The Development of an Instructional Model Based on Rogers’ Theory to Enhance the Adversity Quotient for Guangxi International Business Vocational College
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the current status of adversity quotient (AQ) development, develop an instructional model based on Rogers’ theory, and assess the impact of the model on students' AQ. The study involved 33 first-year students from infant care services and management majors at Guangxi International Business Vocational College. Research tools included questionnaires, interviews, lesson plans, the Adversity Quotient Scale, observation forms, and interview forms. The study comprised three steps: studying the current situation of AQ development, developing the instructional model, and implementing and improving the model. Data were analyzed using statistical and qualitative methods. Results showed four aspects of existing problems in college students' AQ: students, teachers, learning processes, and environment. The instructional model comprised four components: Principle, Objective, Learning Process, and Result. After implementing the model, students' AQ significantly improved compared to pre-class levels (p < 0.01). This study provides insights into addressing challenges in college students' AQ development and demonstrates the effectiveness of an instructional model grounded in Rogers’ theory for enhancing students' AQ. Enhancing college students' adversity quotient is of significant importance for effectively coping with adversity in their daily learning life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".