Evaluation of Adult Literacy Programmes in Psychological Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults are unique group of people to teach and if proper attention is paid they can boost up economical development of the country. Targets of adult literacy programs can be best achieved keeping in mind the psychology of adults. The present study was conducted to investigate the role of adult literacy teachers, content of adult literacy programs and method of teaching in psychological perspectives. The study was qualitative in nature and interviews along with focus group discussions were applied. The sample of the study consisted of 420 respondents including 360 adult female neo-literates, 48 literacy teachers and 12 supervisors randomly selected from six districts out of three geographical regions of the Punjab (Province). The data was analyzed by sorting, coding and categorizing the responses. The main findings of the study were; the adult literacy teachers treated the adult learners harshly in the centers, teachers did not motivate the learners towards study, teachers did not encourage the learners in their progress, teaching method confused most of the learners, the content of adult literacy program was not according to the needs and aspirations of the target group. Key words: Adult learners; teachers; content; method; psychology Resume: L'enseignement vise uniquement sur le groupe d'adultes et si l'attention appropriee est accordee, ils peuvent stimuler le developpement economique du pays. Les objectifs des programmes d'alphabetisation des adultes peuvent etre mieux realises en tenant compte de la psychologie des adultes. La presente etude a ete menee pour etudier le role des enseignants de l'alphabetisation des adultes, le contenu des programmes d'alphabetisation des adultes et la methode de l'enseignement dans des perspectives psychologiques. L'etude a ete de nature qualitative et des interviews avec des groupes de discussion ont ete appliquees. L'echantillon de l'etude consistait en 420 repondants dont 360 adultes feminines neo-alphabetes, 48 enseignants d'alphabetisation et 12 superviseurs choisis au hasard dans six districts des trois regions geographiques du Punjab (Province). Les donnees ont ete analysees par le tri, le codage et la categorisation des reponses. Les resultats principaux de cette etude sont: dans les centres, les enseignants d'alphabetisation des adultes les ont traites de facon dure; les enseignants n'ont pas motive les apprenants vers l'etude; les enseignants n'ont pas encourage les apprenants dans leurs progres; la methode d'enseignement a confondu la plupart des apprenants; le contenu du programme d'alphabetisation des adultes ne correspondait pas aux besoins et aux aspirations du groupe cible.Mots-cles: apprenants adultes; enseignants; contenu; method; psychologie
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".