A case study of the university training programme - Non-commissioned members of the Royal Military College of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a case study of a professional development programme in the form of an adult education university programme at the Royal Military College (RMC) of Canada. The participants of the study are members or former members of the University Training Plan Non Commissioned Members (UTPNCM) or are university professors or administrators of RMC. The University Training Plan for Non Commissioned Members is an unique education programme. It allows Non Commissioned Members (NCM) of the Canadian Forces (CF) to attain a university degree and upon graduation gain a Queen's Commission in the CF at the rank of junior officer. The thesis also reviews the field of Adult Education and the philosophical basis for the independent study of adult students. Andragogy (Knowles, 1980) and adult learning principles (Macheracher, 2004) are discussed as they relate to the adult students of the UTPNCM. The thesis study explores the participants' perceptions of their experience of being adult students while remaining full time members of the CF. The academic duties of the adult students together with the military requirements of the programme were explored in the effects that these had as barriers to the success of the individuals in the programme. The Cross (1981) Barriers to Education Model was employed to describe the dispositional, situational and institutional barriers faced by the UTPNCM students as they experienced the various demands of the programme. The possibility of the UTPNCM programme as a Transformative Learning experience as described by Mezirow (1991) was discussed and the role of Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) in the programme was reviewed. The participants were asked to describe their own experiences within the programme and they highlighted areas of concern in their interviews, which were the primary investigating tool of the case study. Participants discussed the pressure of the demand of being adult students on their various family units; the challenges of participating in the programme under the Four Pillar Model of curriculum at RMC; and the demands of Second Language Training (SLT) at RMC.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".