Assessing the Academic Benefit of Study Abroad
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study abroad is a growing phenomenon in higher education. Although such growth is typically lauded, efforts tomeasure the impact of international experiences on student learning have been limited. This study assesses theacademic benefit of a study abroad program, offered by a U.S. university, with measures of self-reported learning.Study abroad participants were tested before and after completing their program and results are compared to acontrol group that did not study abroad. Study abroad students reported significantly greater knowledge thanstay-at-home students on two of five cognitive dimensions. Further, study abroad students reported greaterknowledge upon return than they did pre-departure on all five cognitive dimensions. The enhancements inknowledge were not significantly affected by sex, major, or ethnicity. Results of the study offer support for thevalue of study abroad in improving student perceptions of the learning experience. Implications for researchersand practitioners are discussed including additional steps that could be taken for study abroad assessment.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it