Aboriginal students success in university: self-determination and cultural orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research used a mixed-method approach to examine motivational factors contributing to Aboriginal student retention at the University of Northern British Columbia. To explore academic motivation in the context of Self-Determination Theory, 20 Aboriginal participants completed in-depth interviews. The participants also completed an acculturation questionnaire to explore whether cultural orientation was an interceding factor in academic motivation. Five intriguing findings emerged from the data. First, Aboriginal students were motivated to succeed by the desire to contribute to the well-being of the participants’ home Aboriginal community, or to the broader Aboriginal community. Second, the participants viewed a university education as a means to self-growth, which they perceived as necessary to fulfill a needed role in the Aboriginal community. Third, home community support and institutional support were important factors in motivating students to stay in university and earn a degree. Fourth, participants perceived that their university experience supported their autonomy. Finally, in comparison with more acculturated participants, less acculturated participants were more likely to feel academically unprepared for university, were more likely to attend post-secondary education transition programs, were more likely to use academic resources at the university, and were more likely to return to their home Aboriginal community after graduation. This research showed that Self-Determination Theory, traditionally tested using quantitative methods, can be effectively explored using a qualitative approach. This research also showed that examining cultural orientation within a motivational framework contributes to our understanding of the influence of cultural dynamics on academic motivation in Aboriginal student populations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".