A Triangulated Accounting of Top Notch 2: Negotiating Ideologies in the Multimodal Discourse of an EFL Textbook in Korean University Classrooms
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Textbooks are artifacts of a pedagogical culture, but in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education in Korean universities, that culture often forces instructors and students to use generic, global publications for reasons more political than pedagogical.Critical studies of EFL textbooks in global and Korean contexts reveal they contain certain social realities that often favor Anglo-centric hegemonies, while marginalizing their intended audiences.Regardless of those social injustices, Korean university programs continue to prescribe globally published EFL textbooks that often serve as the course curriculum.While some research underscores content and consumption in Korean contexts, none yield a comprehensive look at the multimodal discourse in a specific EFL textbook or correlate how that content is negotiated, consumed and valued by students and instructors in a comparable fashion.Informed by frameworks rooted in critical applied linguistics, discourse analysis, critical pedagogy, and multimodality, this study attempts to fill that gap in research by drawing focus on Top Notch 2 (a popular choice for Korean universities) (TN2) and its use in two EFL programs, by answering the following research questions: 1) What are the power relations and ideologies in the multimodal discourse of TN2? 2) How do instructors and students negotiate and account was to be a native-English speaker because that minimum qualification appeared adequate for a fine arts university major to teach English in Korea.Born of other such conversations with Korean acquaintances and friends over the years, I began to wonder to what extent English education (at all levels and in all its manifestations) affected social, political, and economic climates.At that time in Korea, many insufficiencies in an English teaching candidate's background and qualifications were often over-looked because the need for any kind of English education was in such demand that perplexed fine artists (such as I) found themselves teaching children "ABC's" in Seoul.To that point, a common joke among expatriates in Korea at that time considered sufficient qualification to teach English as a) being a native English speaker with any BA degree, b) standing upright (most of the time), and c) having a pulse (Audwin Wilkinson, personal communication, May 2019).Fortunately, by the time I was teaching at university programs in 2001, sensible English education policies were implemented nationwide and began to see strict enforcement.However, an unanswered question explored at more depth later in this dissertation, remains: did that lengthy period up to 2001 (and perhaps beyond) of unqualified professionals teaching English at all levels of education have long-lasting, negative consequences resonating in English education challenges faced by Koreans today?That question may not be possible to answer but certainly plays a supporting role as one of the sparks igniting this study of English language teaching textbooks used in Korean universities.Despite the Korean government's efforts to reform English education in SK, the books remained unchanged and ever-more costly necessities for each student to bear (literally and financially).Year after year, new editions of EFL textbooks, with new online components, and supplemental multimedia packages, all wrapped in newly designed covers, promise new levels of academic excellence with every purchase (Bell & Gower, 2011).I shamefully admit to once
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».