The Role of Prior Genre Knowledge in the English for Academic Purposes Classroom: A Study of Students’ Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study explores English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students’ perceptions of (a) their awareness and knowledge of written academic genres in the first languages (L1s) and in English, which they acquired in previous writing experiences and (b) the relationship between their prior L1, English, and current EAP writing. The qualitative empirical study uses Rhetorical Genre Studies (RGS) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) approaches to genre as its theoretical framework. The data collected from eight participants include a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were thematically coded using techniques informed by the modified constructivist grounded theory. The data analysis has revealed the student participants' implicit L1 genre knowledge, their perception of limited prior L1/English academic writing experience, and a lack of connection with their EAP writing, which may hinder successful transfer of EAP students' prior genre awareness and knowledge to their EAP practices. Implications for genre-based EAP pedagogy are discussed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".