The Effects that Family Members and Peers Have on Students' Decisions to Drop out of School.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003, a study of two Canadian adult literacy programs included 37 learners who revealed a variety of reasons for having dropped out of school as teenagers and younger adults. Chief among these were the influences of parents, siblings, and peers both in and out of school. This article considers these research findings, in light of the educational literature, as a catalyst for recommending ways that high school administrators, counselors, and teachers can (1) make students' families and out-of-school friends feel comfortable with the school setting, (2) teach students' parents and guardians how to support their children's educational efforts, and (3) teach students how to engage in positive interactions with peers. Introduction A 2003 qualitative case study examined the perspectives of 70 stakeholders connected to two community-based adult literacy programs in rural and northern Manitoba Canada The research purpose was to develop an understanding of regular school dropouts' participation in these programs. Within the context of describing their learning experiences, the 37 learners in the study revealed a variety of reasons for having dropped out of regular school as teenagers and younger adults. Chief among these were the influences of parents, siblings, and peers both in and out of school. This article considers these research findings, in tight of the educational literature, as a catalyst for recommending that high school administrators, counselors, and teachers pay particular attention to the relationships that students-at-risk have with family members and peers. There is little in the research literature that records the story of dropping out from the retrospective of students who have taken this journey and are now seeking a second chance to improve their academic skills. This original research report thus adds a critical dimension to the existing literature. All given names are pseudonyms. The following definitions of terms apply, in accordance with their use by program stakeholders: adult learners are adult literacy students, regular schools are private or public grade schools, students-at-risk are regular school students who are at risk of dropping out, and youth-at-risk are individuals under the age of 21 years who have already quit or are at risk of doing so. Research Methodology The two research programs were selected from 37 adult literacy programs that received provincial funding in 2002-03. Although both programs were obligated to follow the community-based program model endorsed by the Government of Manitoba they had somewhat different foci for program delivery. One program offered adult high school courses as well as basic literacy. It had a reputation of helping adult dropouts complete grade 12, as well as blending adult literacy and high school curricula and delivering internationally recognized Microsoft computer courses. The other program offered instruction ranging from beginning literacy to post secondary tutorial support. It had a reputation of accepting every learner who asked for help, and of successfully meeting the special needs of students with learning disabilities and other learning challenges. The 70 research participants who volunteered for the study belonged to seven program stakeholder categories, as follows: 37 learners (adult literacy students), 2 coordinators/instructors (equivalent to teaching principals in regular schools), 11 other staff members (instructors and office support staff), 7 parents and other close relatives of learners, 2 program administrators (equivalent to regular school board members), 8 referral agents (from community organizations and government agencies), and 3 provincial funding agents (civil servants responsible for government funding). Data were derived from three sources: official documents, personal documents, and one-to-one interviews. The official documents were the programs' year-end reports for 2001-02 and 2002-03, including information about program hours, teaching methods, learning resources, and finances. …
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it