English for Academic Purposes Student Reflections: Factors Related to Their Additional Language Socialization at a Canadian University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study set out to explore English for academic purposes (EAP) student perceptions of their experiences at a university in western Canada. A qualitative approach was used, with 17 students completing a questionnaire toward the end of their EAP program, and one of those students taking part in an interview approximately one year later. Data from the questionnaires and interview were transcribed and descriptively coded, with the codes gathered into salient themes. Thematic analysis identified benefits related to developing academic writing and speaking skills, boosting confidence levels, fostering EAP friendships, providing a transition period, and learning about local culture. However, the analysis also revealed the need for improvements in overall teaching and learning experiences, reading and listening skills development, and sociocultural content. These findings point to the importance of conceptualizing EAP with a wide range of outcomes related to linguistic, academic, social, cultural, and personal growth to support students’ additional language socialization in a postsecondary context. The findings also highlight areas for curriculum renewal and revision and underscore the role these programs can play in building on students’ strengths as they develop their overall competence in an additional language to achieve the goals that matter to them. Cette étude avait pour objectif d’explorer les perceptions d’apprenants de l’anglais sur objectifs académiques (AOA) de leur expérience dans une université de l’ouest du Canada. Une approche qualitative a été privilégiée et 17 apprenants ont complété un questionnaire vers la fin de leur programme d’AOA, un de ces apprenants ayant également participé à un entretien un an plus tard. Les données des questionnaires et de l’entretien ont été transcrites et codées de manière descriptive et les codes ont été regroupés par thèmes saillants. L’analyse thématique a identifié des avantages liés au développement del’écriture académique et des compétences orales, à la promotion des niveaux de confiance et des amitiés dans le cadre du programmes AOA, à l’établissement d’une période de transition et à l’apprentissage de la culture locale. Cependant, l’analyse a également révélé le besoin d’améliorer les expériences globales d’enseignement et d’apprentissage, le développement des compétences de lecture et d’écoute ainsi que le contenu socio-culturel. Ces résultats soulèvent l’importance de conceptualiser l’AOA en termes d’un large éventail de résultats liés à la l’épanouissement académique, social, culturel et personnel afin de soutenir la socialisation des apprenants dans leur langue additionnelle et dans un contexte postsecondaire. Les résultats soulignent également les opportunités de renouvellement et de révision des curriculums et font ressortir le rôle que ces programmes peuvent jouer en s’appuyant sur les forces des apprenants tandis qu’ils développent leur compétence globale dans une langue additionnelle afin de réaliser les objectifs qui leur sont importants.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".