Program evaluation of the Diploma in Adult Education at the University of Prince Edward Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to perform a qualitative program evaluation of the Diploma in Adult Education at the University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI). This was achieved by gathering past and present students' perceptions of how the diploma has met their needs as adult educators. Participants were selected because they shared certain characteristics relevant to this study. In total, 32 students or graduates of the diploma program were invited to participate in this research. They are primarily adult educators working in a variety of adult education situations. The rationale for this evaluation is program improvement. The program evaluation of the Diploma in Adult Education is summative in nature. Multimethod strategies were used in this evaluation. These methods included in-depth interviews, questionnaires, and document review. Through this research, I have determined the extent to which the Diploma in Adult Education Program is meeting the perceived needs of the students. In the process more questions have come forward. I found about 70% of the participants had very similar needs such as the need to: be respected, gain knowledge, understand holistic learning, and upgrade their skills. Many of these needs were met by the program. This leads me to recommend changes in the program to make it more fully meet all students' needs. From my perspective, a comprehensive needs assessment of adult educators in Prince Edward Island would be necessary for this program to meet the needs of a more varied base of adult educators. A needs assessment would also be useful to determine how prospective students would like to see this program delivered, as well as identifying personal barriers to the current program.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".