Pub Date : 2025-12-19DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101621
Peter Levrai , María del Pilar García Mayo
Collaboration is a valued learning outcome in Higher Education (HE) and students are likely to encounter collaborative assignments, such as a group essay or oral presentation, during their studies. While there are positive affordances to these types of assignments, their summative assessment may often represent a problematic area. In order to better understand the assessment practices of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) practitioners toward collaborative writing, a constructivist Grounded Theory approach was followed. Twenty practitioners were asked to evaluate four different models of collaborative assessment. In-depth discussion of these approaches highlighted the concerns and beliefs of EAP practitioners when it comes to collaborative assignments, with the key principles impacting practitioners’ approach to collaborative assessment being fairness, transparency and simplicity. These in turn shaped three guiding orientations: reward, practical and defensibility. Understanding what guides teachers in collaborative assessment gives us the opportunity for training and professional development to enable more principled and consistent collaborative assessment practices.
{"title":"Understanding the collaborative assessment identity of English for academic purposes practitioners in higher education","authors":"Peter Levrai , María del Pilar García Mayo","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101621","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101621","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Collaboration is a valued learning outcome in Higher Education (HE) and students are likely to encounter collaborative assignments, such as a group essay or oral presentation, during their studies. While there are positive affordances to these types of assignments, their summative assessment may often represent a problematic area. In order to better understand the assessment practices of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) practitioners toward collaborative writing, a constructivist Grounded Theory approach was followed. Twenty practitioners were asked to evaluate four different models of collaborative assessment. In-depth discussion of these approaches highlighted the concerns and beliefs of EAP practitioners when it comes to collaborative assignments, with the key principles impacting practitioners’ approach to collaborative assessment being fairness, transparency and simplicity. These in turn shaped three guiding orientations: reward, practical and defensibility. Understanding what guides teachers in collaborative assessment gives us the opportunity for training and professional development to enable more principled and consistent collaborative assessment practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101621"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145790122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-11DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101620
Yu Kyoung Shin
{"title":"","authors":"Yu Kyoung Shin","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101620","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101620","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101620"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145736242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-11DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101617
Lingyu Yi, Zhongqing He
Syntactic complexity is a defining feature of academic discourse that shapes how knowledge is organized, abstracted, and communicated across disciplines. Although previous research has developed various metrics to measure syntactic complexity and cognitive processing costs across genres, few studies have systematically compared how these structures differ across disciplinary domains or reflect discipline-specific epistemological orientations. This study addresses this gap by investigating variation in syntactic complexity across disciplines using mean dependency distance (MDD) as the primary measure. Using a self-compiled corpus of 200 research articles across four disciplines, this study employed spaCy to perform dependency parsing and extract MDD, sentence length, mean clause length, and other syntactic metrics. The results reveal significant differences in syntactic complexity across disciplines. Applied linguistics exhibited the highest MDD, reflecting a tendency toward layered clause structures that support theoretical abstraction. Sociology occupied an intermediate position, balancing clarity with conceptual elaboration. In contrast, biology and materials engineering demonstrated lower MDD values, employing structurally efficient forms to encode procedural precision and technical specificity. These findings demonstrate that syntactic complexity is not merely a structural feature but also an indicator of the communicative and epistemic functions specific to academic disciplines. This study contributes to our understanding of how grammatical form realizes disciplinary knowledge practices in written academic discourse and offers practical implications for EAP research and pedagogy.
{"title":"Syntactic complexity in knowledge construction across disciplines: Evidence from dependency distance","authors":"Lingyu Yi, Zhongqing He","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101617","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101617","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Syntactic complexity is a defining feature of academic discourse that shapes how knowledge is organized, abstracted, and communicated across disciplines. Although previous research has developed various metrics to measure syntactic complexity and cognitive processing costs across genres, few studies have systematically compared how these structures differ across disciplinary domains or reflect discipline-specific epistemological orientations. This study addresses this gap by investigating variation in syntactic complexity across disciplines using mean dependency distance (MDD) as the primary measure. Using a self-compiled corpus of 200 research articles across four disciplines, this study employed spaCy to perform dependency parsing and extract MDD, sentence length, mean clause length, and other syntactic metrics. The results reveal significant differences in syntactic complexity across disciplines. Applied linguistics exhibited the highest MDD, reflecting a tendency toward layered clause structures that support theoretical abstraction. Sociology occupied an intermediate position, balancing clarity with conceptual elaboration. In contrast, biology and materials engineering demonstrated lower MDD values, employing structurally efficient forms to encode procedural precision and technical specificity. These findings demonstrate that syntactic complexity is not merely a structural feature but also an indicator of the communicative and epistemic functions specific to academic disciplines. This study contributes to our understanding of how grammatical form realizes disciplinary knowledge practices in written academic discourse and offers practical implications for EAP research and pedagogy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101617"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145736239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-11DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101619
Yue Yuan , Wei Kang
While motivation has long been recognized as a key factor in second language acquisition (SLA), its role in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) remains under-explored, particularly from the perspective of Positive Psychology (PP). This classroom-based study investigates the components of learner motivation in EAP by drawing on the L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) and the “Three Pillars” framework of PP, aiming to develop a dynamic model that explains the interplay among positive emotions, character strengths, institutional support, and L2 motivation. So, a qualitative research design was employed, involving 13 Chinese PhD students (3 male, 10 female) from various disciplines. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, reflective journals, and classroom observations, and were thematically analyzed using NVivo 12. Findings suggest that learner motivation in EAP can be effectively interpreted through the lens of L2MSS when integrated with PP principles, with a dynamic relationship observed among L2 emotions, L2 traits, and the learning environment. The study offers pedagogical implications for enhancing motivation in EAP contexts and contributes to the broader integration of PP within SLA research.
{"title":"Investigating L2 motivation among Chinese PhD students in an EAP course from a positive psychology perspective","authors":"Yue Yuan , Wei Kang","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101619","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101619","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>While motivation has long been recognized as a key factor in second language acquisition (SLA), its role in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) remains under-explored, particularly from the perspective of Positive Psychology (PP). This classroom-based study investigates the components of learner motivation in EAP by drawing on the L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) and the “Three Pillars” framework of PP, aiming to develop a dynamic model that explains the interplay among positive emotions, character strengths, institutional support, and L2 motivation. So, a qualitative research design was employed, involving 13 Chinese PhD students (3 male, 10 female) from various disciplines. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, reflective journals, and classroom observations, and were thematically analyzed using NVivo 12. Findings suggest that learner motivation in EAP can be effectively interpreted through the lens of L2MSS when integrated with PP principles, with a dynamic relationship observed among L2 emotions, L2 traits, and the learning environment. The study offers pedagogical implications for enhancing motivation in EAP contexts and contributes to the broader integration of PP within SLA research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101619"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145736241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-08DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101612
Chenze Wu , Benjamin Luke Moorhouse , Yuwei Wan , Meixin Wu
The use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is creating new innovative processes and approaches to writing for publication that have implications for EAP. Given that the appropriate utilization of GenAI tools is under researched, existing EAP curricula might inadequately prepare students to appropriately incorporate GenAI tools into their academic writing practices for publication. The current study explored L2 PhD students’ understanding of the appropriateness of using GenAI in academic writing for publication purposes and their underlying reasons. A two-stage design, including a survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews, was employed. Data included 63 survey responses and 22 semi-structured interviews among L2 PhD students in arts, humanities, and social sciences at a Hong Kong university. The findings suggested divergent perceptions about the appropriateness of GenAI use at each stage of academic writing. Furthermore, although most participants highlighted the importance of maintaining transparency and acknowledged the necessity of AI declaration, about sixty percent opted not to declare their AI usage in actual publishing practices. The study sheds light on the use of GenAI by L2 PhD students in their writing for publication processes, and their understanding of the appropriate use of GenAI for publishing. The article provides six recommendations for EAP instructors and course organizers to help L2 students navigate the complexities of using GenAI appropriately and transparently in academic writing for publication.
{"title":"Exploring PhD students’ utilization of generative AI in academic writing for publication purposes: Insights for EAP","authors":"Chenze Wu , Benjamin Luke Moorhouse , Yuwei Wan , Meixin Wu","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101612","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101612","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is creating new innovative processes and approaches to writing for publication that have implications for EAP. Given that the appropriate utilization of GenAI tools is under researched, existing EAP curricula might inadequately prepare students to appropriately incorporate GenAI tools into their academic writing practices for publication. The current study explored L2 PhD students’ understanding of the appropriateness of using GenAI in academic writing for publication purposes and their underlying reasons. A two-stage design, including a survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews, was employed. Data included 63 survey responses and 22 semi-structured interviews among L2 PhD students in arts, humanities, and social sciences at a Hong Kong university. The findings suggested divergent perceptions about the appropriateness of GenAI use at each stage of academic writing. Furthermore, although most participants highlighted the importance of maintaining transparency and acknowledged the necessity of AI declaration, about sixty percent opted not to declare their AI usage in actual publishing practices. The study sheds light on the use of GenAI by L2 PhD students in their writing for publication processes, and their understanding of the appropriate use of GenAI for publishing. The article provides six recommendations for EAP instructors and course organizers to help L2 students navigate the complexities of using GenAI appropriately and transparently in academic writing for publication.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101612"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145736240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-05DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101618
Mingyu Li , Fengqiang Wang
While English academic writing has garnered growing attention in higher education (HE), scholarship has largely centred on English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) students' experiences, leaving those of native English-speaking (NES) students under-explored. To address this, this study explores NES university students' academic writing experience through a vulnerability lens, challenging the assumption that language fluency alone ensures academic success. Drawing on interviews with NES students, teaching staff, and writing tutors in three UK universities, the findings reveal that students’ initial confidence in their linguistic abilities often collides with the complexities of academic conventions. Moreover, students recounted emotional stress, self-doubt, and limited institutional support, highlighting how NES learners can “slip through the cracks” when services are primarily framed for those EAL. Nevertheless, once students recognised and addressed these shortcomings, they could leverage various self-regulated strategies to develop stronger writing practices, during which vulnerability emerged as a potential catalyst for development. By foregrounding the challenges and adaptive responses of NES students, the study underscores the importance of reframing academic writing support to be inclusive of all learners, advocating for discipline-specific scaffolding, and a “vulnerability-aware” pedagogy that fosters both equity and growth in HE.
{"title":"“I thought I knew how to write in my own language …” unveiling vulnerability in NES university students’ English academic writing experience","authors":"Mingyu Li , Fengqiang Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101618","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101618","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>While English academic writing has garnered growing attention in higher education (HE), scholarship has largely centred on English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) students' experiences, leaving those of native English-speaking (NES) students under-explored. To address this, this study explores NES university students' academic writing experience through a vulnerability lens, challenging the assumption that language fluency alone ensures academic success. Drawing on interviews with NES students, teaching staff, and writing tutors in three UK universities, the findings reveal that students’ initial confidence in their linguistic abilities often collides with the complexities of academic conventions. Moreover, students recounted emotional stress, self-doubt, and limited institutional support, highlighting how NES learners can “slip through the cracks” when services are primarily framed for those EAL. Nevertheless, once students recognised and addressed these shortcomings, they could leverage various self-regulated strategies to develop stronger writing practices, during which vulnerability emerged as a potential catalyst for development. By foregrounding the challenges and adaptive responses of NES students, the study underscores the importance of reframing academic writing support to be inclusive of all learners, advocating for discipline-specific scaffolding, and a “vulnerability-aware” pedagogy that fosters both equity and growth in HE.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101618"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145684528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-02DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101614
Soleiman Shahmohammadi , Hassan Soodmand Afshar
This study examines the role of digital tools in enhancing EAP instruction in Iran, addressing the gap in technology integration within resource-constrained contexts. These contexts are characterised by limited technological infrastructure and restrictive internet policies, hindering the effective integration of technology. To date, no systematic research has explored how these contextual constraints influence the adoption and integration of digital tools in Iranian higher education. Using a sequential embedded mixed-methods design, we surveyed 153 students and 36 instructors using structured questionnaires to capture perceptions of the effects of digital tools on EAP skills. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 instructors, 18 students, and eight experts to provide deeper insights into pedagogical beliefs and institutional barriers. We observed 12 EA P classrooms across the Engineering, Medicine, and Social Sciences disciplines in 11 universities for two months to document actual teaching practices and tool use. The results revealed that digital tools, through their real-time feedback and interactive features, significantly influenced writing fluency and vocabulary acquisition. The classroom observations highlighted gaps in supporting speaking skills and discipline-specific needs, especially in Engineering and Medicine. The barriers that influence integration are limited access to premium tools, infrastructure issues, restrictive filtering policies, insufficient instructor training, and schooling cultures. To address these challenges, we propose a context-sensitive framework consisting of tailored digital solutions, blended learning models, and institutional support. The study underscores the potential of technology to transform EAP instruction in restricted settings and offers empirically grounded implications for practitioners and policymakers.
{"title":"EAP in the digital age: Leveraging technology for language development","authors":"Soleiman Shahmohammadi , Hassan Soodmand Afshar","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101614","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101614","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study examines the role of digital tools in enhancing EAP instruction in Iran, addressing the gap in technology integration within resource-constrained contexts. These contexts are characterised by limited technological infrastructure and restrictive internet policies, hindering the effective integration of technology. To date, no systematic research has explored how these contextual constraints influence the adoption and integration of digital tools in Iranian higher education. Using a sequential embedded mixed-methods design, we surveyed 153 students and 36 instructors using structured questionnaires to capture perceptions of the effects of digital tools on EAP skills. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 instructors, 18 students, and eight experts to provide deeper insights into pedagogical beliefs and institutional barriers. We observed 12 EA P classrooms across the Engineering, Medicine, and Social Sciences disciplines in 11 universities for two months to document actual teaching practices and tool use. The results revealed that digital tools, through their real-time feedback and interactive features, significantly influenced writing fluency and vocabulary acquisition. The classroom observations highlighted gaps in supporting speaking skills and discipline-specific needs, especially in Engineering and Medicine. The barriers that influence integration are limited access to premium tools, infrastructure issues, restrictive filtering policies, insufficient instructor training, and schooling cultures. To address these challenges, we propose a context-sensitive framework consisting of tailored digital solutions, blended learning models, and institutional support. The study underscores the potential of technology to transform EAP instruction in restricted settings and offers empirically grounded implications for practitioners and policymakers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101614"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145684529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-26DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101616
Marii Abdeljaoued
The doctoral thesis is among the most demanding genres in English for Academic Purposes (EAP). It requires novice scholars to master complex rhetorical conventions, construct disciplinary identities, and project credible authorial voices. Understanding how these rhetorical practices have changed over time is essential for tracing the evolution of doctoral writing conventions. This longitudinal corpus-based study investigates diachronic variation in stance taking across 240 UK doctoral theses (18 million words of raw text, 13 million of cleaned text). The corpus covers eight disciplines spanning the hard–soft and pure–applied spectrum between 1950 and 2016. Drawing on Hyland's (2005a; 2005b) stance model, the analysis examines the use of hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mention over seven decades. Findings reveal broad stability in overall stance density, indicating a qualified conservatism in the genre. Hedges remain the most frequent device, while self-mention shows a gradual increase. This suggests a persistent caution in argumentation alongside a modest shift toward greater authorial presence. Booster use declines slightly, accompanied by greater rhetorical precision and disciplinary specificity, whereas attitude markers display relative stability with disciplinary variation. These findings underscore the conservative nature of doctoral writing, yet highlight subtle rhetorical shifts with pedagogical significance. Implications are discussed for EAP practitioners, including the development of discipline-sensitive materials, corpus-informed teaching activities, and supervisor training to enhance doctoral writers' stance awareness and rhetorical flexibility.
{"title":"From hedging to self-mention: Seventy years of stance in doctoral theses and what it means for EAP","authors":"Marii Abdeljaoued","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101616","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101616","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The doctoral thesis is among the most demanding genres in English for Academic Purposes (EAP). It requires novice scholars to master complex rhetorical conventions, construct disciplinary identities, and project credible authorial voices. Understanding how these rhetorical practices have changed over time is essential for tracing the evolution of doctoral writing conventions. This longitudinal corpus-based study investigates diachronic variation in stance taking across 240 UK doctoral theses (18 million words of raw text, 13 million of cleaned text). The corpus covers eight disciplines spanning the hard–soft and pure–applied spectrum between 1950 and 2016. Drawing on Hyland's (2005a; 2005b) stance model, the analysis examines the use of hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mention over seven decades. Findings reveal broad stability in overall stance density, indicating a qualified conservatism in the genre. Hedges remain the most frequent device, while self-mention shows a gradual increase. This suggests a persistent caution in argumentation alongside a modest shift toward greater authorial presence. Booster use declines slightly, accompanied by greater rhetorical precision and disciplinary specificity, whereas attitude markers display relative stability with disciplinary variation. These findings underscore the conservative nature of doctoral writing, yet highlight subtle rhetorical shifts with pedagogical significance. Implications are discussed for EAP practitioners, including the development of discipline-sensitive materials, corpus-informed teaching activities, and supervisor training to enhance doctoral writers' stance awareness and rhetorical flexibility.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101616"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145615635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-23DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101613
Amy Wanyu Ou , Kevin W.H. Tai , Xinyi Wang
This study explores how multilingual PhD students navigate AI-mediated academic writing and construct their academic identities, drawing on translanguaging and transpositioning as analytical frameworks. While generative AI tools are increasingly integrated into academic writing, current research often overlooks how interactions with these tools shape students' roles as emerging academic writers, particularly doctoral students who are in the process of developing their disciplinary voice. Using a cross-context case study, this study analyses data from ten PhD students from diverse disciplinary and national backgrounds. Data include student texts, ChatGPT interaction histories, and interviews, analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Findings show that students strategically mobilize their full linguistic repertoires alongside AI-generated text, engaging in bilingual mediation, multimodal composition, and critical adaptation of AI language. We argue that AI-mediated academic writing is not merely a technical or text production process but an interactive space where these students with insecure ESL stances engage in transpositioning, encouraging the emergence of critical academic writer identities. This process involves students’ power negotiation with AI through translanguaging practices to assert text ownership and disciplinary voice. This study contributes to AI and academic English education research by highlighting identity construction as central to writing with AI and offers pedagogical insights into how doctoral training can better support reflective, genre-aware, and multilingual academic writers in the AI era.
{"title":"The emergence of academic writers: Multilingual doctoral students’ translanguaging and transpositioning in AI-mediated academic writing","authors":"Amy Wanyu Ou , Kevin W.H. Tai , Xinyi Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101613","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101613","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study explores how multilingual PhD students navigate AI-mediated academic writing and construct their academic identities, drawing on translanguaging and transpositioning as analytical frameworks. While generative AI tools are increasingly integrated into academic writing, current research often overlooks how interactions with these tools shape students' roles as emerging academic writers, particularly doctoral students who are in the process of developing their disciplinary voice. Using a cross-context case study, this study analyses data from ten PhD students from diverse disciplinary and national backgrounds. Data include student texts, ChatGPT interaction histories, and interviews, analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Findings show that students strategically mobilize their full linguistic repertoires alongside AI-generated text, engaging in bilingual mediation, multimodal composition, and critical adaptation of AI language. We argue that AI-mediated academic writing is not merely a technical or text production process but an interactive space where these students with insecure ESL stances engage in transpositioning, encouraging the emergence of critical <em>academic writer</em> identities<em>.</em> This process involves students’ power negotiation with AI through translanguaging practices to assert text ownership and disciplinary voice. This study contributes to AI and academic English education research by highlighting identity construction as central to writing with AI and offers pedagogical insights into how doctoral training can better support reflective, genre-aware, and multilingual academic writers in the AI era.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101613"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145615634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-19DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101599
Hans Malmström , Diane Pecorari
In higher education, students’ learning conditions are shaped in no small part by the reading they are expected to do. This study documents the scope of English reading assigned in Swedish-medium undergraduate education. Although instruction is conducted in Swedish, students are nevertheless frequently required to engage with English texts, a practice long established in non-Anglophone contexts but not previously mapped in detail. Drawing on an extensive sample of reading lists from 2,225 Swedish-medium undergraduate courses across major disciplines, the study shows that students are often expected to manage substantial volumes of English reading, frequently without clear alignment to course credits or realistic consideration of workload. There is also considerable variation in academic reading expectations, reflected for example in the weekly English reading load both across and within disciplines. The study is descriptive by design: establishing a baseline of English reading load is a necessary first step toward theorizing reading practices in higher education and preparing interventions. At the same time, the results highlight the need for reflection and adjustment: ensuring that English reading demands are transparent, purposeful, and balanced across the curriculum will make them more manageable for students and support a more effective use of English texts in Swedish higher education.
{"title":"English reading expectations in Swedish higher education","authors":"Hans Malmström , Diane Pecorari","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101599","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101599","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In higher education, students’ learning conditions are shaped in no small part by the reading they are expected to do. This study documents the scope of English reading assigned in Swedish-medium undergraduate education. Although instruction is conducted in Swedish, students are nevertheless frequently required to engage with English texts, a practice long established in non-Anglophone contexts but not previously mapped in detail. Drawing on an extensive sample of reading lists from 2,225 Swedish-medium undergraduate courses across major disciplines, the study shows that students are often expected to manage substantial volumes of English reading, frequently without clear alignment to course credits or realistic consideration of workload. There is also considerable variation in academic reading expectations, reflected for example in the weekly English reading load both across and within disciplines. The study is descriptive by design: establishing a baseline of English reading load is a necessary first step toward theorizing reading practices in higher education and preparing interventions. At the same time, the results highlight the need for reflection and adjustment: ensuring that English reading demands are transparent, purposeful, and balanced across the curriculum will make them more manageable for students and support a more effective use of English texts in Swedish higher education.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101599"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145569971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号