Extra-Curricular Activities and Job Satisfaction: The Effect of Extra-Curricular Duties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
- This study’s purpose was to examine the connection between extra-curricular duties and teachers ’ reported job satisfaction levels. In particular, the study examines the reported increase or decrease in job satisfaction with the increase or decrease of time spent by teachers, with or without students, performing extra-curricular duties. The analysis attempts to delve further into the questions as to whether the types of extra-curricular duties affect job satisfaction, such as sports, fine arts or academic. As well, if there is an hourly limit as to how much time, with or without students, performing extra-curricular activities may affect the job satisfaction of teachers. Data Collection:- Data was collected twice from a group of 20 teachers from western Canada, ranging from K-12 teaching levels. Data was collected in the form of two surveys, administered in September 2013 and January 2014. The teachers were asked to complete a survey and questionnaire as part of each survey round. The questionnaires address the hourly time commitments to extra-curricular duties and the types of extra-curricular duties they are involved in. The survey was adapted from Lester’s (1984) survey rating teacher job satisfaction in areas such as classroom and school conditions, opportunities available for
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".