Academic Writer Identity Construction and Awareness in the Canadian Context: The Experience of Undergraduate Multilingual Student Writers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many studies have focused on academic writer identity and how it manifests in English writing as an additional language (LX) (Lehman, 2018; Zhao, 2019). However, few studies on multilingual student writers (MSWs) writing in English as their LX have examined students’ awareness of their academic writer identities and the contribution of such awareness to their academic texts. To bridge this gap, I investigated the experiences of undergraduate MSWs in a Canadian academic context. Specifically, I explored the academic writer identity construction of these learners, the extent of their awareness of these identities, and how awareness of such identities contributes to their actual writing. I also examined the extent to which reader-instructors construct learners’ academic writer identities, the (non-)linguistic features of the texts that support readers’ inferences about students’ academic writer identities, and whether there are discrepancies or similarities between the academic writer identities that student participants intended to project in their text and the identities that readers constructed. The study’s theoretical framework encompassed a social constructivist view of identity (Ivanič, 1998), critical language awareness (Fairclough, 2013), translanguaging theory (Garcia, 2009), and systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1994). Nine undergraduate students and three instructors participated in this research. Semi-structured interviews, final papers, and an-open-ended questionnaire were used to collect data. Data analysis followed Creswell’s (2015) six step process for interpreting qualitative data. Findings suggest that (a) MSWs’ respective academic writer identities are (re)constructed and influenced by various elements, such as privileging power and instructors’ biases in their academic setting; (b) their academic writer identity awareness is associated with their (non-)linguistic choices, and such awareness affects their self-representation in their texts; (c) readers draw on various (non-)linguistic features to construct the academic writer identities of the writers, and (d) many factors can cause discrepancies between writers’ intended identities and the identities inferred by readers, such as the extent of writer’s awareness of influential factors on self-representation in the text, challenging writing conventions, and cultural differences between reader and writer. The study concludes by discussing the implications of the results and proposing recommendations for future research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».