Through the Eyes of the Beholders: Adult Literacy Students' Recollections of Regular School
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 2003, 37 adult literacy students were interviewed within the context of a qualitative study of two community-based adult literacy programs in Manitoba, Canada. In addition to sharing their perspectives on these programs, the students proffered information about their own regular experiences and why they left without graduating. Several students reported positive memories, but most had been bitterly disappointed for a variety of personal and school-based reasons. This article explores these adult students' recollections of regular school, as a catalyst for suggesting ways to make high schools more accommodating of students who are at risk of dropping out. In 2003, I interviewed 37 adult literacy students within the context of a qualitative case study that examined various stakeholders' connections to two community-based adult literacy programs in Manitoba, Canada. The two programs were chosen on the basis of having been in operation for at least 10 years, having the same program coordinator for the past tiiree years, and , receiving community-based adult literacy funding from the Government of Manitoba in 2003-03. The students were self-selected through open sampling, with the assistance of each program coordinator. In addition to sharing their perspectives on the literacy programs during the one-to-one interviews, the students proffered information about their own regular experiences and why they left without graduating from high school. This article explores diese adult students' recollections of regular school, as a catalyst for suggesting ways to make high schools more accommodating of students who are at risk of dropping out. Several adult literacy students reported positive memories of their regular years, but most had been bitterly disappointed for a variety of personal and school-based reasons. Aside from providing appropriate personal counselling services, regular schools cannot be expected to solve the personal problems that render students at risk of quitting. Addressing school-based problems, however, is an entirely different matter. If we can identify and resolve these issues, then perhaps we can persuade students-at-risk to persist through high graduation. The adult literacy students that were interviewed complained of the following school-based reasons for leaving early: rules, instruction, and relationships with teachers and peers. All given names in this article are pseudonyms. The following definitions apply, in accordance with their use in the research study, regular schools are private or public grade schools, adults are individuals at least 21 years old, students-at-risk are regular students who are at risk of dropping out, and youth-at-risk are individuals under the age of 21 years who have already dropped out or are at risk of doing so. School Rules Twelve adult literacy students recalled being unable or unwilling to follow the rules of their regular schools. They admitted having skipped classes on a regular basis before quitting. A few blamed their schools' attendance policies for pushing them out. John declared, As soon as the gets its year's grant from the fall registration, the teachers make attendance contracts the students can't live up to, just to get rid of them. Peter said that he had been humiliated by being moved into a remedial resource room, and he had reacted by leaving the room and ripping around the school instead of doing his schoolwork. Colin described himself as a problem - anything they said to do, I would do the opposite. Before being expelled from her nonacademic program, Heather had been physically restrained to control her violent outbursts in class. The literature on youth-at-risk associates lack of affiliation with attendance and behaviour problems. Chronic absenteeism is a reliable predictor of dropping out (Lovitt, 1991; Morris, Pawlovich, & McCaIl, 1991). …
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 | 0,007 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 ».