Framed to fit? A critical exploration of western academic culture in English as additional language learners textbooks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the representation of Western academic culture in English as an Additional Language (EAL) textbooks and its implications for international students in Canadian higher education. Through a critical discourse analysis of two widely used EAL textbooks and semi-structured interviews with international students, this research uncovers how these materials present Western academic norms as the default standard for academic success. The study identifies three key themes: (1) the dominance of Western academic culture without critical examination or acknowledgment of alternative academic traditions, (2) a deficit-based framing of EAL learners that emphasises what they lack rather than their unique strengths and perspectives, and (3) the use of language that reinforces existing power dynamics in academic settings. The findings suggest that current EAL pedagogical materials may unintentionally perpetuate cultural hegemony and create barriers for students from non-Western academic backgrounds. This research contributes to discussions about cultural responsiveness in EAL education and emphasises the need for more inclusive pedagogical practices that value diverse academic traditions and learning approaches in higher education.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".