Intergenerational learning (between Generation X & Y) in learning families: A narrative inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine intergenerational learning behaviour within ten Hong Kong families between Generation X parents and their Generation Y children. It tries to investigate intergenerational knowledge exchange, identify the characteristics of learning behaviour and culture in their 'learning families'.\n \nA narrative inquiry approach is adopted asking participants to recall and tell stories describing their personal intergenerational learning experiences. Results indicate that 80% of the participants thought their family is a 'learning family', and intergenerational family learning is happy experience and can be bi-directional. A positive family learning culture facilitates intergenerational learning especially in the Generation Y -> X direction. Learning methodology differs between the two generations due to societal changes and differences in their upbringing.\n \nA conceptual framework of intergenerational family learning in relation to lifelong learning is developed. The government and public should re-define teaching and learning practise and promote intergenerational learning even in schools. [Copyright of International Education Studies is the property of Canadian Center of Science and Education. Access via Directory of Open Access Journals: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies]
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".