Examining Vietnamese EFL Teachers’ perceived Impact of the ‘Global Success’ Textbooks on Their Teaching Practices and Learners’ Language Proficiency in Public Secondary Schools: A Cross-Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores Vietnamese EFL teachers' beliefs regarding the impact of the ‘Global Success’ textbooks on their teaching practices and learners' language proficiency in public secondary schools. Utilizing a cross-case study approach, twelve EFL teachers from various public secondary schools in Vietnam were recruited to provide in-depth insights into their experiences and perceptions of the textbooks. Data were collected through a Likert questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The findings indicate that teachers generally hold positive beliefs about the textbooks' potential to enhance learners’ language proficiency and its alignment with contemporary pedagogical practices. However, challenges such as the orientation of examination, teaching methodologies, and students’ English proficiency were also highlighted. The study concludes with recommendations for curriculum implementation through textbooks and professional development to optimize teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes in the Vietnamese EFL context. Keywords: ‘Global Success’ textbooks, public secondary schools, Vietnamese EFL teachers, beliefs, teaching practices, language proficiency
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".