Researching Intercultural Learning: Investigations in Language and Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This wide-ranging collection edited by two scholars well known for their work in the field of intercultural contact and communication comprises 13 chapters presenting research carried out primarily in relation to the United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, France, Hong Kong, Mainland China, and New Zealand.The book is structured into three sections: Researching Transformations of Cultures of Learning through Internationalization; Intercultural Learning in Developing Language and Academic Skills; and Transcultural Adjustment and Bridging Distances.However, the editors note that all chapters are concerned with three overlapping and mutually complementary levels of cultural analysis: a level of analysis the goal of which is "to promote awareness and knowledge of … other cultures and to be able to function within them" (p.3); a "more complex level" that "moves from descriptive to interpretive and critical perspectives" (p.4) by means of real-life communication in an additional language; and a "more reflexive level" at which "learning about culture-or possibly any other learning-is itself a cultural enterprise in a cultural context which includes the cultural orientations and practices of those learning and of those learned about" (p.5).As a resource text for anyone interested in the educational and linguistic dimensions of intercultural contact and communication, the collection has a number of merits.The inclusion of studies with not only a Western but also an Asian focus is valuable, and the recurrent emphasis on the theme of cultural learning through various forms of communication (e.g., academic writing, immersion, classroom interaction, tutorials, and electronic communication) provides opportunities to explore particular themes in varied contexts.For example, the demands of understanding and mastering academic writing in English are examined through the experience of international students in the US (chapter 1), of non-traditional (i.e., mature) candidates undertaking university study in the UK (chapter 7), and of Chinese students in New Zealand (chapter 8).Similarly, the theme of varying teacher-student and student-student relationships/communication, with potentially meaningful consequences for both home and visiting participants, is studied at the primary school level in Hong Kong (chapter 4), in Mainland China (chapter 5), and in a number of varied higher education settings such as with international students and their teachers in the UK reflecting on their diverse perceptions of educational practices (chapter 2), with Japanese students taking part in tutorials in the UK (chapter 6), or with Hong Kong students engaging in onesemester exchange visits to a variety of universities abroad (chapter 12).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".