Adult Learners’ Learning Environment Perceptions and Satisfaction in Formal Education—Case Study of Four East-European Countries
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
The purpose of this paper is to explore attitudes towards learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Our theoretical examination is based on the social-cognitive theory of motivation and research that emphasizes the connections between an individual’s perceptions of the learning environment and his/her motivation, interest, attitudes and confidence. Recent theories that deal with ‘powerful learning environments’ (Fraser, 2002) stress that the teacher should not look only at the physical aspects of the environment in which learning takes place, but also at the learner’s perceptions and beliefs. The importance of multiple aspects of learning environments will be stressed and some recommendations for improving the effectiveness of these environments will be given. Additionally, some theoretical concepts of learning environments will be reviewed. We will examine empirically the differences and correlations that occur in adult learners’ motivation and attitudes due to their psycho-social and physical learning environment. An international comparison between various post-socialist countries has also been carried out.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it