Adult basic education student persistence: A case study approach in a Saskatchewan context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding student persistence in Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs have been insufficiently researched. There has been quite a bit of research on challenges with which many ABE students struggle (i.e., financial, transportation, child-care, etc.), but there are minimal studies completed looking into ABE student persistence whether worldwide, nationally, or provincially. Bowe and Auchinachie’s (2022) study used an assets approach to describe ABE students in Victoria, British Columbia. Prechotko and Kirby (2023) examined northern Saskatchewan ABE student persistence, finding five themes: positive, supportive, personal touch; situational hardships; friendships and community-campus indigeneity; and program resources. Barker et al.’s (2023) study included ABE student persisters from southwestern Saskatchewan and found three themes: external factors, educational experiences, and personal experiences. Holland (2003) determined that prior school experiences, achievement tests, career goals, and external support systems impact ABE student persistence at a southern Saskatchewan ABE provider. None of these studies focused solely on the positive factors of ABE student persistence from the students’ point of view. Because of the lack of research on ABE persistence, I wanted to identify to what successful Adult 12 graduates attributed their persistence. This study focused on understanding the ABE students’ perspective at a particular educational institution in Saskatchewan. In this case study, ABE students’ perspectives on persistence were examined via individual interviews and two interpretation panels. Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants who had successfully graduated from Adult 12. Afterwards, the researcher followed up with two interpretation panels. From the findings, neither Tinto’s model of student persistence nor Seligman’s (2011) PERMA model for wellbeing fully aligned with participants’ experiences. Pieces of each model aligned, such as motivation, self-efficacy, and positive relationships. The sense of connection and community with others was the dominant theme from this case study. From there, participants were able to grow and learn to overcome adversity and unlock new possibilities. Implications of this investigation for policy and practice include designing, implementing, and evaluating ABE programs. Relationships matter: ABE programs can provide students with support services and opportunities to connect with others. Trauma-informed practices can help to minimize re-traumatization and triggers that can create obstacles to learning. Adult-centered learning environments can provide options for flexibility, support, and connection to others. In terms of implications for further exploration of ABE student persistence, longitudinal quantitative studies could be completed to look at patterns over time or narrative inquiry approaches could be investigated to provide more nuance for the ABE student experience. This research study proposed a model of understanding ABE student persistence showing the interconnectedness between motivation, positive relationships, personal growth, and new possibilities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".