Lecturers’ and Students’ Perceptions and Preferences about ESL Corrective Feedback in Namibia: Towards an Intervention Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated tertiary lecturers’ and students’ perceptions and preferences on the provision of CorrectiveFeedback (CF) in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom at the Namibia University of Science andTechnology. The study focused on students’ speaking and writing skills in the Language in Practice English course.The findings revealed that both lecturers and students perceive CF as an essential aspect of developing ESL productiveskills. Both lecturers and students were of the perception that CF is more focused on English grammar than form.Students preferred more correction than their lecturers provided. Both lecturers and students concurred thatmetalinguistic feedback is the best practice for CF in English. The contribution this study made is the ten-stageIntervention Model that works towards the effectiveness of ESL CF at tertiary level in Namibia. The modelrecommends that lecturers should carefully scrutinise the specific ESL target language features; practise a variety ofsuitable CF techniques; and cater for individual students’ specific needs and preferences in learning English as aSecond Language at tertiary level.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".