Andragogy or Pedagogy: Views of Young Adults on the Learning Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults participate in many formal learning activities throughout their lives. The aim of this study is to determine the views of adult learners who participated the Certificate Program for Pedagogical Formation (CPPF), which is a formal adult education program. This study was conducted with the phenomenological design, a qualitative research design. The data required for the research were collected with a data collection tool developed by the researcher. In the study, the participants expressed the positive aspects of the program, in a decreasing order of frequency as, obtaining professional knowledge, faculty members, learning new things, the contribution of the program to personal life and gaining perspective. On the other hand, the participants negatively evaluated the intensive course and exam schedule, the duration of the program, the intensive and verbal content, and the length of the course hours. While the participants evaluated learning new things and gaining perspective as an achievement of the program, they expressed their dissatisfaction with the planning of the program and the learning environment related to it. In light of the findings of the study, it is recommended for policy makers to plan similar programs according to the learning characteristics of adults and make arrangements in this direction. It is also recommended for educators to consider andragogical principles in the learning environment in adult education programs such as certificate programs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".