Counsellor Trainees’ Views about Practicum Exercises in the Guidance and Counselling Programme of the Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigated counsellor trainees’ views of practicum exercise in Guidance and Counselling programme in Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria. To guide the study, four research questions were raised and one hypothesis formulated. The study is a descriptive survey which utilized the ex-post facto design. The population was made up of all guidance and counselling students who had done the practicum exercise in the 2017 Sandwich contact. A sample of 35 students was used and this was drawn using purposive sampling technique. The instrument used for data collection was the questionnaire which was valid and had a reliability index of 0.74. The data was analysed using mean, standard deviation and t-test for the hypothesis at 0.05 level of significance. The findings revealed that students gained competencies during the period, had positive view about their supervisor but suggested that supervisors should come more than once. Moreover, the students enjoyed the support of the school counsellor and the school head. On duration, the study revealed that the period was too short. The study recommends among others for extension of the practicum exercise period and also for supervisors to visit more than once.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".