Responsible education: what engages international postgraduate students – evidence from UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Responsive educational approaches focus on a set of well-designed practices intended to create engaging, social cohesion, better knowledge outcomes and excellent students’ experience. Therefore, this paper aims to engage in the discourse of the intersection of psych-sociology of learning and student’s engagement, connected to the sense of belonging and theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Design/methodology/approach By applying an ethnographic approach and interviews of 45 international students from three UK business schools, it proposes that a sense of “belongingness” is a prerequisite for learning, personal and professional development. Owing to the exploratory nature of the subject, the use of qualitative methodology turned out to be particularly useful. Indeed, the conduct of in-depth semi-structured interviews, participative observation enabled us to access perceptions of students and compare different points of view. Findings The findings indicate that international students measure their experience by “sense of belonging”, integration and engagement on many interrelated and influential factors. English proficiency and employability skills are the major concerns. The kinds of support they received from their faculties and the quality of feedback from tutors are important for international studies integration and sense of belonging. Originality/value The findings of the critical elements of the engagement and experience of international students have both policy and practical implications given the high demand for UK universities by foreign students. Although, this paper is based on findings from UK higher education institutions, the insights are of relevance to many countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, France and the USA, who have a significant proportion of overseas students.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".