An examination of eight Master of Education programs at Canadian universities: Articulation and implementation of internationalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher education institutions (HEIs) have been diversifying curriculum, bringing in world-renowned scholars and recruiting international students for the past few decades. This phenomenon is called internationalization, which is defined as a process that integrates “international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” on different levels (Knight, 2003, p. 2). Towards bolstering the internationalization process in Canadian higher education, this study explored the articulation and implementation of internationalization at eight Master of Education (MEd) programs that cater to the needs of international students. The overarching research question posed in this study is: How is internationalization articulated in strategic plans and implemented in the eight MEd programs that have a large number of international students? Specifically, there are three sub research questions: How do seven Canadian institutions formally articulate and rationalize their internationalization in strategic documents? What are the perspectives of administrators, staff, and instructors regarding the rationales of internationalization in the MEd programs? What are the perspectives of instructors and students regarding students’ growth in the MEd programs? The study was framed within a pragmatic worldview and guided by an abridged version of rationales driving internationalization proposed by Knight (2021). A multiple case study design was adopted, involving document analysis on internationalization strategic plans and surveys targeting administrators and staff members, instructors, and students (Stake, 2006). The findings confirmed the applicability of Knight’s (2021) rationales in analyzing the internationalization strategies of HEIs. Particularly for the seven HEIs included in this multiple case study, academic and social rationales were highlighted in internationalization plans; however, this articulation risked appearing rhetorical in some cases. Additionally, while university enrolment, budget data, and survey data indicated a strong focus on international student tuition as a revenue source, hence economic rationale, there lacked explicit recognition of such rationale in strategic documents. This recognition triggered concerns regarding the alignment of stated values and practices, and issues arise from this misalignment. Lastly, participants offered insights into rationalization of internationalization on individual levels, though not necessarily aligning with institution level rationales, which suggests for a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics among different rationales.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".