Intercultural Sensitivity Assessment of the Postgraduates Majoring in English: A Case Study of Guangxi Normal University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is using Chen and Starosta’s Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS hereafter) to assess the intercultural sensitivity (ICS hereafter) level of postgraduates of Grade 2016 majoring in English from the College of Foreign Studies in Guangxi Normal University (GXNU hereafter) and try to discover what individual factors, such as Work Experience, Work Types and so on, influence their ICS level. The research questions are: 1) what is the postgraduates’ ICS level like? 2) What individual factors influence the postgraduates’ ICS? By analyzing the 102 copies of valid questionnaires, this study gets the following findings. 1) The subjects’ general ICS level is moderate for their mean ICS total score is 88.63, within the range of 80-100. 2) Among the five factors of ICS, the value of Respect for Cultural Difference is the highest while Interaction Confidence is the lowest. 3) Among the subjects’ individual factors, Work Experience, Having Friends from Different Cultures and Having Passed TEM8 exert significant influence on the subjects’ ICS level, while factors such as Work Types, IC Courses Offered during the Undergraduate Study, Working as Volunteers, and Work Length, have no significantly statistical effect on the subjects’ ICS level. The above findings successfully answer the two research questions. Then, based on the subjects’ real situations, this study analyzes the underlying causes for the findings from two perspectives. Firstly, Chinese students are greatly affected by the collectivism-oriented cultural value. Secondly, the subjects lack chances of intercultural practice and experience. In the end, four tentative suggestions are put forward to improve the subjects’ ICS level and intercultural communication competence.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".