Gender, Age and Teaching Experiences Differences in Decision-Making Behaviours of Members of Selected Kenyan Secondary School Disciplinary Panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigated gender, age and teaching experiences differences in decision- making behaviours of members of selected Kenyan secondary school disciplinary panels. Mixed Methods design was adopted for the study. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Study sample comprised 78 participants drawn from ten secondary school disciplinary panels. Participants comprised 45 males and 33 females, clustered into four age groups of-29 years (n=21), 30-39 years (n=28), 40-49 years (n=14), and 50-59 years (n=15); and six teaching experience categories of 1-5 years (n=33), 6-10 years (n=14), 11-15 years (n=5), 16-20 years (n=6), 21-25 years (n=8), and 26-30 years (n=12).Data analysis results revealed gender, age and experience differences in decision-making behaviours of members of disciplinary panels who participated in the study. Male participants were found to tend towards risky decision-making behaviours while female participants tended towards cautious decision-making behaviours. Younger and less experienced participants were also found to be risky in their decision-making behaviours also tended panel members made risky pre-disciplinary hearing decision-making behaviours, while their older and more experienced counterparts were more cautious. Based on the findings of this study it is recommended that, in order to cater for the diverse nature of student behaviour problems and to effectively manage the same, consideration must be given to delicate balance of age, gender and experience in the composition of members of a school disciplinary panel.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".