoy and L. Volkmann (eds), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching (Heidelberg: Carl Winter), 139157.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de Wit, H. and P. G. Altbach (2021), ‘Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future’, Policy Reviews in Higher Education 5, no. 1: 2846. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de Zarobe, Y. R. (2015), ‘The effects of implementing CLIL’, in M. Juan-Garau and J. Salazar-Noguera (eds), Content-based Language Learning in Multilingual Educational Environments (New York: Springer, Cham), 5168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunne, C. (2013), ‘Exploring motivations for intercultural contact among host country university students: An Irish case study’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37, no. 5: 567578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.06.003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ETS (2021), Mapping the TOEIC tests on the CEFR, https://www.ets.org/s/toeic/pdf/toeic-cefr-flyer.pdf.

  • Eurydice (2006), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe (Brussels: European Commission).

  • Harrison, N. (2015), ‘Practice, problems and power in “internationalisation at home”: Critical reflections on recent research evidence’, Teaching in Higher Education 20, no. 4: 412430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1022147.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harrison, N. and N. Peacock (2009), ‘Cultural distance, mindfulness and passive xenophobia: Using integrated threat theory to explore home higher education students’ perspectives on “internationalisation at home”’, British Educational Research Journal 36, no 6: 877902. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903191047.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hou, J. and L. McDowell (2014), ‘Learning Together? Experiences on a China–UK articulation programme in engineering’, Journal of Studies in International Education 18, no. 3: 223240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313497591.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ishikura, Y. (2015), ‘Realizing internationalization at home through English-medium courses at a Japanese University: Strategies to maximize student learning’, Higher Learning Research Communications 5, no. 1: 1128. http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i1.237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johnstone, C. (2015), Study of the Educational Impact of International Students in Campus Internationalization at the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jon, J.-E. (2013), ‘Realizing Internationalization at Home in Korean higher education: Promoting domestic students’ interaction with international students and intercultural competence’, Journal of Studies in International Education 17, no. 4: 455470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312468329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knight, J. (2001), ‘Monitoring the quality and progress of internationalization’, Journal of Studies in International Education 5, no. 3: 228243. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831530153004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lasagabaster, D. and J. M. Sierra (2010), ‘Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities’, ELT Journal 64, no. 4: 367375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lin, A. F. Y. (2020), ‘Internationalization initiatives of Taiwan's higher education: A stepping stone to regional talent circulation or reproduction of unbalanced mobility scheme?’, Higher Education Evaluation and Development 14, no. 2: 6991. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-06-2020-0017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, M. Q., J. R. Qiu and J. L. Hu (2006), Competitive Advantages Enhanced through Official Education: Survey of Competitive Advantages of College and University Graduates, White Paper on Vocational Education (Taipei: National Youth Commission, Executive Yuan).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luo, J. and D. Jamieson-Drake (2013), ‘Examining the educational benefits of interacting. with international students’, Journal of International Students 3, no. 2: 85101. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v3i2.503.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marsh, D. and G. Langé (2000), Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages (Finland: University of Jyväskylä).

  • Ministry of Education (MOE) (2016), Education in Taiwan 2016/2017, http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/69810423371.pdf.

  • OECD (2016), Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators (Paris: OECD Publishing).

  • Pan, Y.-C. (2015), ‘Test impact: English certification exit requirements in Taiwan’, TEFLIN. Journal 20, no. 2: 119139. http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v20i2/119-139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Parsons, R. L. (2009), ‘The effects of an internationalized university experience on domestic students in the United States and Australia’, Journal of Studies in International Education 14, no. 4: 313334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309331390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peacock, N. and N. Harrison (2008), ‘“It's so much easier to go with what's easy”: “Mindfulness” and the discourse between home and international students in the United Kingdom’, Journal of Studies in International Education 13, no. 4: 487508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308319508.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perez-Canado, M. L. (2011), ‘CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, no. 3: 315341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) (2019), Your Higher Education Spotlight on Asia, http://info.qs.com/rs/335-VIN-535/images/Your-Higher-Education-Spotlight-on-Asia-Report_FINAL.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and D. Lasagabaster (2010), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shaftel, J., T. Shaftel and R. Ahluwalia (2007), ‘International educational experience and intercultural competence’, International Journal of Business & Economics 6, no. 1: 2534.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Soria, K. M. and J. Troisi (2014), ‘Internationalization at Home alternatives to study abroad: Implications for students’ development of global, international, and intercultural competencies’, Journal of Studies in International Education 18, 3: 261280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313496572.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Strauss, P., A. U-Mackey and C. Crothers (2014), ‘“They drag my marks down!”: Challenges faced by lecturers in the allocation of marks for multicultural group projects’, Intercultural Education 25, no 3: 229241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2014.905361.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tudor, I. (2008), ‘The language challenge for higher education institutions in Europe, and the. specific case of CLIL’, in J. Marti Castell and J. M. Mestres Serra (eds), El Multilingüisme a les Universitats en l'Espai Europeu d'Educaió Superior (Barcelona: Institut d'Estudis Catalans), 4164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Urban, E. L. and L. B. Palmer (2014), ‘International students as a resource for internationalization of higher education’, Journal of Studies in International Education 18, no. 4: 305324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313511642.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Mensel, L., A. Bulon, I. Hendrikx, F. Meunier and K. Van Goethem (2020), ‘Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch: CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium’, Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 8, no. 2: 173199. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18034.van.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wächter, B. (2003), ‘An introduction: Internationalisation at home in context’, Journal of Studies in International Education 7, no. 1: 511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315302250176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wiriyachitra, A. (2002), ‘English language teaching and learning in Thailand in this decade’, Thai TESOL Focus 15, no. 1: 49.

  • Yang, W. (2017), ‘Tuning university undergraduates for high mobility and employability under the content and language integrated learning approach’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20, no. 6: 607624. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1061474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yang, W. and M. Gosling (2014), ‘What makes a Taiwan CLIL programme highly recommended or not recommended?’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 17, no. 4: 394409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.808168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zainuddin, S. Z. B., S. Pillai, F. P. Dumanig and A. Phillip (2019), ‘English language and graduate employability’, Education+ Training 61, no. 1: 7993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zehrer, A. and C. Mössenlechner (2009), ‘Key competencies of tourism graduates: The employers’ point of view’, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism 9, nos. 3–4: 266287. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220903445215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Contributor Notes

Mark Gosling is Assistant Professor at the Department of Applied English and former section chief in the International Affairs Office at National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan. His teaching and research interests include management, Content and Language Integrated Learning, and business ethics. Email: markg@mail.nkuht.edu.tw

Wenhsien Yang is Full Professor at the Department of Applied English and the Dean of the International College at National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan. His research interests include English for Specific Purposes, Content and Language Integrated Learning, bilingual education and genre analysis. He has published papers and book chapters in academic journals, such as International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, English for Specific Purposes Journal, and English Teaching and Learning. Email: yangwenhsien@mail.nkuht.edu.tw (corresponding author)

  • Collapse
  • Expand

Learning and Teaching

The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences

  • Aguilar, M. and C. Muñoz (2014), ‘The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in Engineering students in Spain’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24, no. 1: 118. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12006.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beelen, J. and E. Jones (2015), ‘Europe calling: A new definition for internationalization at home’, International Higher Education 83: 1213. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.83.9080.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benson, K. (2015), International Trends in Higher Education 2015 (Oxford: The University of Oxford International Strategy Office).

  • Calderon, A. (2018), ‘Massification of higher education revisited’, Inside Higher Education, http://cdn02.pucp.education/academico/2018/08/23165810/na_mass_revis_230818.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, T.-L., C.-C. Shen and M. Gosling (2021), ‘To stay or not to stay? The causal effect of interns’ career intention on enhanced employability and retention in the hospitality and tourism industry’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28, no. 1: Article 100305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100305.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, Y.-L. E. and D. Kraklow (2014), ‘Taiwanese college students’ motivation and engagement for English learning in the context of Internationalization at Home: A comparison of students in EMI and Non-EMI programmes’, Journal of Studies in International Education 19, no. 1: 4664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314533607.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coonan, C. (2007), ‘Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observation-Introspection’, The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, no. 5: 625646.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coyle, D. (2007), ‘Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, no. 5: 543562. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coyle, D., P. Hood and D. Marsh (2010), CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

  • Creswell, J. and C. Plano (2007), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications).

  • Crowther, P., M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens and B. Wächter (2000), Internationalisation at Home: A Position Paper (Amsterdam: European Association for International Education).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008), ‘Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe’, in W. Delanoy and L. Volkmann (eds), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching (Heidelberg: Carl Winter), 139157.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de Wit, H. and P. G. Altbach (2021), ‘Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future’, Policy Reviews in Higher Education 5, no. 1: 2846. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de Zarobe, Y. R. (2015), ‘The effects of implementing CLIL’, in M. Juan-Garau and J. Salazar-Noguera (eds), Content-based Language Learning in Multilingual Educational Environments (New York: Springer, Cham), 5168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunne, C. (2013), ‘Exploring motivations for intercultural contact among host country university students: An Irish case study’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37, no. 5: 567578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.06.003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ETS (2021), Mapping the TOEIC tests on the CEFR, https://www.ets.org/s/toeic/pdf/toeic-cefr-flyer.pdf.

  • Eurydice (2006), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe (Brussels: European Commission).

  • Harrison, N. (2015), ‘Practice, problems and power in “internationalisation at home”: Critical reflections on recent research evidence’, Teaching in Higher Education 20, no. 4: 412430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1022147.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harrison, N. and N. Peacock (2009), ‘Cultural distance, mindfulness and passive xenophobia: Using integrated threat theory to explore home higher education students’ perspectives on “internationalisation at home”’, British Educational Research Journal 36, no 6: 877902. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903191047.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hou, J. and L. McDowell (2014), ‘Learning Together? Experiences on a China–UK articulation programme in engineering’, Journal of Studies in International Education 18, no. 3: 223240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313497591.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ishikura, Y. (2015), ‘Realizing internationalization at home through English-medium courses at a Japanese University: Strategies to maximize student learning’, Higher Learning Research Communications 5, no. 1: 1128. http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i1.237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johnstone, C. (2015), Study of the Educational Impact of International Students in Campus Internationalization at the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jon, J.-E. (2013), ‘Realizing Internationalization at Home in Korean higher education: Promoting domestic students’ interaction with international students and intercultural competence’, Journal of Studies in International Education 17, no. 4: 455470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312468329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knight, J. (2001), ‘Monitoring the quality and progress of internationalization’, Journal of Studies in International Education 5, no. 3: 228243. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831530153004.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lasagabaster, D. and J. M. Sierra (2010), ‘Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities’, ELT Journal 64, no. 4: 367375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp082.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lin, A. F. Y. (2020), ‘Internationalization initiatives of Taiwan's higher education: A stepping stone to regional talent circulation or reproduction of unbalanced mobility scheme?’, Higher Education Evaluation and Development 14, no. 2: 6991. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-06-2020-0017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, M. Q., J. R. Qiu and J. L. Hu (2006), Competitive Advantages Enhanced through Official Education: Survey of Competitive Advantages of College and University Graduates, White Paper on Vocational Education (Taipei: National Youth Commission, Executive Yuan).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luo, J. and D. Jamieson-Drake (2013), ‘Examining the educational benefits of interacting. with international students’, Journal of International Students 3, no. 2: 85101. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v3i2.503.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marsh, D. and G. Langé (2000), Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages (Finland: University of Jyväskylä).

  • Ministry of Education (MOE) (2016), Education in Taiwan 2016/2017, http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/69810423371.pdf.

  • OECD (2016), Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators (Paris: OECD Publishing).

  • Pan, Y.-C. (2015), ‘Test impact: English certification exit requirements in Taiwan’, TEFLIN. Journal 20, no. 2: 119139. http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v20i2/119-139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Parsons, R. L. (2009), ‘The effects of an internationalized university experience on domestic students in the United States and Australia’, Journal of Studies in International Education 14, no. 4: 313334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309331390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peacock, N. and N. Harrison (2008), ‘“It's so much easier to go with what's easy”: “Mindfulness” and the discourse between home and international students in the United Kingdom’, Journal of Studies in International Education 13, no. 4: 487508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308319508.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perez-Canado, M. L. (2011), ‘CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, no. 3: 315341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) (2019), Your Higher Education Spotlight on Asia, http://info.qs.com/rs/335-VIN-535/images/Your-Higher-Education-Spotlight-on-Asia-Report_FINAL.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and D. Lasagabaster (2010), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shaftel, J., T. Shaftel and R. Ahluwalia (2007), ‘International educational experience and intercultural competence’, International Journal of Business & Economics 6, no. 1: 2534.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Soria, K. M. and J. Troisi (2014), ‘Internationalization at Home alternatives to study abroad: Implications for students’ development of global, international, and intercultural competencies’, Journal of Studies in International Education 18, 3: 261280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313496572.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Strauss, P., A. U-Mackey and C. Crothers (2014), ‘“They drag my marks down!”: Challenges faced by lecturers in the allocation of marks for multicultural group projects’, Intercultural Education 25, no 3: 229241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2014.905361.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tudor, I. (2008), ‘The language challenge for higher education institutions in Europe, and the. specific case of CLIL’, in J. Marti Castell and J. M. Mestres Serra (eds), El Multilingüisme a les Universitats en l'Espai Europeu d'Educaió Superior (Barcelona: Institut d'Estudis Catalans), 4164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Urban, E. L. and L. B. Palmer (2014), ‘International students as a resource for internationalization of higher education’, Journal of Studies in International Education 18, no. 4: 305324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315313511642.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Mensel, L., A. Bulon, I. Hendrikx, F. Meunier and K. Van Goethem (2020), ‘Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch: CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium’, Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 8, no. 2: 173199. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18034.van.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wächter, B. (2003), ‘An introduction: Internationalisation at home in context’, Journal of Studies in International Education 7, no. 1: 511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315302250176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wiriyachitra, A. (2002), ‘English language teaching and learning in Thailand in this decade’, Thai TESOL Focus 15, no. 1: 49.

  • Yang, W. (2017), ‘Tuning university undergraduates for high mobility and employability under the content and language integrated learning approach’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20, no. 6: 607624. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1061474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yang, W. and M. Gosling (2014), ‘What makes a Taiwan CLIL programme highly recommended or not recommended?’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 17, no. 4: 394409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.808168.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zainuddin, S. Z. B., S. Pillai, F. P. Dumanig and A. Phillip (2019), ‘English language and graduate employability’, Education+ Training 61, no. 1: 7993.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zehrer, A. and C. Mössenlechner (2009), ‘Key competencies of tourism graduates: The employers’ point of view’, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism 9, nos. 3–4: 266287. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220903445215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1089 466 33
PDF Downloads 922 412 17