Advanced Writing for Asian Graduates in Canada and the United States: A Qualitative Case Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem explored is the issue of Asian international students who arrive in Canada and the United States and are unprepared for Western advanced essay writing practices. The location used for research was a globally focused graduate program in an American university situated in Vancouver, Canada. The participants were males and females that have received their undergraduate degree in one of the multiple Asian countries. The collection of data included semi-structured interviews, participant's first graduate essay, researcher observations/memberchecking and comparison to other scholarly research all governed by the case study method. Data coding and the constant comparative method were used to identify themes that underlie advanced writing challenges based on the Asian international student's perspective from their bachelor studies. The findings show participants’ prior experience and knowledge of advanced writing practice before attending graduate school and participant's advice for future students. The findings provide higher education leaders and faculty with information to consider when addressing the curriculum challenges of advanced writing for international Asian students. Nine recommendations for future research have the potential to move the conversation beyond the individual deficit model to include social change within the milieu of the international student's graduate experience of higher education in Canada and the United States.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".