The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Journal of Education and Practice
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the interaction effects of gender and programs of study on attitudes of\npostgraduate diploma in teaching (PGDT) students towards the teaching profession. The main aim of the study\nwas to find out whether there are any significant interaction effects of gender and programs of study of PGDT\nstudents’ attitude towards the teaching profession. A descriptive survey was carried out among PGDT students\nduring the year 2016/2017 regular session with a population of 371 students. The survey was conducted between\nscience and non-science students in the department of teacher education at Mekelle University, Ethiopia. Using\na stratified random sampling method, 130 student-teachers were selected as samples for the study. A scale entitled\n“attitude towards teaching profession” was developed and validated by the researchers based on established\nprocedures in the literature (Aliyu Musa and Ado Abdu Bichi, 2015). A scale contained 15 items to be scored on\nthe five-point Likert scale as Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neutral(N), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree\n(SD) was used. The data analysis of descriptive statistics through quantitative analysis by computing SPSS 16.0\n(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows 10 was employed. Statistical techniques which include\npercentage analysis for levels, mean, standard deviation, and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were also\nused for data analysis and interpretation. The findings of the two-way ANOVA demonstrated that there are no\nsignificant interaction effects of gender and programs of study on attitude towards the teaching profession of\nPGDT students. Correlation analysis of gender and programs of a study indicated that the student teachers’\nattitude towards the teaching profession was positively related to gender and programs of study.\n
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
Pre‐service primary education teachers’ changing attitudes towards teaching: a longitudinal study
Tok, Ş. (2011) · European Journal of Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/02619768.2010.534130 · Cited by 37
Teacher Candidates’ Attitudes Towards the Teaching Profession in Turkey
Tok, T. N. (2012) · Alberta Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v58i3.55629 · Cited by 13
Cited by
Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5 · Cited by 1,252
Kircaburun, K., Alhabash, S., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-018-9940-6 · Cited by 594
On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts – a review of literature
Pettersson, F. (2018) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-017-9649-3 · Cited by 473
Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature
Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0 · Cited by 475
Social media in higher education: A literature review of Facebook
Chugh, R., & Ruhi, U. (2018) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-017-9621-2 · Cited by 447
Metadata
- Published
- 2017-06-12
- DOI
- 10.7176/jep
- OpenAlex
- W4214756639
- Cited by
- 2,735
- References
- 3
- Type
- paratext
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.