Academic Presentations across Post-secondary Contexts: The Discourse Socialization of Non-native English Speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This qualitative multiple-case study draws on second language (L2) socialization theory (Duff, 1995, 2003; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) to explore the discourse socialization of six non-native graduate students through their engagement in an oral activity, the academic presentation (AP) in regular content courses at a Canadian university. Multiple data sources (AP observations, interviews, field notes, course outlines) were collected and triangulated for analysis, which involved recursively going over the data identifying salient and recurrent themes. The study extends our understanding of APs across post-secondary settings by analyzing and comparing the main activity characteristics in four disciplines. In addition, an examination of the presentation challenges and coping strategies of the participating students contributes to viewing their L2 academic discourse socialization as a complex process that may be perceived as difficult even by students with advanced language proficiency and may be resisted by students whose home academic discourse values contrast with those in their new 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".