Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study engages with how prospective teachers of English (PTEs) conceptualize intercultural communicative competence (ICC). In particular, we focus on the underlying sources that influence the development of ICC for pre-service teachers in a teacher education program in Turkey. A self-assessment scale and semi-structured interviews were used as data collection tools. The results reveal that the definition of ICC is vague among the PTEs, and their understanding of it is insufficient. In particular, while they can provide a definition of ICC, they rarely mention characteristics beyond linguistic competence. Further to this, travel and exchange programs, as well as peer interactions are the primary sources of ICC as reported by PTEs; while academic courses have no statistically significant contribution. Keywords: intercultural communicative competence; prospective teachers of English; perception; contributing sources; academic program Cette étude porte sur la façon dont les futurs enseignants d’anglais conçoivent la compétence communicative interculturelle (CCI). Plus particulièrement, nous nous penchons sur les sources sous-jacentes qui influencent le développement de la CCI chez les enseignants en formation dans un programme de formation à l’enseignement en Turquie. Une grille d’autoévaluation et des entrevues semi-structurées ont servi d’outils de collecte de données. Les résultats indiquent que la définition de la CCI est vague chez les futurs enseignants d’anglais et qu’ils possèdent insuffisamment de connaissances à ce sujet. Notamment, même s’ils sont en mesure de fournir une définition de la CCI, ils en notent rarement les caractéristiques autres que la compétence linguistique. De plus, comme sources principales de CCI, les futurs enseignants d’anglais nomment les voyages, les programmes d’échange et les interactions avec les pairs; les cours académiques n’y contribuent pas de façon statistiquement significative. Mots clés : compétence communicative interculturelle; futurs enseignants d’anglais; perception; sources contributrices; programme académique
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".