AN INQUIRY INTO THE INFLUENCES OF L1 CULTURE ON INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ L2 WRITING IN CANADIAN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that the interaction between the first language (L1) culture and academic English (L2) writing is crucial in the arena of second language writing. In the words of Uysal (2006): “Culture and writing are inextricably connected to each other; thus, [the] native language cultural background deeply influences learning to write in a second language and accordingly the L2 written products” (p. 1). However, the question here is what is native or first language culture? Particularly, in today’s world where most cultural and linguistic boundaries have melted away due to globalization lending to the spread of trade, technology, the entertainment media and the internet, the definition of culture has become increasingly complex and subjective. Globalization also spread English to parts of the world where the language took on local forms that were in turn fed back into the global use resulting in new varieties of Englishes across the world. Therefore, it becomes vitally important to understand about international undergraduate students’ first language cultures and what kind of influences culture has on their academic English writing. Framed by the theories of Intercultural Rhetoric, Critical Contrastive Rhetoric and Glocalization of English Language Use, this study aims to answer the following questions from the perspectives of international undergraduate students: 1. What constitutes the L1 and individual cultures of the international undergraduate students in Canada? 2. How does the L1 culture of the international undergraduate students in Canada influence their academic L2 writing? The study follows a sequential mixed-methods approach, drawing on a quantitative questionnaire administered to 400 international undergraduate students at one university in Eastern Ontario, Canada, followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews with 20 international undergraduate students as participants. This study will help researcher and academic writing educators to understand the first language culture of the international students and the influences of the first language culture on their English writing.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".