Teaching Physics in English: A Continuing Professional Development for Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The purposes of this study were to develop a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) using English integrated science approach training curriculum and to promote physics teacher’s efficacy to be expert teachers and be able to teach Physics in English. The quality of the curriculum was at a high level corresponding to the congruence scores of the overall curriculum and curriculum content which equaled 0.85 and 0.93, respectively. Besides, the appropriateness scores of the curriculum content, instructional materials and curriculum format equaled 0.89, 1.00 and 0.53, respectively. The participants were 22 Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers (NNESTs) who taught physics in the schools that attended the projects of “World-class standard school” and “English for Integrated Studies (EIS)” administered by the Ministry of Education, Thailand. Considering the participant’s opinions from semi-structured interview and satisfaction assessment form, the results found that the participants’ satisfaction was at a high level. From the follow up after training with 7 physics teachers, the results revealed that there were some concerns from teachers in several aspects based on their efficacy which were communication skills, choosing and using appropriate instructional materials, developing the physics lesson plan in English, dealing with classroom problems, and lifelong learning to improve their English skills and teaching. According to students’ opinions, students that were taught by these trained teachers were satisfied with learning physics in English because this way of learning can promote their communication skills. However, before they start learning Physics in English, improving their language ability was the most important that they required.</p>
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".