Interaction Effect of Gender on Academic Procrastination and Achievement Orientation among In-School Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigated the interaction effect gender on academic procrastination and achievement orientation among in-school adolescents. The study adopted a pretest posttest non-equivalent control group quasi-experimental design with a population of 804 SS II students (518 female and 286 males). The sample size of 129 SS II students from Udenu Local Government Area of Enugu State was drawn through purposive sampling technique. Procrastination Assessment Scale for Students (PASS) and Achievement Orientation Questionnaire (AOQ) were used for data collection. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the measures. Internal consistency reliability coefficients of 0.69 and 0.87 for PASS and AOQ were estimated through Cronbach alpha. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research questions while ANCOVA and t-test were used to test the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. It was found that gender does not significantly have effect on in-school adolescents’ academic procrastination and achievement orientation. The researchers recommended that among others that the government at all levels should employ competent educational psychologists/psychotherapists and provide enabling environment and facilities for regular cognitive behavioural change programme for in-school adolescents who may be facing problems with academic procrastination. More so, government agencies and professional bodies whose responsibility is to design and revise curriculum for secondary schools should incorporate and emphasize the use of rational emotive behavioural therapy in secondary schools.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".