Adult Learner Perspectives on Skill- and Life-Based Outcomes Following Literacy Remediation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the situated expectancy value theory (SEVT), we explored self-perceived attainment perspectives of adults with low literacy on skill-based (i.e., reading, writing, listening, speaking) and life-based (i.e., management of day-to-day challenges, use of skills in daily living, confidence) improvements following a literacy-focused remediation program. Participants (N = 103; Canadian, urban adults) completed a remediation program for low literacy via one-on-one tutoring over a period of 1 year. Four to six months into the program, participants completed a survey that asked about their perspectives regarding improvements in skill- and life-based areas of functioning. A series of Chi-Square tests provided evidence for self-perceived improvements in skill-based functioning in reading, writing, listening and speaking. Perceived improvements were not noted in areas not targeted by the remediation, namely, math and computer literacy. Further, there was a significant, positive correlation between self-perceived improvement and (1) self-perceived ability to deal with daily challenges, (2) self-reported use of literacy skills in day-to-day activities, and (3) overall confidence. Together, these findings underscore the importance of including activity- and participation-based outcome measures when evaluating adult literacy remediation. In addition, this work demonstrates an application of SEVT to explore changes over time in continuing adult education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".