Blogging for intercultural communicative competence in study abroad programs: All breadth, no depth?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participants in study abroad (SA) programs (sojourners) are often encouraged to blog as a form of reflective writing, yet little is known about this practice. Generally, reflection facilitates sojourners’ engagement in their personal and professional growth. Drawing from two different but complementary frameworks, we analyzed blogs from 51 sojourners in short-term SA volunteer teaching placements to examine the reflection that occurred through their writing. The two frameworks revealed different aspects of blogging practices: types of reflection (Maarof, 2007) were primarily descriptive, but Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) Learning (Elola & Oskoz, 2008) examples were more numerous and varied, documenting sojourners’ navigation of culture in SA. Sojourners did not typically use their blogs for dialogic or critical reflection, instead chronicling experiences or representing reflection as completed actions. Although blogging can be useful for reflection in SA, the results from this study suggest that careful scaffolding may be necessary to encourage critical reflection.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".