The relationship between student involvement and adjustment to the transition to university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study reported in this paper examined the relationship between involvement in extracurricular academic and community activities and students’ adjustment to the transition to university. The study also sought to identify the underlying motivational factors that influence students’ decisions to get involved in these kinds of activities. Participants were 90 first-year undergraduate university students (59 females, 31 males) with a mean age of 19.4 years (SD=.98), participating in mass testing sessions conducted at WLU with introductory psychology classes. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire containing measures designed to assess various aspects of involvement and adjustment. These included a background measure, a measure of motivation, three measures of involvement, and five outcome measures, each assessing a different aspect of adjustment. It was hypothesized that students would experienced psychological benefits from being involved, regardless of the type of involvement they were engaged in. This hypothesis was supported, as results indicated that students who were involved in extracurricular academic/community activities evidenced better social/emotional adjustment to university compared to students who were uninvolved. The underlying motivating factors influencing students’ decisions to get involved in extracurricular activities were also examined. These factors include values/beliefs, interest, community concern, and personal and academic development. Results indicated that students who had higher levels of overall motivation also tended to become involved in extracurricular activities compared to students who indicated lower levels of motivation. Thus, the results obtained paint the following picture with respect to involvement in extracurricular activities: Students who are involved tend to be better emotionally and socially adjusted and to possess higher levels of motivation than students who are uninvolved.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".