English for General Academic Purposes or English for Specific Purposes? Language Learning Needs of Medical Students at a Chinese University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate over the appropriacy of EGAP and ESP has been an ongoing concern in many higher education contexts. In this paper we discuss how teachers’ and students’ perceptions of English curriculum needs are reflected in the conflict between short-term goals, such as passing exams, and long-term goals, such as career development. Students, doctors and teachers at a medical university in the central part of China were asked about their needs through questionnaires and structured interviews. The findings suggest that whilst many felt the need for medical English to be taught in the early years, particularly through medical texts, there was also push back due to the need for general English to pass English exams, such as CET4/6. We argue that through the incorporation of medical texts, students can start to develop their medical English from the first year of university. This not only ensures the motivation for students to study medical English for professional purposes, but also fulfills the perceived need to prepare for the exam.
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 | 0.007 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".