Learning for Global Mindedness: Experiences of Study Abroad Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored how students developed global-mindedness through pedagogical practices in study abroad programs at a university in Canada. The study is informed by a multidimensional concept of global-mindedness that consider how individuals “think about and engage with otherness and difference in contexts characterized by plurality, complexity, uncertainty, contingency and inequality” (Andreotti et al., 2015, p. 254). This concept has cognitive, affective and performative dimensions, about what we know, about how we feel and about what we do. We interviewed fourteen Canadian undergraduate students about their perceptions of global-mindedness, pedagogical practices, and benefits and challenges of cross-cultural learning experiences in their study abroad experiences. Results of the study reveal that many students participated in study abroad programs for instrumental purposes such as earning easy credits, completion of internships for their degree requirements, and preparation for future employability. T he majority of students engaged global-mindedness from cognitive and affective perspectives in their study abroad programs, but few from a performative perspective. This study addresses knowledge gaps related to internationalization, in particular study abroad policy. It includes students’ perspectives on study abroad, bottom up perspectives. The findings of the research also provide useful insights into universities’ internationalization policy and practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".