Motives and Measures of Higher Education Internationalisation: A Case Study of a Canadian University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationalisation is the inclusion of international, intercultural and global dimensions into the objectives, policies and practices in the delivery of postsecondary education. The objective of the research was to investigate the types of partnerships and internationalisation approaches that exist in higher education, the motives of internationalisation and the most appropriate approaches to measuring the quality and progress of internationalisation in higher education. A number of studies on internationalisation have been carried out. However, there is a limit on the scale and amount of research undertaken on measuring the output of internationalisation in higher education, in particular in the context of the Canadian higher education system. This paper is based on case study research to determine the motives of internationalisation in higher education in a Canadian university and it uses the Knight Internationalisation Tracking Measure to test the quality and progress of internationalisation in the university. The research entailed document analysis, interviews and surveys which were designed to gather data on internationalisation practices and objectives from university staff involved in the management of internationalisation and international partnerships. The content of the interviews and surveys were based on the measures defined by the Knight Internationalisation Tracking Measure. The research found that higher education institutions are motivated by the prospects of attracting additional income to make-up for the reduction in government funding. In addition, internationalisation offers access to staff development opportunities, internationalisation of the curriculum, and wider benefits leading to societal development. These findings and recommendations are drawn from a single case study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".