Transitions: Orienting to Reading and Writing Assignments in EAP and MBA Contexts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increased enrolment of non-native speakers from diverse cultural backgrounds in university programs, researchers have begun to explore how such students cope with the academic challenges awaiting them (Leki, 2001; Spack, 1997). The present paper draws on data from a 2-year qualitative study of Chinese students enrolled in an English-medium Masters in Business Administration in a Canadian university. Specifically, we focus on how students' orientations to reading and writing assignments changed as they moved from an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program to their MBA courses. Drawing on genre theory and activity theory, we suggest how these changes were related to differences in what was valued as learning in these two contexts (i.e., the construal or epistemic motive). Although as in Spack (1997), students adapted their reading and writing strategies to cope with assignments in the MBA program, the study also suggests how historically inscribed academic practices may mitigate against students' ability to appropriate relevant literacy resources.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it