Exploring the usability of the andragogical process model for learning for designing, delivering and evaluating a workplace communication partner training
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
Purpose This study aims to explore the usability of the andragogical process model for learning to develop, deliver and evaluate training to improve communication between adapted transport drivers and people living with communication disabilities and to identify the successes and limitations of the model in this context. Design/methodology/approach Two aspects were considered to explore the usability of the andragogical process model for learning: a comparison between the elements of the model and the designing, delivering and evaluating processes of the training; and an appreciation evaluation. Findings The model was useful to systematically design, deliver and evaluate workplace training that was appreciated by the learners, even though most of the model’s elements were modified to meet the constraints of the trainer and the organization. Assessing the needs for learning, establishing a human climate conducive to learning and choosing appropriate training methods emerged as key elements that contributed to a successful appreciation of this training. Originality/value This study is one of the few that examines the possibility of a systematic application of the andragogical process model for learning to workplace training. Its results suggest that the model could be considered for application by non-professional trainers or external trainers from a workplace, but that organizational constraints must be considered when using it.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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