The Question of Re-Presentation In EFL Course Books: Are Learners of English Taught about New Zealand?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly intercultural dimension of communication in the 21st century has brought about challenging aims in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) pedagogy, such as ascertaining the enhancement of the learners' intercultural awareness and promoting their ability to communicate in intercultural settings. Taking the disadvantage of EFL environment in terms of intercultural input into account, course books can be considered as one of the most crucial tools used in these settings. Thus, the links between culture, language teaching, and course books deserve a closer investigation carried out with a critical eye. Hence, the present study was conducted: (1) to explore the extent and number of the cultural representations present in course books (2) the distribution of cultural representations across different English-speaking countries (i.e., the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand). To this end, 17 English course books written by international publishers and used at preparatory English schools of universities in an EFL setting were examined by using a quantitative content analysis. The results were discussed and implications were made.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".