Redeﬁning Internationalization at Home
Jos Beelen and Elspeth Jones
Internationalization at Home (IaH) may be thought of as a rather narrow concept
when the broader notion of internationalization of the curriculum is becoming
increasingly the focus of attention in universities. This paper will argue that, nev-
ertheless, IaH remains a useful concept in certain contexts and for certain purposes.
For this reason a new deﬁnition will be proposed, which the authors hope will
support its implementation.
We begin with a discussion of three concepts and their accepted deﬁnitions:
those of internationalization, ‘Comprehensive Internationalization’and interna-
tionalization of the curriculum. We then consider other, more contested issues.
We do not discuss a number of other notions that could be considered elements
within an internationalized curriculum, such as Global education, Global learning,
Education for global perspectives and Education for global citizenship, to name but
a few. Those are subjects for other papers. Another aspect beyond the scope of this
article is discussion of the term ‘curriculum’itself, which has been variously
interpreted (e.g. Biggs and Tang 2007; Webb 2005). We use the terms formal and
informal curriculum, and accept that the formal curriculum includes pedagogy
(teaching, learning and assessment) as a vehicle for its delivery.
Centre for Applied Research on Economics and Management, Amsterdam University
of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
E. Jones (&)
Internationalisation of Higher Education, Harrogate, UK
©The Author(s) 2015
A. Curaj et al. (eds.), The European Higher Education Area,
2 Accepted Deﬁnitions
The most frequently cited and most widely accepted deﬁnition of internationali-
zation is that by Knight: “The process of integrating an international, intercultural,
or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary
education.”(Knight 2004, p. 11).
Strong elements of this deﬁnition are the articulation of internationalization as a
process, and the mention of the international and intercultural dimensions of the
curriculum. These two aspects were important features at the time. The deﬁnition is
also sufﬁciently broad as to encompass all activities of a contemporary university.
This paper takes as accepted Knight’sdeﬁnition, given its frequent and wide-
2.2 Comprehensive Internationalization
Recent debates around comprehensive internationalization (CI) have sought to
make clear the full extent of internationalization if an institution is to take seriously
the challenges it poses. In effect, then, the concept of CI is an extension of Knight’s
broad-based deﬁnition. Hudzik provides an extended ‘deﬁnition’of CI which
encapsulates the concept: “Comprehensive internationalization is a commitment,
conﬁrmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives
throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education. It
shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education
enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance,
faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. It is an institutional
imperative, not just a desirable possibility. Comprehensive internationalization not
only impacts all of campus life but the institution’s external frames of reference,
partnerships, and relations. The global reconﬁguration of economies, systems of
trade, research, and communication, and the impact of global forces on local life,
dramatically expand the need for comprehensive internationalization and the
motivations and purposes driving it.”(Hudzik 2011,p.6).
A shorter version is offered by NAFSA: “Comprehensive internationalization”is
the planned, strategic integration of international, intercultural, and global dimen-
sions into the ethos and outcomes of higher education (NAFSA 2014, p. 1).
It is clear that CI goes well beyond the curriculum itself, but that this is a key
element of a comprehensive approach, just as it is implied in Knight’sdeﬁnition of
internationalization in 2004. Whitsed and Green (2013) go so far as to argue that CI
cannot exist without internationalization of the curriculum.
60 J. Beelen and E. Jones
2.3 Internationalization of the Curriculum
Leask’s recent work sees curriculum internationalization being enacted not only
through the formal, assessed curriculum, and the teaching, learning and assessment
required to deliver it, but also through the informal curriculum. Formal curriculum
is deﬁned as: “The syllabus as well as the orderly, planned schedule of experiences
and activities that students must undertake as part of their degree program.”(Leask
2015 in press, p. 8).
While informal curriculum is described as: “Various support services and
additional activities and options organized by the university that are not assessed
and do not form part of the formal curriculum, although they may support learning
within it.”(Leask 2015 in press, p. 8).
Leask’s most frequently cited deﬁnition of the process of internationalizing the
curriculum (IoC), concentrates on the formal, assessable curriculum: “The incor-
poration of an international and intercultural dimension into the preparation,
delivery and outcomes of a program of study.”(Leask 2009, p. 209).
Throughout her work, Leask has stressed the importance of the careful con-
struction of learning environments and made speciﬁc reference to teaching, learning
and assessment processes, thus accepting their importance in delivering the inter-
nationalized curriculum. A new deﬁnition therefore makes this even more explicit
and updates the 2009 deﬁnition: “Internationalization of the curriculum is the
incorporation of international, intercultural and/or global dimensions into the content
of the curriculum as well as the learning outcomes, assessment tasks, teaching
methods and support services of a program of study”(Leask 2015 in press, p. 9).
This paper takes as accepted Leask’s(2015 in press) deﬁnition of internation-
alization of the curriculum, as shown here.
3 Contested Deﬁnitions
3.1 Internationalization at Home and Abroad
In a later discussion of key concepts, elements and rationales, Knight (2006) dis-
tinguishes Internationalization at Home as one of two streams in internationaliza-
tion, which she sees as interdependent rather than independent. She asserts that
Internationalization Abroad consists of all forms of education across borders,
mobility of students, teachers, scholars, programs, courses, curriculum and projects.
Internationalization at Home, on the other hand comprises activities that help stu-
dents develop international understanding and intercultural skills. This is a prob-
lematic distinction, apparently suggesting, for example, that Internationalization
Abroad does not develop international understanding and intercultural skills, and
that curriculum is not directly included in Internationalization at Home.
Redeﬁning Internationalization at Home 61
However, in further explanation, Knight does mention as “Internationalization at
Home-related factors”: the international/intercultural dimension of the curriculum,
research collaboration and area and foreign language studies (Knight 2006, p. 128).
Elsewhere, she includes curriculum as one of a ‘diversity of activities’that constitute
Internationalization at Home: curriculum and programs, teaching/learning processes,
extra-curricular activities, liaison with local cultural/ethnic groups and research or
scholarly activity (Knight 2006, p. 27). The authors feel that this undervalues the
fundamental role of curriculum in the enterprise of Internationalization at Home, and
that it is neither a ‘related factor’, nor an ‘activity’, but is at the heart of the concept.
3.2 The OECD Deﬁnition of an Internationalized
Prior to the deﬁnition of IaH (Crowther et al. 2001) and IoC (Leask 2009), an
internationalized curriculum had already been deﬁned by the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development: “A curriculum with an international
orientation in content and/or form, aimed at preparing students for performing
(professionally/socially) in an international and multicultural context and designed
for domestic and/or foreign students.”(OECD 1996, p. 6).
There was a prior version of this deﬁnition (Bremer and Van der Wende 1995,
p. 10), which included only international content, but it was later modiﬁed to this
1996 version which includes “the form”of the curriculum as well. Having two very
similar versions has led to some confusion, with both deﬁnitions being frequently
used until this day.
Rizvi (2007, p. 391) criticizes the OECD deﬁnition in its original version
(Bremer and Van der Wende 1995), which he ﬁnds represents a “neo-liberal
imaginary of global processes”. Beelen (2014) considers the OECD deﬁnition
unworkable, since it stimulates a very narrow view of an internationalized curric-
ulum, for example that it could be a curriculum with international content for
international students only. Moreover, it does not appear to recognize intercultural
opportunities in a domestic context. The authors believe that the OECD deﬁnition is
no longer ﬁt for purpose.
3.3 Campus Internationalization
Campus Internationalization, although frequently used in the context of universities
in the United States, is poorly deﬁned. Green and Olson (2003), in a work that bears
the title ‘Internationalization of the campus’, discuss a range of terminology without
deﬁning campus internationalization as such. Nevertheless, it continues to be used
often, confusingly, as a synonym for Comprehensive Internationalization. An
example of this is in the online resources for internationalization of the curriculum
62 J. Beelen and E. Jones
by The American Council on Education, which are presented under the heading
‘campus internationalization’and based on the six interconnected target areas from
CIGE’s Model for Comprehensive Internationalization (American Council on
Campus internationalization focuses on creating a learning environment on
campus that may encompass both the formal and the informal curriculum, but seems
mostly aimed at the latter, i.e. the non-assessed elements, and yet it also includes
Study Abroad. It includes both providing a welcoming environment for international
students as well as stimulating outgoing mobility. This broad focus is demonstrated
by the Andrew Heiskell Awards for Innovation in International Education, which
recognize “outstanding initiatives”in different categories, including “international-
izing the campus”. These have been awarded by the Institute of International
Education since 2001. Dutschke (2009, pp. 70–72) mentions two winning practices,
one of which involved a year of study abroad, while the other consisted of a
short-term study trip. He therefore concludes that study abroad is still the main
component of internationalization at most American universities and, moreover, that
on-campus activities are often dependent on and linked to study abroad. Recipients
of the 2014 Heiskell awards appear to represent a similar pattern (IIE 2014).
NAFSA’s annual Senator Paul Simon awards for Campus Internationalization
reﬂect a similar confusion of terms, as these also include Comprehensive
Internationalization (see NAFSA 2014 for this year’s recipients). However it is stated
that the awards recognize ‘excellence in integrating international education across all
aspects of college and university campuses’, which suggests they are intended to
focus on the domestic campus.
As far as we can ascertain, Internationalization at Home differs from Campus
Internationalization, according to these examples. For Internationalization at Home,
international and intercultural teaching and learning on the domestic campus is the
main aim, irrespective of whether the student experience is enhanced by mobility.
4 Internationalization at Home
4.1 What Internationalization at Home Means
While the context and delivery of Internationalization at Home need to be con-
sidered from organizational and academic viewpoints, the ultimate beneﬁciaries are
the students, in this case all students, not simply those who have a mobility
experience, and it is their perspective which is key in conceptualizing its meaning.
IaH is distinctive through this explicit focus on all students in the core (compulsory)
curriculum. This means that locating internationalization of the home curriculum in
electives alone is insufﬁcient, since such electives do not reach all students. In
addition to the formal, assessed, curriculum, Internationalization at Home is also
delivered through the informal curriculum, the non-assessed elements of the student
experience, which are nevertheless provided by or associated with the institution.
Redeﬁning Internationalization at Home 63
Beelen and Leask (2011, p. 5) stress that Internationalization at Home is not an
aim or a didactic concept in itself, but rather a set of instruments and activities ‘at
home’that aim to develop international and intercultural competences in all stu-
dents. Just as with internationalization of the curriculum in general, IaH is speciﬁc
to the context of a discipline and, within that, to a program of study in a given
university (Leask 2012).
Internationalization at Home does not require the presence of international
students, although that can be a beneﬁt. If a broad concept of ‘culture’is accepted
(e.g. Jones 2013b; Jones and Killick 2013; Loden 1996), then every classroom has a
diverse range of students. This can be the basis for exploration of the international
and intercultural dimensions of the curriculum, whether or not international stu-
dents are present.
Thus in, for example, the western European context, the language of instruction
is not a relevant consideration in understanding or delivering IaH. Simply providing
a program in English is insufﬁcient for it to be considered an internationalized
curriculum. If the program content and learning outcomes are not internationalized,
and remain the same as in the original language, merely changing the language of
instruction will not make them so.
A variety of instruments can be used to internationalize teaching and learning:
comparative international literature, guest lectures by speakers from local cultural
groups or international companies, guest lecturers of international partner univer-
sities, international case studies and practice or, increasingly, digital learning and on
line collaboration. Indeed, technology-based solutions can ensure equal access to
internationalization opportunities for all students.
The same is true for engagement with local cultural and international groups,
which may also be available to all students, and can be considered a distinctive
element of Internationalization at Home. Engagement may be as part of the formal
curriculum through guest lectures and educational activities or part of the informal,
non-assessed curriculum. However, it must be acknowledged that such arrange-
ments may not be possible in all contexts.
Nonetheless, these types of activity are simply pedagogic tools and fundamen-
tally, the internationalization of learning outcomes, pedagogy and assessment are at
the heart of Internationalization at Home, just as for curriculum internationalization
Internationalization at Home may look different in different contexts. In the geo-
graphical circumstances of Western Europe it operates on the assumption that stu-
dents who do not go abroad for a traditional study period or placement may still travel
to countries with different cultures and languages for personal reasons, which is not
always the case in other parts of the world. Furthermore, in Western Europe, where
distances between countries are small, short (even 2–3 days) faculty-led study visits to
neighbouring countries are on the increase, facilitated by cheap air travel (Beelen
2014). This means that, geography permitting, universities can add short-term
mobility within the curriculum, although this is not an option for all countries in the
world. In the case of short-term mobility, although the actual time spent abroad may
be relatively limited compared with traditional one or two semester credit mobility
64 J. Beelen and E. Jones
programs, nevertheless it is the foreign country setting (customs, languages, lifestyles
and so on) which provides the opportunity for intercultural learning.
The experience of mobility in general, whether short or long term, can however
make a meaningful contribution to Internationalization at Home by extension into
the domestic curriculum. This may be achieved, for example, through exploration
of what students had learned from the experience, alternative perspectives they had
gained or other dimensions of intercultural competence developed. By sharing their
views with others who had not been mobile, all students can beneﬁt, rather than
simply the mobile minority.
Within internationalization, the focus is shifting from input and output to out-
comes and these are not dependent on location (Aerden 2014; Leask 2015 in press).
An example is in the online delivery of education which may cause a student to be
enrolled in a foreign university while remaining ‘at home’or in another location.
A second is that in some western European countries, students may live in one
country and be enrolled in a university across a geographical border. This is the
case, for example when Dutch students study in Belgium or German students study
in The Netherlands.
Transnational education (TNE), deﬁned as ‘Award- or credit-bearing learning
undertaken by students who are based in a different country from that of the
awarding institution’(O’Mahony 2014), is also problematic for traditional distinc-
tions between home and abroad. Speciﬁcally, it poses questions for
Internationalization at Home, since an international student enrolled in an offshore
university campus may neither be at home, nor in the country of the awarding
university. An example of this would be an Indonesian student studying in
Singapore on an Australian degree program or a Vietnamese student studying in
Malaysia at the campus of a UK university. Such students must not be forgotten in
the drive to internationalize the curriculum.
In reviewing the origins of IaH, Teekens points out that, ‘The main concern of
internationalization at home remains just as relevant today: what do we do with the
vast majority of students who are not exposed to intercultural learning and an
international experience?’(Teekens 2013, p. 1).
4.2 Internationalization at Home: The Emergence
of the Concept
The emergence of Internationalization at Home in 2001 can be interpreted as a
response to the dominant practice of equating internationalization with student
mobility, supported by generously funded programs like Erasmus. Yet, the ﬁrst
version of the Erasmus program (1987) stimulated individual lecturers to learn
about curricula and teaching methods through meetings with colleagues in other
countries. This enabled the development of curricula, modules, teaching materials
and other educational products, which extended the focus to European and inter-
cultural dimensions in education.
Redeﬁning Internationalization at Home 65
With the introduction of Socrates I (1994), responsibility for the administration
of partnerships shifted from academics to administrators, for example in the
International Ofﬁce, which gradually led to the mobility aspect gaining ground over
curriculum. This development was criticized by both administrators and academics
as a top down method, compared to the bottom up approach of the ﬁrst phase of
Erasmus (De Wit 2002, p. 56). The shift from collaboration between individual
academics to institutional collaboration and student mobility caused De Wit,
looking back at 25 years of Erasmus, to express the wish that Erasmus would
rekindle its previous “focus on curriculum and learning outcomes”, which would
also increase the engagement of academics (De Wit 2012). This move away from
viewing the role of mobility as just one element of curriculum internationalization is
particularly important. Lack of engagement by academics, in combination with
skills deﬁcits are acknowledged by many as the main obstacles to internationali-
zation (e.g. Egron-Polak and Hudson 2014, p. 68). The more mobility is seen as an
administrative task rather than as part of the academic curriculum, the less focus
there will be on the learning outcomes arising from mobility and, in consequence,
less engagement of academics in the process.
More recently, however, an increasing concentration on internationalizing
learning outcomes is drawing attention to the need for structured and purposeful
delivery of the international and intercultural dimensions of the curriculum (Aerden
2014; Egron-Polak and Hudson 2014; Leask 2015 in press). This means that
academic staff are the key players once more, just as in the days of the ﬁrst Erasmus
program. The difference being that the focus is on internationalized learning out-
comes and curriculum internationalization, in contrast to international partnerships.
In the European context, the Bologna process was at the basis of the learning
outcomes approach as a means of making programs more transparent. While
Bologna was speciﬁcally aimed at structural reform, it may be argued that it has
ultimately had an impact on the content and delivery of programs as well.
Yet, the articulation and assessment of internationalized learning outcomes
remains relatively under-reported. For this reason, Jones (2013a, p. 113) concludes
that the literature only contains a limited number of studies into the achievement of
internationalized learning outcomes, and notices a “relative lack of research into the
outcomes of an internationalized curriculum for all students”. Another issue that
will require sustained attention in the years to come is the alignment of interna-
tionalized learning outcomes with their assessment in a domestic context and across
the years of a program of study (see Jones and Killick 2013).
4.3 Existing Deﬁnition
The only existing deﬁnition of Internationalization at Home is fairly short and
narrow. “Any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student
and staff mobility.”(Crowther et al. 2001, p. 8).
66 J. Beelen and E. Jones
One of the issues with the deﬁnition is that it does not indicate what
Internationalization at Home actually is, concentrating rather on what it is not.
Another is that it does not mention the intercultural dimension or the acquisition of
intercultural skills, while these were intended as key elements of IaH from the
outset (Crowther et al. 2001).
4.4 Critiques and Appreciation
Over the years, Internationalization at Home has been criticized in the literature. It
stands out as a western concept and has therefore been approached with criticism by
African scholars (Brewer and Leask 2012, p. 247), and is not high on the agenda of
universities in Asia.
Internationalization at Home has also been called a “movement”, criticized for
focusing on means rather than aims, and shifting into “instrumental mode”
(Brandenburg and De Wit 2010, p. 16); for a tendency to focus on “activity and not
results as indicators of quality”(Whitsed and Green 2013); or pretending to be
guided by high moral principles, while not actively pursuing them (De Wit and
Beelen 2014, May 2). Rizvi (2007, p. 391) refers to Internationalization at Home as
an “activist network”.
Yet, on the whole, internationalization of the curriculum at home has positive
connotations, which led the (International Association of Universities 2012, pp. 4–5)
to call on all universities to “afﬁrm internationalization’s underlying values, prin-
ciples and goals”through “pursuit of the internationalization of the curriculum as
well as extra curricula [sic] activities so that non-mobile students, still the over-
whelming majority, can also beneﬁt from internationalization and gain the global
competences they will need.”
4.5 Continued Relevance of IaH as a Concept
In spite of the imperfect deﬁnition of Crowther et al. (2001), the concept of
Internationalization at Home still seems to play a useful role in certain contexts,
particularly where the emphasis of internationalization efforts has traditionally been
on mobility. By including IaH in the recent European Policy statement, European
higher education in the world (European Commission 2013), it might even be said
that IaH has gained momentum, and has moved into the centre of the debate on the
internationalization of higher education. It has made its way into the policy agendas of
many universities, and is also on the way to becoming part of the educational policies
of some member states. For example, in The Netherlands, Nufﬁc has published two
studies (Van Gaalen et al. 2014a,b), which form the basis for a Dutch national policy
for Internationalization at Home. This increased attention is not limited to Europe, but
it is also gaining traction for instance in South Africa and Latin America.
Redeﬁning Internationalization at Home 67
The continuing popularity of Internationalization at Home is enough reason in
itself to explore the concept, deﬁnition and development in more detail. However,
and more importantly, IaH is still used as a contrast to mobility within the broader
concept of internationalization of the curriculum, particularly in situations where
mobility has been the dominant approach to internationalization. In such cases, IaH
emphasizes the point that internationalization of the curriculum ‘abroad’reaches
relatively few students in contrast to the non-mobile majority, who thus need the
opportunity to beneﬁt from internationalization of the curriculum at home. All of
this adds weight to the requirement to re-address some of the issues.
It may be seen from the above that Internationalization at Home is essentially a
subset of internationalization of the curriculum in that it shares a focus on both the
formal and informal curriculum. But IaH excludes student mobility across borders,
which is, in contrast, one element of curriculum internationalization.
Internationalization at Home operates on the assumption that not all students will
have mobility opportunities and that, while mobility can bring additional beneﬁts
for the mobile few, this should not be at the expense of internationalization for all.
Perhaps one of the key, and as yet unrealized, contributions of
Internationalization at Home lies in framing a context for the development of
employability skills. Many studies have shown that international experiences are
instrumental in developing the kind of transferable skills which employers are
looking for (Black and Duhon 2006; Crossman and Clarke 2010). Jones (2013b)
calls for ‘further exploration of the domestic intercultural context as a vehicle for the
kind of transformational learning evidenced through international mobility’(Jones
2013b, p. 8), and argues the need for additional studies which conﬁrm its value. This
is supported by the Erasmus Impact Study (European Union 2014) which drives the
message home that the non-mobile majority of European students depend on the
domestic curriculum for the acquisition of the employability skills that mobile stu-
dents acquire through study, or perhaps more importantly, internship abroad.
Internationalization at Home is thus a concept in need of a good deﬁnition,
which may help to support its implementation.
4.6 New Deﬁnition of Internationalization at Home
We have argued that IaH offers a valuable reminder that internationalization of the
curriculum is not simply about providing mobility opportunities, but that it is also
crucial in domestic learning environments, emphasizing the need to reach all stu-
dents, not simply the mobile few. At the same time, it provides a framework for
incoming student mobility to support internationalization of teaching and learning,
and also focuses on incorporating local intercultural learning opportunities into
curriculum internationalization. The relevance and popularity of the concept of
Internationalization at Home contrasts with the current deﬁnition which is not
particularly enlightening and does not offer much clariﬁcation or support for those
wishing to implement it. We therefore propose the following deﬁnition:
68 J. Beelen and E. Jones
Internationalization at Home is the purposeful integration of international and intercultural
dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic
The deﬁnition stresses intentional inclusion of international and intercultural
aspects into curricula in a purposeful way. This implies that adding or infusing
random internationalized elements or electives would be insufﬁcient to interna-
tionalize a program. It also emphasizes the role of IaH for all students in all
In talking of ‘domestic learning environments’, the deﬁnition makes it clear that
these may extend beyond the home campus, and the formal learning context, to
include other intercultural and/or international learning opportunities within the
local community. These may include working with local cultural, ethnic or religious
groups, using a tandem learning system or other means to engage domestic with
international students, or exploiting diversity within the classroom.
It must be highlighted once more that these contexts may be seen as ‘learning
environments’, but it is the articulation and assessment of internationalized learning
outcomes within the speciﬁc context of a discipline which will allow such envi-
ronments to be used as a means of achieving meaningful international and inter-
5 Challenges for Policy and Implementation
The process of internationalizing the formal curriculum at home, just as with other
aspects of internationalization, is based on the capability of academic staff to
develop, deliver and assess it. Many studies have identiﬁed this as a critical success
factor and have offered ideas to support staff development for internationalization
(e.g. Carroll 2015; Leask 2015 in press).
Additional food for thought is provided by The Erasmus Impact Study
(European Union 2014) which notes that staff mobility can strengthen
Internationalization at Home processes. It found that academics were aware that the
skills they acquired abroad would have an impact when they returned home, so that
“the Erasmus effect could be extended to non-mobile participants”(European
Union 2014, p. 148). The study showed that 95 % of HEI’s and 92 % of staff
consider outgoing staff mobility an effective tool “to allow students who do not
have the possibility to participate in a mobility scheme, to beneﬁt from the
knowledge”(Ibid, p. 149, Tables 4–6). A limitation of the study, however, is that
academic respondents were those who had taken part in mobility. It is a well-known
phenomenon that mobile staff are limited in number, and that the same academics
repeatedly take part. We also know that staff mobility is only effective when it is
part of a deliberate process of staff development, as noted by Brewer and Leask
(2012, p. 251). Until we have further evidence we cannot be sure of the impact on
home students. The self reported data from the Erasmus Impact Study are thus
inconclusive. The impact of incoming staff mobility is equally unknown.
Redeﬁning Internationalization at Home 69
However, it is evident that staff development will be a key factor in making a
success of Internationalization at Home. Even those academics who have studied,
lived or worked in, or come from another country are likely to need support in
adapting what may be limited understanding of internationalization practice to
domestic, intercultural contexts. Staff development will need to focus on interna-
tionalizing existing, discipline speciﬁc learning outcomes within the home curric-
ulum for all students, on appropriate pedagogy and associated assessment. Since the
implementation of internationalization of the curriculum takes place at the level of
departments and programs of study, staff development will also need to be delivered
at that level. The implication for institutional policy is therefore that both imple-
mentation and support of academic staff, in relation to internationalization of the
curriculum at home or abroad, will need to be embedded within departments.
By comparing the concepts and accepted deﬁnitions of internationalization,
Comprehensive Internationalization and internationalization of the curriculum to
those of Internationalization at Home, we have provided context for a new deﬁnition
of IaH. It has been afﬁrmed that IaH relates both to formal and informal curriculum,
and aims to develop international and intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes
for all students, regardless of whether they also take part in mobility opportunities.
In recent discussions on internationalization, the constant introduction of new
terms and deﬁnitions has been criticized (e.g. De Wit 2011). Although the authors
are fully aware of this, they consider that the importance of clarifying the still useful
concept of IaH overrides the urge to limit the number of deﬁnitions. They have
therefore proposed a new deﬁnition of Internationalization at Home. Although
deﬁning it does not guarantee its implementation, since there are fundamental
challenges to be overcome, it is hoped that redeﬁnition might bring implementation
a step closer.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Aerden, A. (2014). A guide to assessing the quality of internationalization. The Hague: ECA.
American Council on Education. (2013). CIGE model for comprehensive internationalization. http://
Beelen, J. (2014). The other side of mobility: The impact of incoming students on home students.
In B. Streitwieser (Ed.), Internationalization of higher education and global mobility (pp. 287–
299). Oxford: Symposium Books Ltd.
70 J. Beelen and E. Jones
Beelen, J., & Leask, B. (2011). Internationalization at home on the move. Berlin: Dr. Josef Raabe
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open
University Press/McGraw Hill.
Black, H. T., & Duhon, D. L. (2006). Assessing the impact of business study abroad programs on
cultural awareness and personal development. Journal of Education for Business, 81(3), 140–144.
Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2010). The end of internationalization. Boston College
Newsletter, 62,15–17. (winter 2011).
Bremer, L., & Van der Wende, M. (1995). Internationalizing the curriculum in higher education
(Nufﬁc papers 3). The Hague: Nufﬁc.
Brewer, E., & Leask, B. (2012). Internationalization of the curriculum. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit,
D. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The Sage handbook of international higher education (pp. 245–
266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carroll, J. (2015). Tools for teaching in an educationally mobile world. London: Routledge.
Commission, European. (2013). European higher education in the world. Brussels: European
Crossman, J. E., & Clarke, M. (2010). International experience and graduate employability.
Higher Education, 59(5), 599–613.
Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2001).
Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: EAIE.
De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and
Europe: A historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
De Wit, H. (2011, October 23). Naming internationalisation will not revive it. University World
News (194). Retrieved from www.universityworldnews.com.
De Wit, H. (2012). Erasmus at 25: What is the future for international student mobility? The
De Wit, H., & Beelen, J. (2014, May 2). Reading between the lines: Global internationalization
survey. University World News (318). Retrieved from www.universityworldnews.com.
Dutschke, D. (2009). Campus internationalization initiative and study abroad. College and
University, 84(3), 67–73.
Egron-Polak, E., & Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of higher education: Growing
expectations, essential values. Paris: IAU.
European Union. (2014). The Erasmus Impact Study. Effects of mobility on the skills and
employability of students and the internationalization of higher education institutions.
Brussels: European Union.
Green, M., & Olson, C. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide. Washington DC:
American Council on Education.
Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington:
IIE, Institute of International Education. (2014). IIE announces winners of the 2014 Andrew
Heiskell Awards for innovation in international education. http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/
International Association of Universities. (2012). Afﬁrming academic values in internationaliza-
tion of higher education: A call for action. Paris: IAU.
Jones, E. (2013a). Internationalization and student learning outcomes. In H. De Wit (Ed.), An
introduction to higher education internationalization (pp. 107–116). Milan: Vita e Pensiero.
Jones, E. (2013b). Internationalization and employability: The role of intercultural experiences in
the development of transferable skills. Public Money and Management, 33(2), 95–104.
Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2013). Graduate attributes and the internationalized curriculum:
Embedding a global outlook in disciplinary learning outcomes. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 17(2), 165–182.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Deﬁnition, approaches, and rationales. Journal
of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.
Redeﬁning Internationalization at Home 71
Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of higher education: New directions, new challenges. Paris:
Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and
international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205–221.
Leask, B. (2012). Internationalization of the curriculum in action. A guide: University of South
Leask, B. (2015 in press). Internationalizing the curriculum. London: Routledge.
Loden, M. (1996). Implementing diversity. New York: McGraw Hill.
NAFSA. (2014). NAFSA announces 2014 Simon Award recipients. http://www.nafsa.org/
O’Mahony, J. (2014). Enhancing student learning and teacher development in transnational
education. York: Higher Education Academy.
OECD. (1996). Internationalizing the curriculum in higher education. Paris: Author.
Rizvi, F. (2007). Internationalization of curriculum: A critical perspective. In M. Hayden, J. Levy,
& J. Thompson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of research in international education (pp. 390–
403). London: Sage.
Teekens, H. (2013, June 15). Internationalization at home: Crossing other borders. University
World News (276). Retrieved from www.universityworldnews.com.
Van Gaalen, A., Hobbes, H. J., Roodenburg, S., & Gielesen, R. (2014a). Studenten internation-
alizeren in eigen land; Nederlands instellingsbeleid (Students internationalizing in their own
country; Dutch university policies). The Hague: Nufﬁc.
Van Gaalen, A., Roodenburg, S., Hobbes, H. J., & Gielesen, R. (2014b). Studenten internation-
alizeren in eigen land; Deel II, De praktijk (Students internationalizing in their own country:
Part II, In practice). The Hague: Nufﬁc.
Webb, G. (2005). Internationalization of curriculum: An institutional approach. In J. Carroll &
J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students, improving learning for all. London:
Whitsed, C., & Green, W. (2013, January 26). Internationalization begins with the curriculum.
University World News (256). Retrieved from www.universityworldnews.com.
72 J. Beelen and E. Jones