Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study abroad has the potential to provide a valuable learning opportunity, provided students are supported throughout their experience to critically think and challenge the reification of knowledge hierarchies that are endemic of a colonial education system. This dissertation employs an anti-colonial discursive framework to explore the supports that exist in Ontario’s college system for domestic students engaging in a study abroad experience. Representatives from Ontario’s colleges were interviewed to gain insights into what pedagogical strategies were being used to support domestic students’ critical thinking pre-departure, while abroad, and upon return. Challenges to the implementation of a pedagogical framework, as well as participants’ views on best practices, were also explored. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Findings indicate that the export commodity and human capital development models of internationalization inform the availability of study abroad support for domestic students. Despite the existence of some support, participants referenced a lack of a well-established framework to guide the experience. Pre-departure supports emphasized culture and safety, whereas, while abroad and upon return, reflection was a frequently used pedagogy. Participants emphasized the need for greater pedagogical supports throughout the study abroad experience. There is an opportunity to further develop the framework for pedagogical strategies, as participants reported a time of change at their respective institutions, with the formalization of processes and the centralization of resources underway. Recommendations are provided.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".