New Perspectives in Utilizing Non-Textbook Resources in EFL Classrooms and Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Usually, most textbooks are formally prescribed with fixed and time-bound content. There is hardly any choice for course teachers/instructors to deviate from the prearranged course content of such textbooks. This study assumes that such formal, skills and knowledge-based, textbooks may cause boredom in EFL classrooms with repeated tasks/exercises and, even sometimes, their course content may not be interesting to all students. On the contrary, the use of non-textbook resources in EFL classrooms can have multiple contributions, for instance, by enhancing students’ competency and proficiency in language skills and by reinforcing their knowledge. Thus based on such assumptions, this study investigates university teachers’ perceptions on incorporating non-textbook recourses as supplementary materials in teaching EFL to non-native undergraduate speakers, in the selected context. To achieve these goals, this quantitative study uses an online questionnaire as a data collection tool. The questionnaire seeks university teachers’ responses/perceptions on the subject under investigation. The findings of this study, given the university teachers’ perceptions, reveal various useful roles and contributions of non-textbook resources. To cite, for instance, the use of non-textbook resources can trigger students’ participation, increases motivation and learning possibilities, enhances their understanding and performance, breaks monotony and boredom, contextualizes teaching-learning situations, and provides students with space for extra language skills practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".