1 29.11.05 Collaborative Literacy Learning in UK Workplace Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate how adult students learn collaboratively with other peers in workplace literacy programmes. The case study involved 3 sites with 2 public sector organisations based in London. Data collection occurred over 14 months and used techniques of observation, teacher and student interviews, teacher perspective inventories and student focus groups. This small-scale investigation has been linked with a parallel, larger Canadian study using comparable approaches and instruments in a range of sites of adult literacy learning. This paper reports the UK research and findings. It has also aimed to lay the foundations for a second stage of work, testing and elaborating conceptual models developed by the Canadian team, for use internationally and in a wider range of adult literacy sites The UK research has aimed to identify emergent themes and issues of collaborative learning in selected workplace literacy sites. The evidence so far has shown that: • Relationships and work roles outside the classroom can impact on how adults learn collaboratively. • Learners can adapt their behaviour to work collaboratively. • Peers can play an important role in helping those who are unconfident, negative, worried or have low self-esteem
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.676 | 0.345 |
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".