Adult learners’ and educators’ perceptions of how racialized habitus and cultural capital impact Indigenous students’ experiences in the field of one Winnipeg adult learning centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous learners are overrepresented in Manitoba adult learning centres (45% province-wide). Indigenous organizations like the Centre for Aboriginal Human Resource Development (CAHRD), have introduced literacy and adult learning programs to meet the educational needs of their communities. According to Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) social reproduction thesis, schools tend to preserve existing social inequity across generations. But could the opposite be true in an Indigenous-led adult learning centre (ALC) explicitly designed to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous learners? This case study of Indigenous learner experiences at CAHRD’s Aboriginal Community Campus ALC draws primarily on data collected via semi-structured interviews of seven Indigenous adult learners and four adult educators, with the analysis of the interview transcripts applying a two-cycle coding process (Saldaña, 2016). The interview scripts and code list draw on neo-Bourdieusian and critical race theory scholarship. The findings from this study suggest that a number of factors influence Indigenous adult learners’ ability to reach their educational goals at the ALC. The provision of critical resources such as daycare, nutrition programs, and counselling referrals are often key. Social structures in the school are also found to be effective in shifting learner habitus in tandem with the building up of educational and cultural capital. Because these act in opposition to those observed by Bourdieu, reducing rather than preserving inequity, I label them as emancipatory field structures. This study’s findings also suggest significant opportunities for improvement in Manitoba adult education as a whole, with CAHRD’s ALC as a potential model. Implementing these improvements would require an expanded investment in adult learning by the provincial government, but this cost would be more than justified by the societal benefits.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".