THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN ONLINE INTERVENTION PROGRAM IN VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE

Iraida Musteaţă, A. Holman, D. Zaharia
{"title":"THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN ONLINE INTERVENTION PROGRAM IN VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE","authors":"Iraida Musteaţă, A. Holman, D. Zaharia","doi":"10.26755/revped/2023.1/55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current study is a test-retest design with the presence of both experimental and control groups. We proposed to present information about an online intervention program for reducing career decision-making difficulties (caused by lack of information, lack of readiness and inconsistent information) and to present results of its effectiveness. This research was designed in 2020 and the intervention program (7 sessions) started at the beginning of lock down due to COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were 11th high school students from Chişinău, Moldova. 13 students participated in the experimental group, which attended at least 6 of 7 online sessions and 18 in the control group. Career decision-making difficulties ware assessed with the CDDQ – Career Decision-Making Difficulties Questionnaire (Gati & Osipow, 2000). We found that there are differences between the results obtained by the participants of the intervention program and the results of the students in the control group for the lack of readiness scale (F (1, 29) = 16.388, p = 0.000). There was a reduction of career decision-making difficulties caused by lack of readiness for the experimental group, at the time of the retest (t(12)=3.30, p=0.006, Mretest=4.02) compared to the initial testing (Mtest =5.36) and at the time of the retest for the experimental group (Mretest=3.51) compared to the control group (Mretest= 4.04). After attending the intervention, differences related to the lack of information scale were recorded (F(1, 29)=16.925, p=0.000). Students in the experimental group obtained lower scores in the retest moment (t(17)=-3.073, p=0.007, Mretest=3.5128) than in the test moment (Mtest=5.5192). There are no significant differences in retest time between groups, t(29)=0.83, p=0.41. Difficulties caused by inconsistent information did not change between assessment times F(1, 29)=2.273, p=0.142, there are no significant differences between groups t(29)=0.43, p=0.67.","PeriodicalId":346977,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pedagogy - Revista de Pedagogie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pedagogy - Revista de Pedagogie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26755/revped/2023.1/55","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current study is a test-retest design with the presence of both experimental and control groups. We proposed to present information about an online intervention program for reducing career decision-making difficulties (caused by lack of information, lack of readiness and inconsistent information) and to present results of its effectiveness. This research was designed in 2020 and the intervention program (7 sessions) started at the beginning of lock down due to COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were 11th high school students from Chişinău, Moldova. 13 students participated in the experimental group, which attended at least 6 of 7 online sessions and 18 in the control group. Career decision-making difficulties ware assessed with the CDDQ – Career Decision-Making Difficulties Questionnaire (Gati & Osipow, 2000). We found that there are differences between the results obtained by the participants of the intervention program and the results of the students in the control group for the lack of readiness scale (F (1, 29) = 16.388, p = 0.000). There was a reduction of career decision-making difficulties caused by lack of readiness for the experimental group, at the time of the retest (t(12)=3.30, p=0.006, Mretest=4.02) compared to the initial testing (Mtest =5.36) and at the time of the retest for the experimental group (Mretest=3.51) compared to the control group (Mretest= 4.04). After attending the intervention, differences related to the lack of information scale were recorded (F(1, 29)=16.925, p=0.000). Students in the experimental group obtained lower scores in the retest moment (t(17)=-3.073, p=0.007, Mretest=3.5128) than in the test moment (Mtest=5.5192). There are no significant differences in retest time between groups, t(29)=0.83, p=0.41. Difficulties caused by inconsistent information did not change between assessment times F(1, 29)=2.273, p=0.142, there are no significant differences between groups t(29)=0.43, p=0.67.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在线干预项目在职业指导中的有效性
目前的研究是一个重测设计,实验组和对照组都存在。我们建议提供有关在线干预计划的信息,以减少职业决策困难(由于缺乏信息,缺乏准备和信息不一致),并展示其有效性的结果。本研究设计于2020年,干预方案(7期)始于2019冠状病毒病大流行封锁之初。参与者为摩尔多瓦chi inuru市的11名高中生,实验组13名,至少参加了7次在线课程中的6次,对照组18名。职业决策困难评估采用CDDQ -职业决策困难问卷(Gati & Osipow, 2000)。我们发现,干预方案的参与者与对照组学生在缺乏准备度量表上的结果存在差异(F (1,29) = 16.388, p = 0.000)。实验组在复测时(t(12)=3.30, p=0.006, Mretest=4.02)与初始测试(Mtest =5.36)相比,在复测时(Mretest=3.51)与对照组(Mretest= 4.04)相比,由于缺乏准备而导致的职业决策困难有所减少。参加干预后,记录与信息缺失量表相关的差异(F(1,29)=16.925, p=0.000)。实验组学生在重测时刻的得分(t(17)=-3.073, p=0.007, Mretest=3.5128)低于测试时刻的得分(Mtest=5.5192)。组间复测时间差异无统计学意义,t(29)=0.83, p=0.41。信息不一致导致的困难在评估次数之间没有变化F(1,29)=2.273, p=0.142,组间差异无统计学意义t(29)=0.43, p=0.67。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR INITIAL TEACHER TRAINING IN PLAYFUL PEDAGOGY PRE-PRIMARY STUDENT TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON REFLECTIVE JOURNALING TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION PISA RESULTS BEYOND RANKINGS: WHY DON’T ROMANIAN STUDENTS READ WELL?| GABRIELA HUM (ED.), LEARNING BY SHARING. A GUIDE TO EXPERIENCES FROM AND FOR L&D SPECIALISTS. Bucharest, TREI Publishing House, 2021, 348 pages, ISBN 978-606-40-1012-4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1