Teachers’ self-reported instructional practices for reading comprehension instruction to non-readers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the instructional strategies employed by experienced teachers to teach reading comprehension to non-readers in the Namibian upper primary phase within mainstream classrooms. Existing literature suggests that the support provided by experienced teachers is critical for non-readers. However, little is known about the specific strategies used by primary school ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers in Namibia for this purpose. To address this gap, the study utilized a qualitative approach with an exploratory case study design. Data was gathered through class observations and two stimulated recall interviews conducted before and after the observations. Five Grade 5 teachers in the Oshana region of Namibia were purposefully selected as participants. The findings reveal that the teachers employed various strategies to enhance reading comprehension among non-readers. Pre-reading activities involved activating non-readers’ linguistic schema using manipulatives, dictionaries, and glossaries to define new words. Linguistic resources such as flashcards, wall posters, real objects, and pictures were used to expand non-readers’ vocabulary knowledge. Instructional reinforcement strategies, like motivation, activation of prior knowledge through oral discussions, games related to the text, and discussions of reading comprehension rules, were also utilized to support non-readers’ comprehension. The findings hold value for Grade 5 ESL teachers, providing them with effective teaching strategies and opportunities for self-reflection when teaching reading comprehension to non-readers. Additionally, ESL subject advisors can benefit from understanding the needs of primary school non-readers in the Ompundja circuit, Oshana region, to offer appropriate support to upper primary phase ESL teachers in mainstream classes.
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 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".