High-impact practices (HIPs) benefits from study abroad country agent: a multi-method multi-perspective approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to extend the Blevins et al. (2020) study by empirically examining the benefits of using a customized study abroad host-country provider (hereafter referred to as “SAA”) of logistical and other services that support non-native host country (hereafter referred to as non-indigenous) college of business study abroad educators. This study also makes a significant contribution by extending Strange and Gibson’s (2017) call by examining transformative learning experiences (TLEs), a high-impact practice, from educators’ and students’ perspectives of two types of study abroad experiences (i.e. one with and one without an SAA). Design/methodology/approach A mixed methods and multiple perspectives triangulation of the three studies (i.e. student survey, student-produced artifacts data and faculty interviews conducted in Canada, Spain and the UK) was used for this study to increase confidence in the findings by providing a comprehensive picture of the results. A mixed methodology provides rich, in-depth data for analysis as to how study abroad experience [hereafter referred to as experience(s) abroad] benefits from contracting with an SAA to work with a non-indigenous business course educator. Findings This study's findings demonstrate the positive impact of transformative learning from a short-term study abroad experience from contracting with an SAA. Practical implications Benefits of contracting with a host-country SAA are increased time and a reduction in the emotional toll on educators. Educators are free to provide memorable international business educational experiences abroad, resulting in student satisfaction and transformative learning. Originality/value The originality of this study is the mixed methods and multiple perspectives approach to the topic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".