Are We Graduating Global Citizens?: A Mixed Methods Study Investigating Student's Intercultural Development and Perceptions of Intercultural and Global Learning in Academic Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demographic shifts have brought changes to the Canadian higher education landscape. Increased cultural diversity is the result of increased access for and intentional recruitment of a wide range of domestic, Aboriginal, new Canadian, and international students. In addition, these students will live and work in increasingly diverse and globalized contexts. There is much rhetoric regarding the supposed outcomes of internationalization activities producing global citizens. This study sought to understand whether students completing programs in culturally diverse, internationalized institutions were developing intercultural and global competencies, and if their educational experiences influenced this learning. This mixed method study investigated the intercultural development scores and perceptions of intercultural and global learning of upper level students in British Columbian regional universities. Specifically, the study sought to determine the levels of students' (N=178) intercultural development scores and if demographic factors were related to intercultural development scores as measured by the Intercultural Development Inventory. The IDI results together with student perceptions of the influences of curriculum and pedagogy on intercultural and global learning in academic settings provide educators working in culturally diverse, internationalized institutions with data to consider enhanced strategies to prepare students to live and work effectively in multicultural, international, and global contexts.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".