Phillips, DJ --- "Solutions to the Dilemmas and Concerns of Teaching International Students in Universities" [1994] LegEdRev 3; (1994) 5(1) Legal Education Review 47

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Legal Education Review

SOLUTIONS TO THE DILEMMAS AND CONCERNS OF TEACHING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN UNIVERSITIES

The decision by the Australian Department of Trade in 19853 to allow Australian tertiary institutions to offer places to Full Fee Paying (FFP) international students, following the release of the Goldring4 and Jackson5 Reports, resulted in large numbers of FFP students studying in Australian institutions. By 1991 such students had increased to 34,408.6
The nature of Australia’s objectives in its international education programs (discussed by Harris and Jarrett7 and others,8) vary considerably. In general, for sponsored students there is an expressed policy that “education and training programme(s are) designed to assist recipient countries to develop the human resources needed for their economic and social advancement...(and which might draw on) areas where Australia can offer a high standard of relevant expertise.”9 Harris and Jarrett10 further discussed the focusing of this aid program by the International Development Program of Australian Universities and Colleges. On the other hand, for Full Fee Paying students, the Jackson Report11 recommended that “Education should be regarded as an export industry in which institutions are encouraged to compete for students and funds.” This more entrepreneurial approach to higher education, subsequently adopted by the Government, has since been applied to the export of education to overseas countries and now is the main aspect of the international education program.12
The importance of exporting quality education to Asia should not be underestimated. Apart from the vast financial inflow13 which accrues to higher education, if international students return home convinced that Australia is mainly interested in the money their fees provide, or they are not getting value for money, then it is conceivable that Australia’s international reputation might be harmed. Findings14 indicate that there is a significant number of international students who return home with such negative opinions of Australian higher education offerings.15
Nevertheless, although some Australian academics are generally aware that the increase in international student numbers has changed the ethnic composition of the student body, and thereby the complexities of their teaching response, few would be aware of the broader demographic changes which have resulted from an increase in the numbers of domestic ethnic minority students. While the complete ethnic composition and/or identification of all domestic students is unknown, the best indication of this comes from DEET statistics concerning the 90 languages spoken in students’ homes. These indicate that 103,175 domestic students, or 19.3% of university students, speak a first language other than English in their homes.16 Table 1 demonstrates that when the statistics on the number of international students are added to those of domestic ethnic minority students, such students represent 25.7% of the student population.
The inclusive 25.75% figure means that the cultural diversity of the Australian university student population has increased to such an extent, that there is a growing need for universities and academics to consider seriously whether this demographic change has caused problems for faculty members and whether they need develop policies and practices which respond to this ongoing change in ways previously not considered or practised.17
In this paper there is an attempt to explore questions related to the nature and scope of the academic’s concerns and responses to cross cultural students. In the main, the findings presented here refer to responses to international students (IS), but it is also posited that such findings might apply to Domestic Ethnic Minority Students (DEMS).

TABLE 1: The 1991 Ethnic and Linguistic Composition of Australian University Students

Research to date18 has identified a number of responses in Australian higher education to the changed nature of the student body, including the Australian Vice Chancellor’s Committee’s Code of Ethical Practice ,19 the various English Language Intensive Course for Overseas Students (ELICOS);20 the introduction of a special education “Foundation course”21 which allows international students to complete their year 12 certificate in Australia, and the Department of Education, Employment and Training’s commissioned projects, both at the National Centre for Cross-cultural Curriculum and Staff Development at Flinders University and at the University of Canberra. The first project introduced activities in the fields of course evaluations, training programs for faculty in curriculum development and the design of materials for cross-cultural lectures.22 The second project, conducted by the author, initiated activities in designing and offering training workshops for faculty teaching international students.23 In addition, personnel at the University of New South Wales are developing curricula for use in general teacher training with reference to Aboriginal culture. These are just few examples of current developments in Australian universities. White et al also noted that “a surprisingly large number of institutions are developing new courses in response to perceived overseas demand”.24
Nevertheless, apart from other examples which might arise from the extensive study currently being conducted by the author, the bulk of the examples available deal with issues and problems experienced by international students, rather than with problems experienced by faculty members teaching such students. This imbalance in the response of higher education might have as its genesis the complex issues associated with what administrators expect academic staff to be able to do in their teaching roles.25 There appears to be a justifiable assumption that faculty members should be knowledgeable in their fields of expertise. It has also been assumed, until recently, that academics should be able to (and can) communicate with their students. The next logical assumption has been that such faculty members should be able to (and can) teach all types of students, including cross cultural and international students. While many faculty members are able to fulfil all of these requirements, others have not performed as well.26 Nevertheless, a comparative lack of activity in the field of tertiary teaching has also stemmed from higher education’s practice of not interfering in the performance of its faculty members unless circumstances warrant it.

Current research has found,27 however, that problems which faculty members have experienced are wide ranging and tend to pervade throughout this field of teaching contact. Some of these relate closely to the Code of Ethical Practice28 put forward by the Australian Vice Chancellor’s Committee. This document set forward a number of guiding principles for the conduct of higher educational institutions which entered into programs for exporting education. Table 2 sets out some of the requirements found in this document.

The AVCC’s Code of Ethical Practice seeks to set
out some of the requirements to which all

“consistent and caring procedures in the recruitment, reception, education and welfare of overseas students.”31

Complying with these and other requirements has caused academic staff to experience numerous concerns and dilemmas. In the interviews carried out in several universities in the 1991 study,33 fifty two per cent of staff said they were having problems teaching and assessing international students.

For many academics it is a new experience to have to interact across cultures of a diverse nature. Most have been overseas as scholars, or as tourists, but few have lived for an extended time in another country in which a non-European language was spoken, or in a society where Western culture was not practised.34 The presence of cross cultural and international students in their classes, therefore, has caused a considerable number of them to encounter a type of culture shock experience, in which they have been forced to question their beliefs and teaching practice. This in turn has led them to face the proverbial “horns of the dilemma”. By way of example a number of problems and eighteen such dilemmas mentioned by academic staff in the 1991 study are presented for consideration, but first consider what should be done in the following example.

In short, the arrival of international students would appear to have placed academics in the difficult situation of having to teach students who, in their estimation, were not adequately prepared for study in an English speaking university. They also considered that they are under-resourced for this very demanding task and that they have not been adequately prepared to cope with the task of teaching them.

Many types of dilemmas (see Table 3) are experienced by faculty members on a daily basis. They include: problems of cross cultural behaviour in the area of interviewing international students; whether it is appropriate to ask international students to contribute in tutorials; how does one cope with cases of plagiarism; what is to be done when international students can not cope with the language requirements of thesis writing, and, what does one do when one’s head of department encourages one to upgrade the marks of international students?

TABLE 3: Seventeen Dilemmas Experienced by Academics when Teaching International Students

It is justifiable for academic staff to question the need for changes in their response to cross cultural and international students. After all, they may argue that these students come here to get Australian degrees. Academics, in the 1991 study, also argued that there is no reason why they should change because the success rate of international students is sufficient to warrant a continuation of the status quo. Others argued that international students have demonstrated an ability to cope with the language and learning difficulties they face.

It is possible, however, that the main reason why faculty experience such difficulties might be focused on the nature of the rapid changes which have occurred in this field of education. The Full Fee Paying Program is of relatively recent origins39 and it is therefore to be expected that faculty are generally unprepared to cope with teaching across cultures. Many academics, however, who have travelled to relevant overseas countries, or have studied or carried out research in such areas of the world have experienced less difficulties with teaching international students.40 It would appear, therefore, that if the academics’ preparation includes in-depth training or experiences of other cultures and societies, this enables them to teach with a mental-set which predisposes them to effective teaching across cultures. This might be referred to as an ethnogogical approach to teaching41 (see following discussion for a definition of this term). Each of the dilemmas mentioned above and those presented as examples throughout this paper, have no one specific solution or answer. Although it is possible to run workshops in which people are instructed in how to cope with particular problems, there are so many problems and each one tends to be so unique that specific answers are not always possible. A much better solution would be to train faculty in the rudiments of cross cultural interaction and thereby prepare them to deal with all and any difficulties or dilemmas which might arise.
By way of example, it is argued here, that when a primary school teacher enters a class of primary school children, the teacher’s training, or some other experience, predisposes him or her to enter with a predisposition which takes into account that the students are children. This leads the teacher to make various adjustments to his or her adult behaviour so that communication with children might be more effective.42 These adjustments include, amongst other matters, modifications of his or her spoken and written language, modifications to his or her use of body language, and modifications to the teacher’s frame of reference to the real world. Similarly, when a teacher enters a class of teenagers or adults there is an initial adjustment by the teacher which accounts for the type of student body to be taught. In this way, a plateau of communication is established which enables the teacher to address the audience more effectively. When these adjustments do not occur, or where there are issues which prevent them from occurring, then information exchange is less effective. For instance, teachers are sometimes criticised for being unable to relate to the socio-economic levels of their students,43 or they are of a different gender to their students.44 As a result, they may use a variety of English which is too complicated, or they may refer to matters of which the students have little knowledge, or they address matters with a bias which clashes with those of their students. By way of comparison, when university faculty interact with international cross cultural students, or with domestic ethnic students, there is a need for them to approach this task with a mind set which predisposes them to teaching across cultures.

Ethnogogy, a term coined here in an attempt to encapsulate the concepts being dealt with, is defined as the science of teaching across cultures. Ethnogogy has considerable relevance to all levels of teaching, including university teaching, in countries where societies are no longer monocultural. In all such complex teaching situations it is apparent there is a need for academics and teachers to teach with a constant state of awareness that they are teaching across cultures. Pedagogy is defined as “the science of teaching,”45 but more particularly refers to teaching children, while Androgogy is defined as the science of teaching adults.46 Ethnogogy is a concept which is inclusive of both pedagogy and andragogy, but specifically deals with teaching across cultures. It is based on at least the following parameters:

1. An understanding of the concept of culture, and an understanding of other cultures, both specifically and generally.

Appropriate preparation for faculty, in this arena, would be for them to have studied the concept of culture, as it is espoused through anthropology, sociology and sociolinguistics and/or for them to have actually lived with culturally different peoples or to have studied such peoples.
Although this might be seen as idealistic and yet another call for the broader training of university students, it would be possible to introduce a series of seminar/workshops for all academics teaching international students, and in this way introduce faculty members to this and other aspects of ethnogogy.

The research supports the view that the ethnic minority students’ approach to academic learning has generally been one characterised by the manner of learning acquired in their own cultures and countries.47 The characteristics of those styles of learning might be generally inappropriate for studies in foreign learning settings. For instance, international students might have come from an educational background which required them to remember verbatim what was presented in lectures. Should these students now find themselves in an Australian university course which requires them to critically appraise lecture information and to present only their conclusions and observations, they may find this difficult to accomplish.
This area, therefore, would cover those fields termed cognitive styles, learning styles, and learner expectations from a cross cultural perspective. It would also provide faculty with information on the different types of education systems experienced by their students. It would seek to inform faculty as to the nature of adjustments which students and staff need to make in order for students to cope with learning in the host academic setting.

3. An understanding of how cross cultural sensitivity, tolerance and acceptance develop in a multicultural setting and how teachers may develop attitudinal change towards their students.

Research48 which sought to evaluate the different types of reactions of academics to international students found that those staff members with wider international experience reacted more sympathetically to such students than those without such experience. Such reactions did not reduce the standards of their courses, but did enable the students to overcome many of the difficulties which they faced when studying across cultures and across languages. For instance, academics who were aware of the time it takes to translate between languages in an examination setting, or were aware of the problems associated with remembering vast amounts of textual information in a second language for examination use, offered students open-book examination formats, or simply gave students more time to complete examinations.

4. An understanding of the dynamics of language communication in a cross cultural setting

This area would seek to give faculty an awareness of their own use of language, an awareness of the language of their subject area and an awareness of the language abilities, differences and limitations of their students. It would cover the listening, speaking, reading and writing language competences required by the students in order to cope with the teaching and assessment demands of their studies. It would also clarify to faculty how they might assist these students with their language problems, even though staff may not be language specialists.
Other areas which might be included here would deal with information concerning the nature of how a second language develops in a dynamic university setting and what academics might do to assist this process. It would also include information on language assessment and the types of language tests, for instance the IELTS (International English Language Testing Service) test, which these students have undergone prior to entering Australia. The 1991 research demonstrated that academics remained sceptical of the language assessment process despite the improved IELTS test currently being used.

5. An understanding of the cross cultural perspectives of teaching, and, more particularly, of andragogy, or the teaching of adults.

Any activity in the field of communication in a formal or informal learning setting needs to be well informed as to the rudiments of teaching. This area would therefore include all aspects of teaching normally covered in a tertiary training unit, but would emphasise the teaching processes of teaching adults.

This area would cover the nature of overall course design, course focus, course content, content appropriateness, unit organisation and difficulty of course progression. This information would allow faculty to address the complexities of their own courses for international and minority students and the problems with which the students are thereby confronted.

7. An understanding of the cross cultural perspectives of course presentation and assessment.

This area would cover the significance of the differences in how information is taught in the students’ previous education systems and how it is taught in the host institutions. It would include activities as to the comparative effectiveness of the use of lectures, tutorials, seminars, libraries, interviews, field trips, practicals, and computers for use in teaching international students.
Research carried out by the author and associates49 has found that not only does each course present a different array of information delivery channels, but also that, for the most part, international students are unfamiliar with these communication techniques and therefore, face confusing and frustrating experiences while attempting to identify where and how information is being presented, and which information is more relevant than other information.
This area would also cover the significance of the differences in how information is assessed in the students’ previous education systems and how it is assessed in the host institutions. The unfamiliarity of this new experience for many international students constitutes one of the main hurdles to the students’ success.

8. An understanding of the types of self development which are possible within the context of a cross cultural interaction.

Academic staff development needs to take account of the staff members’ current approach and/or attitude to teaching international students and shown ways of developing insights which might assist the member to communicate more effectively.
It has been noticed that attitudes held by individuals or groups of people of one ethnic group towards other individuals/ or groups of people of another ethnic group might/or tend to undergo change in a progressive manner.
A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity put forward by Bennett50 (see Table 4) addressed this question in some detail. In that model Bennett posited six stages of the development of cultural sensitivity: Denial of Difference, Defence against Difference, Minimisation of Difference, Acceptance of Difference, Adaptation to Difference and Integration of Difference. He noted that the implications of the model are: 1. moving people towards greater cultural awareness and acceptance may mean that they will develop more critical and hostile defensive attitudes before reaching more accepting stages. 2. introducing skill development too early relative to a person’s developmental stage may be counterproductive, and 3. in intercultural training it is important to be clear about what we are trying to achieve.

TABLE 4: An Adaptation of Bennett’s Model Towards Academic Interaction and Development

Bennett’s Categories	Phillips’ Categories
Levels of Sensitivity	Academic Levels of Response
1. Denial of Difference	Academics’ Unawareness of Problems
No recognition of cultural difference because of isolation or international separation.	Unwillingness to change because of lack of experience and/or knowledge.
2. Defence against Difference	Academics’ Ethnocentric Concerns
Recognition of cultural difference coupled with negative evaluation of most variations from native culture.	Complete unwillingness to change anything for fear of disturbing norms and standards.
3. Minimisation of Difference	Academics’ General Awareness of Problems
Recognition and acceptance of superficial cultural differences ... while holding all human beings are essentially the same.	Willingness to change, but only because every student has the problems.
MAJOR CHANGE HAS OCCURRED
4. Acceptance of Difference	Academics’ Intuitive Response
Recognition and appreciation of cultural differences in behaviour and values.	Willingness to change within the bounds of human behaviour. & the Academics’ Informed Response
Acceptance of cultural differences as viable alternative solutions to the organisation of, university expectations.	Willingness to change within the bounds of human existence.
5. Adaptation to Difference	Academics’ Organisational Response
Development of communication skills that enable intercultural communication. Effective use of empathy... to understand and be understood across cultural boundaries.	Willingness to make fundamental changes without fear of losing the quality of what is changed. The development of empathetic responses.
6. Integration of Difference	Academics’ Response Based on Awareness of Different Education and Cultural Systems
The internalisation of bicultural or multicultural frames of reference. Maintaining a definition of identity that is “marginal” to a particular culture.	Complete willingness to make all types of changes because of cross cultural knowledge and a realisation that such changes will not effect the essential quality of the university award.

Table 4 seeks to adapt Bennett’s51 model and apply it to the types of academic reactions and attitudes which have been observed in this study.
It is important, therefore, that academic member’s attitudinal position be carefully considered prior to introducing such staff members to other stages of awareness and development. In this way it might be possible to overcome many of the concerns which academic staff currently express and to enable them to deal with the dilemmas they experience.

When the problems discussed earlier are viewed from the standpoint of the ethnogogical schema presented above, they either do not pose dilemmas or such dilemmas are able to be quickly resolved in the light of available experience and information. For instance, when faculty members question:

(Problem 1) should they alter their styles of speaking? Their background in the field of the dynamics of language communication in a cross cultural setting would enable them to cope with this issue.

(Problems 2 & 3) When faculty members question should they alter their styles of teaching? or should they alter their styles of assessing? Then their background in the field of understanding the cross cultural perspectives of course presentation and assessment would enable them to cope with this issue.

(Problems 4 & 5) When faculty members question should they adjust their course requirements? or should they change the content of their courses? Then their background in the field of understanding the relevance of cross culturalism to curriculum design would enable them to cope with this issue.

(Problem 6) When faculty members question should they give greater assistance to international students? Then their background in the field of understanding how cross cultural sensitivity, tolerance and acceptance develop in a multicultural setting and how teachers may develop attitudinal change towards their students would enable them to cope with this issue

Likewise, it is possible to trace the academics’ level of attitudinal change by plotting their reactions to problems on the Bennett/Phillips table of progressive development. Initially, the faculty member may not perceive that there is any need to alter their styles of speaking when teaching international students. Such an attitude would represent the academics’ unawareness of problems and would lead to an unwillingness to change because of lack of experience and/or knowledge.
The next stage of development would be observable if the academics have been made aware of the problems international students are having, either through their inability to understand their teachers, or their failure to pass the examinations, but still refuse to make any changes. This would represent the academics’ ethnocentric concerns and would result in their complete unwillingness to change anything for fear of disturbing norms and standards.
The next level of development would be observable should the faculty member be willing to make certain changes but only because every student has the same problems. This level represent the academics’ general awareness of problems, but such reactions have little to do with cross cultural sensitivity or awareness. This type of change is further observable when the academic is willing to change, or willing to change within the bounds of university expectations. This level of change is based on the academics’ intuitive, or informed response.
Gradually the faculty member develops sufficiently so that cross cultural considerations begin to make a difference. Bennett refers to this level of change as an Adaptation to Differences.52 This level of change has been described here as the academics’ organisational response, or their willingness to make fundamental changes without fear of losing the value of what is changed.
Finally, the academics reach the ultimate level of response to cross cultural difference when they demonstrate a complete willingness to make all types of changes because of cross cultural knowledge and a realisation that such changes will not effect the essential quality of the university award. This level of awareness is based on the academics’ awareness of different education and cultural systems.

The process of assisting faculty to develop cross cultural sensitivity and also to improve the quality of their teaching needs to be seen as a progressive experience. Progressive faculty development53 of this nature would, therefore, take account of the faculty members’ current approach to teaching and attitudinal position with respect to cross cultural students and then gradually introduce them to other stages of awareness and development.
From the discussion presented here it is apparent that, apart from the commendable work being undertaken in international student assistance and curriculum design in various universities, in order for any university’s response to cross cultural and international students to be fully successful, universities also need to focus their efforts on faculty development so that they might more adequately respond to and teach the new student body.

2 All the examples of dilemmas presented in this paper were encountered in the interviews carried out with academic staff in the 1984–85 and 1991 studies mentioned in the paper. See footnotes 23 & 40.

3 Australian Department of Trade. Report of the Australian Government of Education & Mission to South-East Asia and Hong Kong. (Canberra: AGPS, 1985).

4 J Goldring, Mutual Advantage, Report of the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy (Canberra: AGPS, 1984).

5 RG Jackson, Report of the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program (Canberra: AGE, 1984).

6 Department of Education, Employment and Training. Selected Higher Education Statistics, 1991 (Canberra: AGE, 1991).

7 GT Harris & FG Jarrett, Educating Overseas Students in Australia: Who Benefits? (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990).

8 AC Harris, Commissioner. Exports of Education Services. A Report submitted to the Industry Commission. (Canberra: AGPS, 1991).

12 S Ryan, 1986, Guidelines for Full Fee Overseas Students on Courses Provided by Commonwealth Funder Higher Education Institutions’, Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, No. G5, 4 February at 466–9.

13 It has been reported that the current financial return is in excess of $1.3 billions annually although no exact figure has been able to be found in DEET publications. Nevertheless, see E. Dines, The Internationalisation of Australian Universities, paper submitted to the Australian Vice- Chancellors’ Committee Student & Scholarship Matters Sub-Committee, September 1991, unpublished and DR Harris & TN Rhall, Survey of International Students, Canberra: AGPS, Aug. 1993. and D Blight, Overseas Students: A Source of Revenue?, paper presented at a conference in Sydney, August 1991, unpublished.

14 D Phillips, Progressive Staff Development in the Light of Realty: With Special Reference to Cross Cultural and Overseas Students. Professional Cross-cultural Staff Development Inside and Outside Universities (Adelaide: The National Centre for Cross-Cultural Curriculum and Staff Development-Flinders University, 1991). 9–24.

15 Nevertheless, a study indicated that international students returned home satisfied with their Australian studies, see CA Gardiner & A Hirst, Returning Home After Studying in Australia: The Experiences of Malaysian, Indonesian and Hong Kong Students. Counselling and Careers Bulletin, No. 19, (University of New South Wales, Kensington, 1990).

17 The author is currently conducting a study of all Australian universities through survey questionnaire and interviews on the subject of The Nature and Scope of Higher Education’s Response to International and Domestic Ethnic Minority Students. A Report on the study is forthcoming.

18 Id. The findings of the current survey of Australian universities are not reported here, but will appear at a later date.

19 Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. Code of Ethical Practice in the Provision of Full-Fee Courses to Overseas Students by Australian Higher Education Institutions. (Canberra: AV-CC, 1987).

22 Newsletter. National Centre for Cross-cultural Curriculum and Staff Development. (Adelaide: Flinders University, August, 1992).

23 In this Project the author carried out surveys by interview and questionnaire of faculty members teaching international students, and of UG and PG international students. Workshops were then designed to address the issues raised and higher education institutions in the Eastern States were invited to have these workshops conducted on their campuses. This research led to several articles (mentioned in this paper and elsewhere, and to a Research into the Professional Development of Tertiary Teaching for Academics: With Special Reference to Cross Cultural and Overseas Student Interaction: FINAL REPORT, Submitted to (DEET, 1992). The combined Research Team for this Project comprised of Dr D Phillips, Principal Research Officer; MS J Edmonds, Senior Research Assistant; Mrs. B Ballard, Consultant to the Project, Dr J Fraser, Statistical Consultant to the Project and Dr F. Sofo, Questionnaire Design Consultant to the Project.

24 VJ White, JE Kemp, K Kruger & JC Taylor, The impact of fee paying international students on Australian educational institutions. (Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland, 1992), at 50.

25 AV-CC. Guidelines for Effective University Teaching. (Canberra: AVCC: April 1993).

26 D Phillips, Academic Adjustment to Needs of Overseas Students. Babel, (1988).

28 AVCC, supra note 18. It should also be noted that this Code is currently undergoing a review by the AVCC.

35 D Phillips, Overseas Students and their Impact on the Changing Face of Professional Education in Universities. The Changing Face of Professional Education. Collected papers of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Annual Conference, Sydney University, 1990. M Bessina, & J Butcher eds, (Sydney: AARE, 1991), at 764–773.

36 See also B Ballard, & J Clanchy, Teaching Students from Overseas. (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1991), at 2.

40 D Phillips, E Burke, A Campbell & D Ingram, The Evaluation Study of Preparatory English Language Training of Sponsored Indonesian Students. (Canberra: ADAB, 1985).

41 D Phillips, Ethnography. An Approach to University Teaching which Enables Academics to Cope with the Dilemmas and Concerns of Teaching International Students. Cultural Diversity and Higher Education: Has it Made a Difference? should it Make a Difference? (Sydney: University of Technology Sydney, 1993).

42 J Mitchell, Teachers Theories Thinking & Practice in an Interactive Context. Townsville: James Cook University, 1991 unpublished PhD thesis. Also, in Teachers’ Implicit Theories Concerning Questioning. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, 1994, & J Mitchell, presented at the Australian Teacher Education Australian Conference. (Fremantle, Western Australia, July, 1993).

43 B Bernstein, A Sociolinguistic Approach to Socialization; with Some Reference to Educability. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972).

44 S Milligan & K Thomson, Ashenden & Associates, Listening to Girls: A Report of the Consultancy Undertaken for the Review of the National Policy for the Education of Girls. (Canberra: Australian Education Council, January 1992).

45 DB Guralnik, ed,. Webster’s New World Dictionary. (Cleveland: William Collins, 1976), at 1046.

46 M Knowles, The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. (Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1990).

47 D Phillips, supra note 39. See also R Baecher, The Bilingual Child and Educational Cognitive Style Analysis. The Bilingual Child: Research and Analysis of Existing Education Themes (New York: Academic Press, 1977); H Witkin, Psychological Differentiation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 70. (1965). R Coop, & I Siegal, Key Concepts. Psychological Concepts in the Classroom. (New York: Harper & Row, 1974). K Willing, Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education (Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre, 1988).

48 D Phillips, University Academics Responding and Adjusting to the Increasing Numbers of Cross Cultural and Overseas Students (1992) 3 Legal Educ Rev 123. (Sydney: Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, 1992) at 123–153.

50 M Bennett, Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In M Paige ed Cross-Cultural Orientation: New Conceptualizations and Applications. (Lanham, Maryland: University Press, 1986) and M Bennett, A Developmental Approach to Training Intercultural Sensitivity, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10 (2), (Summer 1986).

Total Number of Students	Country of Birth
A total of 534,538 University students 388,822)	Australia
32,862)=421,684 (78.8%)	English Speaking countries
78,446) 34,408)=112,854 (21.2%)	NESB countries +IS students
	Language in the Home
431,363	English
103,175) (19.3%)	Other than English
34,408)=137,583 (25.7%)	+IS students