Teachers’ Views on the Implementation of the English Language Proficiency Programme in Namibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study explores teachers’ views on the impact of the English Language Proficiency Programme in Namibian schools that was implemented over a period of five years, from 2011 to 2015. The program aimed at improving teachers’ proficiency in English. The summative evaluation was conducted in 2016 in the following five (5) regions: Erongo, Hardap, Khomas, Ohangwena and Omusati, selected on the basis of the level of participation and accessibility. The evaluation focused on the following aspects of the project: program development, program implementation and administration as well as assessment of learning outcomes. The study followed a qualitative approach using document analysis to inform the development of evaluation instruments and a phenomenological design to assess teachers’ lived experiences during program implementation. Data was collected through focus group discussions among teachers. The study established that teachers did not appreciate the program as it was ill-planned, irrelevant to their needs and disturbed their daily routines. Nevertheless, a few teachers embraced the program and reported positive benefits in terms of teachers’ career development goals. The study recommends the revision of the program in terms of content and implementation procedures. In addition, teachers’ support systems, learning materials and the mode of delivery need improvement to effectively enhance teaching and learning in Namibian schools.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".