Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 2003, I conducted a study to explore the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders connected to two provincially-funded adult literacy programs in Manitoba, Canada. These 70 research participants belonged to seven stakeholder categories: 37 learners, 2 coordinators/instructors, 11 other staff, 7 learners' parents or significant others, 2 program administrators, 8 civil servants and community agency workers who make literacy program referrals, and 2 government employees responsible for funding literacy programs. I collected information by means of one-to-one interviews with individuals from every category, and compositions written by learners, other staff, and one provincial funding agent. The 34 compositions consisted of written responses to questions about their program experiences. The 58 interviews consisted of 45-minute conversations based on more detailed questions about the same topics. Four themes emerged during my analysis of the data: program design, human relations, community context, and financial support. As an adult educator with many years of classroom and administrative experience, I expected interpersonal relations to emerge as a theme. What surprised me was the vehemence with which members from every stakeholder group espoused the necessity of positive instructor-student relations as a precursor to learning. The participants viewed staff-learner relations as the foundation of their adult literacy programs. Coordinators/instructors and other staff related how students had positively affected their professional and personal lives; learners, parents/significant others, and referral agents told parallel stories about the effects of staff members on students. Several people noted the value of having a variety of instructors with whom different students could bond. Of paramount importance to everyone was the adult nature of these instructor-student relationships. Participants from every category spoke of how staff treated students as equal partners in the learning process. Staff and learners called each other by first names, spent breaks and lunch hours together, and got to know each other's leisure interests and family situations. Positive regard for learners characterized these relationships. The program stakeholders lauded instructors' faith in students' learning abilities and the extra efforts that instructors made to ensure academic progress. Coordinators/ instructors and other staff admired students' efforts to overcome personal adversities and expressed pride in students' accomplishments at every academic level. They saw learners' socially unacceptable out-of-program behaviors as problems to be solved, rather than as reasons to reject them as students. However, while one instructor was more likely to suggest that learners with serious personal problems take a break from their studies in order to seek external guidance, the other instructor was more likely to address these issues within the program itself, and to recommend that students, under the care of community professionals, continue to attend the program while working through personal problems. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».