Academic Decision Making Among Adult Learners: Personal and Institutional Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study, designed with considerable input from adult learners, focuses on influences that affect academic decision making. Using questionnaires and selected interviews, information was gathered on institutional and personal influences on academic decision making for current and future courses, along with demographic information. Three quarters of the respondents were under 39 years of age and were looking to their university education to provide knowledge and skills needed for future job opportunities. Within-group analysis revealed a stronger influence on academic decision making from the institution rather than from personal influences, despite a fairly strong positive correlation of the two sets of variables. This pattern was consistent across groups, with no differences being attributed to part- or full-time status or to year in program. Open-ended questions on the questionnaire, as well as follow-up individual interviews, allowed for the input of suggestions to improve the experiences of adult learners in post-secondary institutions. Additional preliminary course information and increased accessibility to courses and services were common themes. In general, the university experience had been very positive; however, some students expressed satisfaction at being invited to contribute suggestions that, if implemented, could improve the experience of future adult learners.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".