Do They Make a Difference? The Impact of English Language Programs on Second Language Students in Canadian Universities
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
Few studies have investigated the impact of English language programs on second language (L2) students studying in Canadian universities (Cheng & Fox, 2008; Fox, 2005, 2009). This article reports on questionnaire responses of 641 L2 students studying in 36 English language programs in 26 Canadian universities. The researchers identified programs by their activity emphasis as either English as a second language ( ESL ) or English for academic purposes ( EAP ). Activity emphasizing speaking, social interaction, and general language development was viewed as ESL , whereas activity that emphasized academic reading, writing, and language development was considered EAP . The researchers used structural equation modeling procedures to examine the network of relationships between language program emphasis and participants' background characteristics in influencing academic and social engagement. A model of moderated mediation (Wu & Zumbo, 2008) was confirmed; that is, language program activities were found to account for variation in strategies which mediated academic and social engagement. However, the impact was moderated (lessened or strengthened) by three personal background factors: anxiety, stress, and motivation. This study refines our understanding of the positive impact of ESL and EAP programs on L2 university students' academic and social engagement.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it