Adult Literacy Facilitators’ Job Satisfaction in Nigeria and South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reported a survey conducted to assess the job satisfaction level among adult literacy facilitators in Nigeria and South Africa. The study adopted a quantitative approach and data was collected from eighty-six (86) adult literacy facilitators (Nigeria-50 and South Africa-36) randomly selected from Oyo State, Nigeria and King Cetshwayo District, KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. A structured questionnaire validated by experts and pilot-tested among primary School teachers serves as the research instrument. Data collected from the study were analysed using frequency count, simple percentages, mean, multiple regression analysis and T-test. Results revealed that adult literacy facilitators' job satisfaction level in the two countries is on average. Provision of a positive working environment in terms of improvement in the infrastructural facilities in the literacy centre was ranked first amongst others as ways to improve the job satisfaction of literacy facilitators. There was, however, no statistical difference in job satisfaction among literacy facilitators in Nigeria and South Africa. Therefore, it was concluded that conscious effort must be made at mapping out strategies to improve literacy facilitators’ job satisfaction to enhance adult literacy delivery in the two countries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".