Perceived Writer: The Construction of Academic Writer Identity in the Interaction of Multilingual Student-Writers and Instructor-Readers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing in the academic context involves the creation of knowledge, as well as the expression of writers’ identities. Consequently, writers’ identities can be inferred by their readers as similar to the writers’ intended identities or distinctively. Such identity inferences of the author can play a vital role in readers’ perception and evaluation of a written work. Nonetheless, the instructors’ perceptions of multilingual student writers’ (MSWs) identities who write in English as their additional language have received little attention in the literature. Therefore, this study initially examined the academic writer identity constructions of five undergraduate MSWs in the Canadian context. Second, the extent to which instructor-readers construct these MSWs’ academic writer identities was explored. Finally, I examined whether there are discrepancies or similarities between the academic writer identities that student-participants intended to project in their text and the identity that instructor-participants constructed. Ivanič and Camps’s (2001) three simultaneous types of subject-positioning were utilized as the analytical tool. The findings indicated that (a) the instructor-readers draw on various (non-)linguistic features and construct the academic writer identity of the writers and (b) factors such as MSWs’ unawareness of influential determinants on self-representation in the text, challenging academic writing conventions of the students’ context, and cultural differences between the reader and writer, could cause discrepancies between writers’ intended academic writer identities and readers’ inferences about such identities. These findings suggest a writing pedagogy that raises language awareness and helps MSWs understand self-representation in their texts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".