A Steep Learning Curve – Supporting ‘Cross-Cultural Competence’ within Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overview Internationalization in higher education is a result of the globalized, knowledge-based economy of the 21st century. Subsequently, the circulation of people, ideas, and goods, across and within national boundaries has resulted in the efforts of most higher education institutions to devise internationalization strategies. These include integrating comprehensive and international intercultural dimensions into teaching, research, scholarship, creative activity, and university service functions to prepare students, faculty, administrators and staff to become effective participants within global contexts and within/across cultures. The University of Calgary (UCalgary) has made a deep commitment to supporta its members to assume important roles as players, facilitators, and mediators in cross-cultural contexts, at home and abroad. Testimony to this commitment is evidenced in the UCalgary’s International Strategy . Goal 2 of four broad goals focuses on “Improv[ing] global and cross-cultural competencies within our campus communities” (2013, p. 8). This paper details UCalgary’s commitment and approach to addressing this goal. Exploring Meanings of Cross-Cultural Competency Cross-cultural competence refers to the knowledge and comprehension, skills, and values that inform behaviours enabling individuals to adapt and interact effectively in cross-cultural environments. Cross-culturally competent faculty, students, administrators, and staff will understand international connections, communicate well within/across cultures, be able to analyse cultures, and value diversity. Cross-cultural competence increases awareness and acceptance of diversity, fosters positive relationships, and makes a ‘positive difference’ for members with the least power. Cross-cultural competencies play out in two different ways, internationally and intranationally . ‘Internationally’ refers to collaboration/partnerships with post-secondary institutions around the world and to competencies, skills, and attitudes that lead to successful performance in diverse multicultural teams and international settings. ‘Intranationally’ encompasses ‘here at home’ – to cultural diversity impacted/shaped by new immigration patterns, a trend accelerated by the need for foreign skilled labour and international recruitment. In most urban centers, multilingualism is on the rise. Culturally Competent Organizations Cross-cultural competencies are learnable/teachable for individuals and organizations and need to permeate the whole curriculum and be anchored in the organization’s fabric. At the organizational level, cultural competence typically refers to a set of congruent attitudes, practices, policies, and structures that create the context that enables members to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. The distinction between individual and organizational cultural competence is important, as organizational cultural competence includes individual and institutional-level commitment and cultural competence. To address and support improving cross-cultural competencies, UCalgary is focusing on three specific competencies to assist in defining a process through which community members will become informed, open-minded, responsible, and attentive to diversity across a wide spectrum of differences: 1) Understanding global connections and cultural differences; 2) Communicating across cultures; and, 3) Analyzing cultures and valuing diversity. Summary Universities play a crucial role in equipping its members to develop and strengthen cross-cultural competence. Guided by philosophical underpinnings and practices that support adult learner engagement and learning, a conceptual model, currently in development, is presented. Tensions and challenges in the development of this framework are also discussed.
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 | 0.040 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.052 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.009 |
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".