Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study entitled 'Teachers of English and their Perceptions towards ESL Errors' aimed at evaluating and determining gravity of grammatical errors in terms of acceptability and intelligibility judgments. Quantitative research methodology was utilized in this study. The data was gathered with the aid of a questionnaire prepared on the basis of the result of error analysis conducted earlier. The questionnaires were mailed to English teachers of different private and public schools, colleges and universities of Nepal and worldwide. Two hundred twenty (220) useable surveys were collected altogether for the study: 100 surveys from Nepali English teachers, 100 surveys from native English speaking teachers, 20 each from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America, and likewise, 20 surveys from non-Nepali English teachers. Received responses were analyzed and explained descriptively. The findings of the study showed that the native English teachers evaluated the errors far more leniently than Nepali and non- Nepali English teachers. There is no any significant difference in evaluation of errors found in between Nepali and non-Nepali English teachers, but compared to native English teachers, they were found statistically and significantly different in their judgments of errors in acceptability and intelligibility both. On the other hand, while comparing judgments of learners' errors in between the native English teachers; it was revealed that there were not any significant differences found there. It is recommended that the native English speaking teachers’ perception of errors be rightly explored and accordingly evaluation scales be developed and the teachers be made aware of such universal rating scales of grammatical errors while evaluating learners' errors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".