The Impact of a College EAP Writing Program: Former Students' Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the findings of a small-scale qualitative study aimed at exploring the academic experiences of college students (n=11) who had previously engaged in the EAP program at a mid-sized college in Ontario. The primary objective was to unveil student perspectives on the effectiveness of the EAP writing program, and to determine which skills acquired from the EAP were most helpful in their subsequent academic pursuits. Thematic analysis of focus group data reveals three major skills: conducting online research (citing sources and paraphrasing), paragraph writing and grammar, and one genre (reports) as most efficacious in preparing students for their Programs of Study (POS). Three areas of perceived need are stronger connections to POS via vocabulary and referencing systems, more summarizing, and more collaborative writing. A final emergent theme, “Value of EAP,” comprises students’ descriptions of being empowered and successful in their POS as a result of EAP participation. The implications of these findings for future research on EAP and college-level writing are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".