A Call for Empowering the Non-Native EFL Teacher through Professional Development in Pragmatics: Focus on Thai-EFL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Non-Native EFL teacher is most often the by-product of an educational system blamed for the language skills of its EFL learners. An EFL community such as Thailand is no exception. A canon of research into the need for enhancing the organizational competence of a learner in the L2 has been conducted and reported over several decades. In addition, empirical studies in pragmatics involving and benefiting the learner have gained ground in several ESL and EFL countries. However, the EFL teacher, who is usually the chief facilitator in an EFL context, is marginalized both as a focus of research and in the development of their pragmatic skills in English. An unfair reason generally given is that adult learners have a sufficient stockpile of already acquired pragmatics knowledge in their L1, which would serve them as needed. Yet, as observed over the years this assumption is proving costly. The academic paper authored here, based on literature and a recent needs analysis, makes a case for the immediacy of including explicit instruction in pragmatics through professional development workshops in the Thai EFL context with the chief aim of empowering the Asian EFL teacher.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".