Comparison between the Critical Thinking, Educational Self- Efficiency and Motivation of the Female and Male Students of Payam Nour University of Yasouj
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aims to compare critical thinking, educational self-efficiency and educational motivation among female and male students of Payam Nour University and to determine effects of critical thinking training on educational achievements and motivation. Differences of these variables among students of various fields also were examined. The sample includes 120 students (60 male students and 60 female students) using stratified random sampling. In order to collect data, three questionnaires of California critical thinking skills test (Form B) (CCTST), Murise's educational self-efficiency small-scale and the questionnaire of Hermans advance motivation were applied. This research is of causal-comparative type and multi-variable variance analysis (Monova) and one-sided analysis were used in order to analyze the data statistically. Data analysis results showed that there was significant difference in critical thinking, educational self-efficiency and educational motivation among female and male students when p < 0.01. Moreover, Differences of self-efficacy, critical thinking and motivation among students of different fields were concluded.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".