Vers un modèle d'intervention individualisé visant la réussite des étudiants en première année d'études postsecondaires : vue sur les facteurs reliés à l'affectivité, la métacognition, la motivation et l'espoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is faced with a shortage of workers in order for it to remain competitive in today's global and ferocious market place. One of the reasons which explains this problem is that Baby Boomers are retiring in hoards. As such, the State is now faced with having to replace this labour force, or "brain force", given the information age and the fact that "grey matter" is now the most valuable capital asset worldwide. Consequently, governments are turning to post-secondary institutions as are employers seeking out competent workers. On their end, these institutions are faced with a chronic problem be it at university, college or apprenticeship levels. Their predicament lies in the retention and success of students enrolled in their first year of studies. On all sides, there is unanimity pertaining to the success of this first year which is considered a sine qua non condition toward improving the probabilities that the student will complete his program of study. Thus equipped, he is more apt to meet the requirements of the labour market and to anticipate a promising future. This subsequent problem causes us concern and so it merits our attention. To do so, we have determined gaps in the students' ability to succeed academically. We are abreast of several studies that touch on social, cultural, environmental and economic factors that are external to the student. We have also taken a look at several support initiatives geared toward addressing these. To date, in spite all good intentions, statistics continue to be somber in that regard. This information supports our hypothesis to the effect that factors inherent to the student play an important role in his success. This theoretical study focuses specifically on these: affectivity and metacognition, as well as on various intervention strategies that can support the student in this regard. The methodology that we use to support our postulate is the research, collection and analysis of theoretical and empirical information. We refer to statistics pertaining to the drop-out, failure and change-of-program rates of these students. We examine various strategies aimed at reversing this unfortunate trend. Secondly and as our theoretical framework, we refer to several recent works that focus on the study of intrinsic characteristics that support students as they engage in post-secondary studies and which are affective and metacognitive qualifiers. These also suggest intervention methods which aim at filling the gap for these novice students. We continue by arguing our premise to the effect that affective and metacognitive aptitudes that the student hones as he embarks in higher education play a significant part in his capacity to succeed in his studies. Furthermore, we present two cause-and-effect phenomena which manifest themselves almost naturally when the student feels capable of undertaking the task at hand: increased motivation to persist and hope which propels him closer to reaching his objective. To date, no support model exists that proves itself to be truly efficient in resolving this enigma. We conclude by suggesting that affectivity, metacognition, motivation and hope are fundamental to the student's capacity to learn, integrate and formulate his new learning, as well as to demonstrate his new competencies. In fact, these are essential to his academic success in his first year of higher learning. We present in this regard an individualised intervention model that provides the student with the opportunity to develop his affective and metacognitive skills, thereby increasing his motivation and hope regarding his academic success. The latter builds on existing models in addition to integrating the qualifications required in the labour market according the Conference Board of Canada as well as Bloom's "new" taxonomy. The model is represented by a system schematic comprised of three parts: input, elements of an algorithmic process and output. In brief, the objective of this thesis is two-fold: to demonstrate the impact of affectivity, metacognition, motivation and hope on the student as he enters post-secondary studies; to propose a systemic, holistic and individualised intervention model which targets his academic success and that can be integrated at secondary or post-secondary levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".