Intercultural Communicative Competence: Beliefs and Practices of Adult English as a Second Language Instructors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective and appropriate communication is critical for the successful integration of newcomers in Canada. In this paper, we describe the intercultural communicative competence beliefs and practices of 70 adult English as a second language (ESL) instructors. Responses to an online survey indicated a strong belief in the value of integrating intercultural communicative competence into their instruction; however, instructors’ reported classroom practices revealed that culture was addressed in varying degrees and that intercultural communicative competence was not systematically developed. Findings suggest that enhanced instructor education, appropriate materials development, and research investigating the effective pedagogical development of intercultural communicative competence in the language learning classroom are needed. La communication efficace et appropriée est critique pour une intégration réussie des nouveaux arrivants au Canada. Dans cet article, nous décrivons les croyances et les pratiques relatives à la compétence communicative interculturelle de 70 enseignants d’anglais langue seconde aux adultes. D’après leurs réponses à un sondage en ligne, les enseignants croient fermement en la valeur de l’intégration de la compétence communicative interculturelle dans leur pédagogie; toutefois, les commentaires des enseignants portant sur leur pratiques en salle de classe indiquent qu’ils traitent la culture à des degrés variables et qu’ils ne développent pas de la compétence communicative interculturelle systématiquement. Les résultats portent à croire qu’il faudrait offrir une formation accrue aux enseignants, développer du matériel approprié et entreprendre de la recherche traitant du développement efficace de la compétence communicative interculturelle dans les cours de langue.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".