MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949936979 · doi:10.21083/ajote.v8i0.4095

Preparing Namibian Student Teachers to Teach Literacy in Mother Tongue

2019· article· en· W2949936979 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alina Kakunde Niipare

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Teacher Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment for International DevelopmentUniversity of Sussex
KeywordsFirst languageLiteracySociocultural evolutionMathematics educationPedagogyPerspective (graphical)PsychologySociologyComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scholars of language teaching agree that the development of initial literacy is best achieved when taught in the mother tongue. Namibia’s language policy for schools prescribes teaching using mother tongue or the predominant local language as a medium of instruction during the first three years of schooling. This study reports on a study of how Namibian lecturers prepare student teachers to teach literacy in mother tongue (Oshikwanyama and Oshindonga) dialects of Oshiwambo language. Data were collected through classroom observations, semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Content analysis was used to analyse the data. The main findings are that most of the lecturers were proficient in the languages in question and they fluently explained the literacy content in Oshikwanyama and Oshindonga. However, the preparation was constrained by a lack of prescribed books in the African languages. The study aims at filling a gap in the literature on how Namibian student teachers are prepared to teach literacy in mother tongue grounded within a sociocultural perspective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.430 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207