Phenomenological Experiences of First-Generation Working-Class Students Entering University: Motivational Factors and Teacher Influences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discrimination in education over the last few decades has been apparent in the form of racial, gender, and even intergenerational prejudice. Educational inequities also exist for marginalized students of the first-generation working-class trying to access and successfully navigate post-secondary studies. In addition, they may face several additional challenges that include lack of proper academic foundation, minimal support from family, friends and teachers, and financial hardships (Blackwell & Pinder, 2014). This research is an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) that investigates the lived experiences of first- generation working-class students at a university in southern Ontario by investigating the key factors that influence their decision to pursue a post- secondary program while highlighting their post-secondary school educational experiences. Literature suggests that these factors can include personal (self) motivation, family support, and teacher influence. These findings will give more insight into the educational experiences of first-generation working-class university students and how post-secondary institutions can mitigate the barriers to access and support first-generation working-class students when they enroll in higher education institution.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".