The Supportive Roles that Learners' Families Play in Adult Literacy Programs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2002-03, a qualitative case study explored the experiences of stakeholders connected to two adult programs in Manitoba, Canada. Data were collected through official documents, personal documents, and interviews. Influences by family members contributed significantly to the theme of human relations that arose from these data. The research participants reported that parents and grandparents, siblings, spouses, and children played active roles in learners' decisions first to enroll in the adult programs and then to stay in them through to goal attainment. This original research report recounts these influences as grounds for recommending the consideration of family members in making programming decisions for adult students. In 2002-03, a qualitative case study explored the experiences of 70 stakeholders connected to two adult programs in Manitoba, Canada. Among diese research participants were 37 learners, 2 coordinators/instructors, and 11 other staff - many of whom identified close relatives as having considerable influence learner participation and success. This original research report recounts diese influences as grounds for recommending die consideration of family members in making programming decisions for adult students. All given names, including program titles, are pseudonyms. The following definitions of terms apply, in accordance with their use by the research participants: learners are adult students, coordinators/instructors are equivalent to teaching school principals, and other staff are paid and volunteer instructors and office workers. Overview of the Literature Adult life stages are defined by developmental completions that are embedded in spousal and parental roles (Powers & Love, 2000; Reeves, 1999: Taylor, 1999). The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (2002) therefore advised adult educators to shift their focus from remediation of skills to preparing learners to take the complex challenges of adult life (role competence) (p. 17). Merriam (1999) and Clark and Caffareila (1999) explained maturation in terms of culturally assigned ages for working, marrying, bearing children, retiring, etc. Conzemius and Conzemius (1996), Ellison and Kallenbach (1996), and Lawrence (1998) considered family relationships primarily within the context of accommodating adult social role responsibilities. Thus, the literature depicts adults as having family responsibilities that impact their participation in educational programming (Galbo, 1998; Kerka, 2002; Knowles, 1990). The adult education literature portrays relationships with nuclear family members as a primarily positive impetus for learner persistence (Graham & Donaldson, 1999; Saskatchewan Post-Secondary Education and Skills Training, 2002; Thomas, 1990). Adult learners are motivated by family obligations to take their schooling seriously (Grossman, 1993), and to spend their classroom time on task (Wartenberg, 1994) in self-directed (Kerka, 2002; Lee & Caffareila, 1994; Pilling-Cormick, 1997) problem-solving (Jones, 1994; Mealey, 1991; Mezirow, 1997) activities that match their real-life family roles (Byrne, 1990; Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998; Merriam, 1999), such as helping children with homework (Quigley, 1997). Sticht (1995) insisted that the intergenerational transfer of literacy (p. 24) from parents in adult basic skills programs should convince governments to invest in the education of adults, if only for the sake of enhancing the regular school performance of these adults' children. Undereducated adults are also vulnerable to negative motivations such as unsupportive spouses or children, which emerge to impede tiieir progress once they have started their training programs (Curry, 1996). Byrne (1990) noted the problems that social role conflicts pose for adult learners who are parents and spouses as well as students. …
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".