MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093571335 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v12n12p70

Integrating Creativity in the Facilitation of Adult Learning through Analytic and Synthetic Methods: Study of Adult Basic Literacy Education Program in Enugu State, Nigeria

2020· article· en· W3093571335 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dorida Nneka Oyigbo, K. Chukwuemeka Obetta, Chinasa Maryrose Ugwunnadi, Jun Seog O, Onyinyechi E. Okoye, Beatrice Onah

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Education and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityAdult educationLiteracyPsychologyAdult literacyAgency (philosophy)Medical educationFacilitationMathematics educationPedagogyMedicineSociologySocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult basic literacy education program requires the integration of creativity into learning activities to increase the rate of adult learning in adult basic literacy education program. The study assessed the extent of integrating creativity in facilitating adult learners in adult basic literacy education program. The study adopted a descriptive survey design. The instrument titled, Integrating Creativity in the Facilitation of Adult Learning through Analytic and Synthetic Methods Questionnaire was administered to 880 adult education administrators, adult literacy facilitators and adult learners. Data were presented through the use of mean, standard deviation and ANOVA. The results of the study revealed that integrating analytic and synthetic methods to a moderate extent facilitated the learning of adults in an adult basic literacy education program. The study recommended that state agency for mass literacy, adult and non-formal education should encourage adult literacy facilitators to create personalized programs of instruction and lesson plans that are based on the adult learners’ skill level and learning styles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.436 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicAfrican Education and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207