Universal Journal of Educational Research 8(6): 2727-2736, 2020 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080658 Student Engagement as Pathway for Deterritorialising Curriculum Internationalisation in Higher Education Kehdinga G. Fomunyam Institute of System Science, Durban University of Technology, South Africa Received October 8, 2019; Revised March 24, 2020; Accepted March 28, 2020 Copyright©2020 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License Abstract This paper explores the concept of curriculum internationalisation in higher education. It recognises and articulates the fact that the curriculum internationalisation process needs to be deterritorialised and the best approach to this is ensuring student engagement. In discussing this in detail, the paper theorises student engagement and the different perspectives on and of engagement, discusses curriculum internationalisation and deterritorialisation. The paper then focuses on deterritorialising curriculum internationalisation through student engagement. The paper concludes with four key thoughts on curriculum internationalisation on the platform of student engagement in a deterritorialised context. The paper recommends that curriculum internationalisation should be contextual in nature. Also, deterritorialisation of the institution and the curriculum internationalisation process and the curriculum itself are key to successfully internationalising the curriculum and give students the best educational experience. Thirdly, for the curriculum internationalisation process to be successful, there is a need for a practical framework. And lastly, student engagement is critical in the internationalisation process and for the success of curriculum internationalisation itself. Keywords Curriculum Internationalisation, Deterritorialisation, Student Engagement, Higher Education and Students 1. Introduction Student engagement in higher education has grown to mean different things for different higher education institutions and practitioners depending on the kind and quality of students they have as well as the social and cultural capital possessed by these students. Gunuc and Kuzu (2015) argue that in recent times there has been much interest in higher education literature and policy on the notion of student engagement and researchers fully agree on the meaning of the term making. They add that student engagement is considered by all higher education stake holders as an important prerequisite for improving student achievement and student experience but cannot agree on exactly what student engagement is. Axelson and Flick (2010) argue that student engagement has been understood as involving students in activities that are linked with high-quality learning or as participation in educationally effective practices, both inside and outside the classroom, which can or lead to a range of measurable outcomes. They conclude by defining student engagement as ensuring “students have a positive, fulfilling and work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption and who views him or herself as belonging to, and an active participant in, his or her learning communities” (Baron & Corbin, 2012, p. 763). This means that student engagement has to do with improving student experience as well as performance or the quality of graduates produced. Axelson and Flick (2010, p. 41) in an attempt to clarify the term argue that there have been two opposing popular views of student engagement. On the one hand, student engagement is seen as “an accountability measure that provides a general index of students' involvement with their learning environments” and on the other it is seen “as a variable in educational research that is aimed at understanding, explaining, and predicting student behaviour in learning environments”. The challenge with these views lies in its inability to consider aspects of engagement which cannot be measured and the potential of this emotional and psychological levels of engagement to contribute to overall student experience. Coates (2010), Kahu (2013) and Vuori (2014) add that student engagement can be summarily understood from four perspectives; the first sees student engagement as behaviour or how students and the institution interact. That is seen by the time and effort students devote to activities that are empirically linked to desired outcomes of what CITE THIS PAPER [1] Kehdinga G. Fomunyam , "Student Engagement as Pathway for Deterritorialising Curriculum Internationalisation in Higher Education," Universal Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 2727 - 2736, 2020. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080658.