Sense of urgency and comparison to other countries/institutions. Several interviewees expressed urgency when asked about their motivation to internationalise the

curriculum. It was perceived as a need, as an external imperative which was happening all over the world, a global trend with which they must catch up. Irene for example, noted that

“we have to catch up with the times”, and Hannah said:

We NEED, we NEED to have international programmes, in a time where students are going to study abroad in a global world …we MUST be a part of this pool of

knowledge….we cannot afford to stay away from this process! (My emphasis) Similarly, Joanna noted how timely and urgent it is to work in that direction:

There's a spark. Now. And I think that's our future and if we neglect it we will fall of the map. Very bluntly! The world of teaching, we are being replaced by the internet, including the teaching, and if we don’t open ourselves up to that and use that spark, we might as well sit at home.

Like with standardization, it seems that the sense of urgency is fueled by the feeling that something is happening out there in the rest of the world and in the ever-changing realities of teaching and learning. Discussing internationalisation of the curriculum might have enabled these feelings to surface and provided some reassurance that it has the potential to facilitate responsible change in that direction.

Some interviewees used information they had from other countries or institutions in Israel to fuel their thinking about motivation for internationalisation of the curriculum.

Hannah for example, said that “[c]ountries like Australia have been exporting education for so many years, we have to catch up with them even though English is not an official native language here. We have to catch up with this process”.

Debora and Josh reflected on how things have changed over time and shared their experiences from other countries. Debora noted that “[w]hat I was doing when I taught in the States and I think how different it was and then I had to think about how our students are so different than the students I taught back home”. And Jonah added, “[s]o the college is not about like in the old days ‘Go to Oxford and read’, it's not about that here, it's probably not about that in many other places any more, except maybe for chosen fields”.

Josh and Joanna also referred to their experiences from teaching or visiting other colleges in Israel and said:

I would make this a [College X] - style course. This is the model they use at [College X], and I know maybe they don’t have the highest standards but as far as English is concerned I think they’re doing a great job. Because they’re giving their students practical skills. (Josh)

We were at this workshop in [College Y], and we went into a room that was organised in small tables where small groups could gather around. To me, I always wanted to work like that. I was hoping I could use a similar room here, at the accessibility center, but it was in high demand, so I didn't get it in the end. (Joanna)

And Irene expressed great curiosity about what happens in other countries:

How does it work there? In Scandinavian countries, 2nd or 3rd graders speak English, and definitely teenagers and adults. So what do they do? They teach courses in

English? But what do you see in other countries? They get the same kinds of tests?

The same kind of evaluation? Do you see what they do?

Taken together, the themes of ‘standardization’ and ‘sense of urgency and comparison to other countries/institutions’ offer some interesting insights. It is clear from these quotes that when contemplating the reasons to internationalise the curriculum, interviewees were caught up in the space between the institutional, national and global contexts. Moving

uneasily back and forth in this space is worth paying attention to in the process of curriculum internationalisation. While this may serve to stimulate a need to ‘move out of the seat’ and do something, it might also be experienced as frustrating and even crippling. Reaching outside the immediate context to witness a multitude of manifestations of curriculum

internationalisation can be confusing and ultimately lead to a fragmented approach (Green &

Whitsed, 2015b).

In the case of the English for Academic Purposes team, moving in the direction of standardization was possibly depicted as the ‘solution’ and served perhaps to appease some of the tension. It is important for internationalisation of the curriculum facilitators to

recognise the underlying dimensions of motivation and introduce internationalisation of the curriculum as a viable practice in which globalisation is indeed seen as the given context for higher education in the modern era, but where as a professional team, they have the

legitimacy and ability to shape the process. They are the ones who ultimately hold the key to their own curriculum development. Reaching out to the global is important, as long as it serves as a point of inspiration and not a point of hindrance.

The urgency to ‘copy’ solutions from other institutions or countries can be a source of great frustration for academic teams. The interviewees expressed a lot of doubt about their ability to implement paradigms used in different places, such as English medium instruction.

Josh for example, said: “I think we’re in a fantasy to be honest with you. Really, we’re just not there”, and Irene added :“From what I’ve seen, over the years, is that I’m not sure it’s possible. That students can deal with an internationalised curriculum and an international programme. Meaning in English of course. So I have the motivation but I have the

frustration”. Similarly, Jonah noted: “I’m a bit cynical because I’ve seen what happens here, people pander to the students here and I think essentially, the level is very low here”.

Adequate facilitation of internationalisation of the curriculum, where academic teams are encouraged to formulate their own models of implementation, can help in mitigating some of their concerns. Realising that there is no urgency to copy what others are doing, but rather develop a local understanding which best fits the needs of the students and faculty in the local context, may possibly encourage the team to keep going.

5.2.2.3 With the home students at heart. Another motivational factor that emerged