Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasingly diverse population of students leave their home to pursue their education overseas. Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) indicate that in 2007, three million students worldwide studied outside their home countries (OECD 2009). This global mobility is predicted to increase to 7.2 million in 2025 (cited in Gu, Schweisfurth, & Day, 2009). Leading exporters of international education include such countries as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Bashir, 2007; Choudaha & Chang, 2012). Some universities worldwide enrol a significant proportion of international students' bodies. The enrolment of this student cohort is a response to increasing global competition (Choudaha & Chang, 2012) and is also triggered by the need for universities to source additional income (Stone, 2006; McGowan, 2007). For international students (particularly those from non-English speaking backgrounds), an overseas degree has multiple benefits, ranging from the prestige of a degree obtained from an English-speaking country, to improved opportunities for immigration and better prospects of securing a better job and to the generic value of improved skill in the English language itself in business and in life.What are the implications of student mobility? The presence of international students has transformed the monolithic culture of higher education institutions worldwide into a multicultural one. How institutions are coping with the changed nature of the classroom and with the different needs and expectations of international students become a key issue in international education. It is not an easy undertaking for both international students and host Entering a new learning sphere, international students may find transition and adjustment difficult. Culture conditions and shapes learning in general and language learning in particular (Gonzalez, Chen, & Sanchez, 2001) hence cultural differences and also prior educational system are believed to have contributed to the social and academic adjustment of international students. Universities are striving to address some of the challenges teaching international students for example, their language difficulties, adjustment to learning styles in western education and reforming teaching materials to suit the varying needs of the students so as to provide all students with maximum learning opportunities.The presence of international students also has implications for the development of internationalisation of higher education, a process that prepares the community for successful participation in an increasingly interdependent world (Francis, 1993, p. 5). In the context of internationalisation, the development of intercultural perspectives becomes an integral part of learning in all disciplines (Crichton & Scarino, 2007). To prepare such graduates, institutions have progressed by internationalising the curriculum, for example, by incorporating international elements into the curriculum and teaching and learning activities and by expanding the study of Asian language to facilitate understanding of other cultures (Harman, 2005). Internationalisation of the curriculum incorporates a range of values such as openness and tolerance of other cultures (Webb, 2005). The cultural diversity introduced by international students provides a teaching resource for developing teacher and students' cultural awareness and learning. If diversity is embraced rather than problematized, it can enhance the intercultural leaning of all students and staff. However, there is a serious concern that cultural diversity represented by international students was undervalued and underutilised by local community (Kondakci, et al., 2008; Sawir, 2013). Knight (2003, pp. 2-3) notes that internationalisation is about relating to diversity of cultures that exits within countries, communities, and institutions. Hence, how cultural diversity can be well exploited has become a compelling undertaking in order to achieve successful internationalisation of the curriculum. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".