Developing a Survey of Transformative Learning Outcomes and Processes Based on Theoretical Principles
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 research was to develop an inclusive evaluation of “transformative learning theory” that encompassed varied perspectives of transformative learning. We constructed a validated quantitative survey to assess the potential outcomes and processes of how transformative learning may be experienced by college-educated adults. Based on a review of the rational/cognitive, extrarational, and social/emancipatory perspectives of transformation learning theory, the survey reflects the assumptions underlying these perspectives through survey items and allows the survey to be used in multiple contexts both inside and outside the formal classroom. Survey development included a comprehensive review of the literature, external review by experts in adult education, focus groups for clarification of the items, the calculation of interitem correlations for each scale and cross-scale correlations, and the calculation of Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients. This survey has the potential to advance the study of transformative learning by being inclusive of several existing theoretical perspectives that have common outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it