Guidelines for Developing Provision of Additional English Courses: A Case Study of Schools under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office, Nonthaburi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this survey research were to: 1) study the current state of additional English course management in schools under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office Nonthaburi in Thailand; 2) study and compare the opinions of teachers and students towards the appropriateness of the current state of additional English course management; and 3) propose guidelines for the provision of additional English course management. The informants in this research included 18 heads of the foreign language learning group and 3 experts in curriculum and English language teaching. The study sample included 87 teachers and 120 high school students. The research instruments included an additional English course management form, an opinion questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview. Data analysis determining frequency, mean, standard deviation, t-test and content analysis was performed. The findings revealed: 1) overall, 60 English additional courses were offered at various schools, grouped into 5 categories according to the focus of the course, and arranged in descending order as follows: English for daily communication (33 courses), English for continuing education (10 courses), English for careers (10 courses), English for pleasure (5 courses), and others (2 courses); 2) in general, teachers and students rated each school’s additional course management as appropriate at the high level and teachers and students’ opinions were significantly different at the .05 level of significance; and 3) guidelines for the provision of English additional course management included support for teachers’ knowledge on course development, allocation of a curriculum consultant, improvements to course management practices, and additional focus on learners’ needs when developing the course.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".