Global Englishes: Textbook Analysis and Teachers’ Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the manifestation of Global Englishes features in three English textbooks commonly used in the lower secondary schools of eastern Thailand. It further explored whether the teachers who used the textbooks were aware of the Global Englishes features manifested in the textbooks. The data revealed that Global Englishes features were primarily taken for granted when designing the three English textbooks. In contrast to the Global Englishes paradigm, the three English textbooks mainly represented the target interlocutors, ownership of English, and norms of English from ‘native’ English-speaking (NES) countries. Even though attempts were made to include some diversity regarding the target interlocutors, it was unbalanced distribution. However, cultural content in reading materials is found to be diversely represented. When exploring teachers’ perceptions of Global Englishes in the textbooks, it was revealed that they lacked knowledge about Global Englishes. They were aware of cultural diversities in the readings but did not try to discuss them with the students since they perceived reading skills as more important than cultural content. Implications for teacher professional development are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".