The Effect of Positive Psychology Interventions on Learning Engagement and Self-efficacy of China Higher Vocational Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the effects of positive psychology interventions on the learning engagement and self-efficacy of vocational college students. A single-group pretest-posttest experimental design was employed, involving 86 first-year students from a vocational college. The interventions, implemented in a classroom setting, included gratitude exercises, strengths-based interventions, and Three Good Things practice, among others. The effectiveness of the interventions were statistically evaluated using pretest-posttest assessments, analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results indicated that the positive psychology intervention significantly enhanced students’ self-efficacy (p < .001), whereas the improvement in learning engagement was not statistically significant (p > .05). The lack of significant improvement in learning engagement may be due to the short duration of the intervention and multiple factors influencing learning engagement. Learning engagement requires a comprehensive approach to improvement. Interventions have increased students' psychological resources - self-efficacy–but it is not sufficient to directly change learning behavior. These findings provide insight into the development of more effective psychological support strategies for vocational education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".