Efforts to Promote Global Education in Japan: The Case of Tottori University and Overseas Practical Education Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation in overseas programs has recently increased as an international strategy worldwide. However, Japan has been the exception, because the number of Japanese students studying abroad has decreased over the last decade. The Japanese government and universities began efforts to motivate Japanese students to gain international experience. However, efforts to measure the impact of overseas programs other than in English proficiency have been limited. This paper reports the benefits of three types of overseas short-term programs offered by Tottori University (TU) to support Japanese students in studying abroad through the Global Getaway Program (GGP), emphasizing practical training in developing countries. Data for this study were collected from students from 2006 to 2011 before the GGP and 2012 to 2016 after its implementation. Students were tested before and after participating in overseas short-term programs, and results were compared with those who did not participate. The questionnaire survey carried out revealed significant differences in all global competences skills between students who attended overseas programs and those that did not. In addition, after participating in the overseas program, students understood i, why English as a tool for communication will help them grow as internationally minded future leaders, ii, how foreign languages can lead to overseas practical skills, and iii, the importance of field practice as opposed to knowledge only acquired in the classroom. The achievement of this study increases the value of overseas training for the younger Japanese generation and their perception of developing advanced thinking abilities through practical education in developing countries.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".