Academic writing re-designed: Connecting languages and literacy in the assemblage of EAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study draws on the combined perspectives of “A pedagogy of multiliteracies” (New London Group, 1996) and assemblage and affect (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980/1987) to examine how neoliberal identities shape how English for academic purposes (EAP) students compose a source-based research paper. Such exploration is necessary to account for the range of influences that contribute to students’ meaning making and textual production, especially when academic dishonesty is involved. Interview data from one atypical student participant is presented and analyzed through the post-qualitative method of rhizoanalysis to highlight how (mis)intended meaning in the design process can be (mis)interpreted. Analysis from a pedagogy of multiliteracies framework combined with assemblage and affect reveal the unsuspecting neoliberal influence that shape learning experiences in EAP. Based on these findings, critical implications for EAP pedagogy and research are proposed to address international students’ lived realities as digital-transnational citizens.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".