The role of extracurricular activities in shaping university students' employment self-efficacy perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The present study aimed to understand how participation in university extracurricular activities has a beneficial or detrimental impact on students’ employment self-efficacy through the intervening mechanism of information search strategy. Design/methodology/approach The authors collected data from active job-searching university students across two time-points and hypothesized that the breadth of extracurricular activity participation would positively impact employment self-efficacy perceptions and information search strategies (focused, exploratory and haphazard) would mediate this relationship. Findings Results indicate that the breadth of students' participation in extracurricular activities was positively associated with employment self-efficacy perceptions, and this relationship was mediated by focused and exploratory information-search strategies. Extracurricular activities exhibited a negative relationship with a haphazard search strategy. Research limitations/implications This research extends the understanding of the role of participation in extracurricular activities for influencing a job search. Future research may replicate these findings with different samples of job seekers. Practical implications Extracurricular activities are typically offered at universities as a way for students to develop skills and to improve employers' perceptions of students. The present results suggest that participating in extracurricular activities may also help university students to effectively conduct a self-directed job search. Originality/value We examined the role of extracurricular activities from the applicant's perspective, extending prior research examining extracurricular activities from the employer's perspective. The present results suggest that extracurricular activities play an important role in shaping the job search process of university students by influencing students' confidence for finding employment. Information search strategies mediated the effects of extracurricular activities on employment self-efficacy perceptions, suggesting that participating in extracurricular activities changed the way that applicants searched for jobs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".