B. P. Singh
Page No.: 8226 - 8231
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10523
Manpreet Kaur
Page No.: 8232 - 8239
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10524
Sachin B. Shinde & G. K. Dhokrat
Page No.: 8240 - 8243
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10525
Sunita Arya & Parmod Kumar
Page No.: 8244 - 8249
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10526
Renu Kalra
Page No.: 8250 - 8263
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10527
R. D. Ranadive
Page No.: 8264 - 8267
Mrs. Anju Mehta & (Mrs.) Nimisha Beri
Page No.: 8268 - 8279
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10529
Vijay Anant Kulkarni
Page No.: 8280 - 8287
Kamal Gupta
Page No.: 8288 - 8292
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10531
Rohit Bajaj
Page No.: 8293 - 8300
Jyoti
Page No.: 8301 - 8311
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10533
Jonathan Muema Mwania
Page No.: 8312 - 8322
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10534
Mrs. Desai Archana. S
Page No.: 8323 - 8329
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10535
Mrs. Shubhangi R. Khambayat
Page No.: 8330 - 8343
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10536
Susan Alexander
Page No.: 8344 - 8349
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10537
Suprava Mohanty
Page No.: 8350 - 8359
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10538
Shamim Chandrakant Suryavanshi
Page No.: 8360 - 8368
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10539
Rajwinder Kaur
Page No.: 8369 - 8374
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10540
R. Vasudevan & R. Babu
Page No.: 8375 - 8384
Bhagvanbhai H. Chaudhari
Page No.: 8385 - 8392
Bhagvanbhai H. Chaudhari
Page No.: 8393 - 8401
Satyavrata Panda
Page No.: 8402 - 8412
G. Balaji
Page No.: 8413 - 8421
Deepa Jain
Page No.: 8422 - 8429
Anshuman Sekhri & Tanveer Kaur
Page No.: 8430 - 8436
Rajnish Agrahari
Page No.: 8437 - 8444
Archana Sharadrao Kambale & S. Y. Patil
Page No.: 8445 - 8447
Sunita Y. Patil
Page No.: 8448 - 8452
Peram Sripal
Page No.: 8453 - 8460
Sreenivasa Dasu P
Page No.: 8461 - 8466
Jaspreet Kaur & Dilbagh Singh Randhawa
Page No.: 8464 - 8490
Chhabilata Dei
Page No.: 8491 - 8499
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10585
Sampurna Guha
Page No.: 8500 - 8505
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10586
Monica Aggarwal
Page No.: 8506 - 8515
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10587
Deepak Gaikwad
Page No.: 8516 - 8520
Madhavi Kharat
Page No.: 8521 - 8526
Suman Kumari Katoch
Page No.: 8527 - 8533
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10588
Suman Kumari Katoch
Page No.: 8534 - 8542
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10589
Siddaraju K.S. & Jayamma H.R.
Page No.: 8543 - 8556
Sanjay Kumar Singh
Page No.: 8557 - 8563
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10591
Sukhpreet Singh
Page No.: 8564 - 8575
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10600
Jajneswar Sethi
Page No.: 8576 - 8582
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10592
William Mumo Kibwea, Jonathan M. Mwania & Leornard Kamau
Page No.: 8583 - 8592
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10593
Ajay K. Gautam & Neha Yadav
Page No.: 8593 - 8601
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10594
Sunaina
Page No.: 8602 - 8628
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10595
Sanjiw Kumar Manjre
Page No.: 8629 - 8635
Sunaina
Page No.: 8636 - 8642
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10597
Sunita Arya & Parmod Kumar
Page No.: 8643 - 8648
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10598
Satyendra Singh
Page No.: 8649 - 8654
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10599
Gunwant Sonone
Page No.: 8430 - 8438
Rege K, Shah V, Ingle H, Mallya S & Qureshi J
Page No.: 8439 - 8451
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10660
J. Shakila
Page No.: 8452 - 8459
A. Kavitha
Page No.: 8460 - 8469
Sunil Kumar
Page No.: 8470 - 8481
Abhibunnisha Begum
Page No.: 8482 - 8490
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10663
Balaji S. Mudholkar
Page No.: 8491 - 8498
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10664
Sabahat Aslam & Shabir Ahmad Bhat
Page No.: 8499 - 8507
Rekha J. Parlikar
Page No.: 8509 - 8516
Rekha J. Parlikar
Page No.: 8517 - 8525
Rekha J. Parlikar
Page No.: 8526 - 8534
P. Annuncia & N. KalaiArasi
Page No.: 8535 - 8542
Kuldeep Singh Katoch
Page No.: 8543 - 8550
Subhash Singh
Page No.: 8551 - 8567
Sowmya. R & H Nagaraj
Page No.: 8568 - 8578
Mangalagowri B & H Nagaraj
Page No.: 8569 - 8586
Dinesh Chandra Kandpal & Praveen Kumar Tiwari
Page No.: 8587 - 8592
V. S. Sumi
Page No.: 8593 - 8601
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10822
Mamta Kandpal & R.S. Pathani
Page No.: 8602 - 8607
Prakash Vir Singh
Page No.: 8608 - 8622
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10824
Anish Chandran & Chinnu Mariam Chacko
Page No.: 8623 - 8635
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10825
Amardeep Kaur
Page No.: 8636 - 8644
Shahid Rasool
Page No.: 8655 - 8674
Poosapati Durgaiah
Page No.: 8675 - 8684
Mrs. Archana Vadeyar & Smita Phatak
Page No.: 8685 - 8698
Mr. S. Pratap & J. Revathy
Page No.: 8699 - 8704
Deepika Kamboj
Page No.: 8705 - 8717
Shukrant Jagotra
Page No.: 8718 - 8727
M. Shivaleela
Page No.: 8728 - 8735
A. Jammanna
Page No.: 8736 - 8750
R. Karpagam & Prof. K. Nachimuthu
Page No.: 8751 - 8757
Surbhi Bhatt & Mahipal Singh Rao
Page No.: 8758 - 8773
Chhotu Ram
Page No.: 8774 - 8781
Neetu Khokhar
Page No.: 8782 - 8789
Elizabeth Welu Kiamba & Francis Mutua
Page No.: 8790 - 8798
Mrs. Shubhangi R. Khambayat
Page No.: 8799 - 8817
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10829
B.P. Singh
Page No.: 8818 - 8824
Mrs. Shobha Jadhav & Mr. Sunil Kalekar
Page No.: 8825 - 8835
P. P. Jamdade
Page No.: 8836 - 8838
T. P. Khairnar
Page No.: 8839 - 8841
https://doi.org/10.21922/srjis.v4i37.10833
Sambit Panigrahi
Page No.: 8842 - 8849
Shankar Chatterjee
Page No.: 8850 - 8855
Balbir Singh Jamwal
Page No.: 8856 - 8871
Upendra Nabh Tripathi & Amit Kumar Jain
Page No.: 8872 - 8882
Khan Tanveer Habeeb
Page No.: 8883 - 8889
Shailja Singla & Nikunaj Bhardwaj
Page No.: 8890 - 8908
S. R. Chavhan & S. V. Bhope
Page No.: 8909 - 8918
Jagtap Manisha Vasantrao
Page No.: 8909 - 8918
Neil Singh, Anuja Jedhe, Sham Diwanay & Prafulla Shede
Page No.: 8919 - 8932
Mr. Amol Padmakar Kare & Shamkant Narhar Kotkar
Page No.: 8933 - 8939
Amisha Singh & Sharmila Devi
Page No.: 8940 - 8945
Ms. Puja Saini & Angrej Singh
Page No.: 8946 - 8951
Anil Kumar Vangani & Alka Maurya
Page No.: 8952 - 8957
Dipty Subba
Page No.: 8958 - 8967
Ruchi Manchanda & Sakshi
Page No.: 8968 - 8977
Rajeev Kaushal
Page No.: 8978 - 8998
Saritha Devkumar
Page No.: 8999 - 9004
Sarita Dahiya & Kanta
Page No.: 9005 - 9012
Anirvan B. Gupta, Laxman M. Chaudhari & Vijay H. Raybagkar
Page No.: 9013 - 9024
Smita Mishra
Page No.: 9025 - 9035
Ayushi Mundra
Page No.: 9036 - 9042
Kiran Sachdeva
Page No.: 9043 - 9048
Arpit Khurana
Page No.: 9049 - 9061
Parul Aggarwal
Page No.: 9062 - 9069
Praveen Rani
Page No.: 9070 - 9077
Nitleen Kaur
Page No.: 9078 - 9096
Bhagvanbhai H. Chaudhari
Page No.: 9097 - 9102
Suprava Mohanty & Shamita Mahapatra
Page No.: 9103 - 9110
Anil Kumar Vangani & Surendra Kumar
Page No.: 9111 - 9120
Bharati Chand
Page No.: 9121 - 9130
Pravin Sharma
Page No.: 9131 - 9134
Mr. K.C. Shaikh & Ms. Jayshree Bhoyar
Page No.: 9135 - 9140
Mr. Anil G. Gumgol & Nagappa P. Shahapur
Page No.: 9141 - 9150
Mrs. Parveen Rani
Page No.: 9151 - 9159
Ranajana Yadav
Page No.: 9160 - 9152
Ritu Sharma
Page No.: 9153 - 9158
Arshid Ahmad Najar
Page No.: 9159 - 9164
Jai Hind Vishwakarma & Sonia Sthapak
Page No.: 9165 - 9170
Varinder Kumar
Page No.: 9171 - 9177
Dadaram Laxman Khokale
Page No.: 9171 - 9177
Namita S. Sahare
Page No.: 9178 - 9182
Prof. Sunita Kashinath Jagatap
Page No.: 9183 - 9189
Vijay F. Dhamane
Page No.: 9190 - 9198
Deepak Chavan
Page No.: 9199 - 9207
Mr. Rajendra Chandrakant Thigale
Page No.: 9208 - 9215
Mohan Sakharam Kambale
Page No.: 9216 - 9219
Nanaji Krishna Aher
Page No.: 9220 - 9226
Varde Hirenkumar Balavatbhai
Page No.: 9227 - 9223
Jagdish B. Thakur
Page No.: 9224 - 9232
Anjana V.R. Chandran
Page No.: 9238 - 9243
Kailas Sahebrao Daundkar
Page No.: 9233 - 9239
Dharmendra Kumar Sarraf
Page No.: 9240 - 9257
Baltinder Kaur
Page No.: 9257 - 9261
Sushil Kumar Dadhwal
Page No.: 9262 - 9269
Mrs. Geeta Kundi
Page No.: 9270 - 9279
Shivam Gadhadara
Page No.: 9280 - 9290
Mrs. Sukhraj Kaur
Page No.: 9291 - 9295
Vandana Saraswat
Page No.: 9296 - 9304
Nancee Chauhan
Page No.: 9305 - 9321
Ranvir Singh
Page No.: 9322 - 9326
Anu Malhotra
Page No.: 9327 - 9335
Agrim Verma
Page No.: 9336 - 9342
Pradip Debnath
Page No.: 9343 - 9349
Shalini Tyagi
Page No.: 9350 - 9356
Shivraj Singh Yadav
Page No.: 9357 - 9363
Anu Malhotra
Page No.: 9364 - 9375
Neerja Asthana
Page No.: 9376 - 9383
Sujata Karade
Page No.: 9384 - 9390
Kailashnath Gupta
Page No.: 9384 - 9387
V. N. Tripathi
Page No.: 9388 - 9396
Suman Bansal & Aparna Sharma
Page No.: 9397 - 9409
Kaushal Kishor Singh & Yogendra Kumar Saraswat
Page No.: 9410 - 9414
Vivek Kumar Pandey
Page No.: 9415 - 9418
Ramesh Bhavisetti
Page No.: 9419 - 9430
Bhupendra Kumar
Page No.: 9431 - 9439
Pratiksha Raghuvanshi
Page No.: 9440 - 9444
Pratiksha Raghuvanshi
Page No.: 9445 - 9449
Sangram V. Gunjal
Page No.: 9450 - 9462
Dr. Ravi Aruna
Recived Date: 2017-11-10 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-25 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9463 - 9468
In this present research the investigator is going to study the impact of new teaching model “Group Clinical Supervision Model” on general teaching competency among in-service teachers. In order to measure impact of “Group Clinical Supervision Model” on teaching competency of in-service teachers, general teaching competency scale is developed and standardized by Passi B.K and Lalitha M.S (1979) has been adapted in the present study. In this study 30 in-service teachers in which 25 teachers are graduates and 5 teachers are post graduates are taken as a sample. The data collected was analyzed using the values of mean, Standard deviation and “t” values. The results of this study helps to understand how the group clinical supervision model facilitate in-service teachers with different qualification to improve their teaching competency.
Kanumalla Raghu Kranti Kumar
Recived Date: 2017-11-07 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-28 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9469 - 9473
Asia
Recived Date: 2017-11-10 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-16 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9474 - 9480
This paper seeks to present a framework for the teacher education curriculum in the twenty-first century.
Curriculum development is a local, regional, or state/provincial level process that student teachers often
have difficulty comprehending. Education is not a mechanical activity of information transmission and
teachers are not information dispensers. Teachers have to increasingly play the role of crucial mediating
agents through whom curriculum is transacted. It is necessary that student teachers be sensitized to the
need for reducing curriculum load, organize appropriate learning experiences which are joyful in nature
and related to immediate environment of the learner and help them develop and imbibe desirable values.
The main paper focuses the objectives, hypotheses, method, sample, tool, Analysis, Findings and
Suggestion.
Busi Ramesh & Srungarapu Saradhi
Recived Date: 2017-11-10 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-25 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9481 - 9486
The present study attempts to study on teaching aptitude of teacher trainees . Normative Survey Method was adopted for this this study. The sample for the study was 100 teacher trainees from Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh. Teaching Aptitude Test developed and standardized by Gakhar, S. C. and Rajnish (2010) was used in this study. Reliability co- efficient was found to be 0.76. The findings revealed that the teacher trainees make a significant difference in their teaching aptitude due to variation in their gender and academic quaification, and the teacher trainees don’t make a significant difference in their teaching
aptitude due to variation in their locality and management.
Bandi Krishnaveni & Duggirala Venkateswarlu
Recived Date: 2017-11-10 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-24 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9487 - 9492
The study aims emotional maturity of adolescent students in tirupati, chittoor district. A
random sample of 200 was taken on adolescent students in the Tirupati, Chittoor district. The
emotional maturity scale developed by Dr. Tara Sabapathy was used for assessing the
emotional maturity of the participants. Mean, Standard deviation, Percentage of mean, and‘t’
value were calculated. The study also revealed there is no significant difference in gender and
locality. The variable like type of institute and medium of instruction are significantly
influenced the emotional maturity of adolescent students.
M. Vaidehi & Usha Rani. Kotari
Recived Date: 2017-11-10 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-24 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9493 - 9496
The purposes this study is to analyse the job satisfaction among secondary school teachers in
relation to their gender, locality and management. A sample of 100 secondary school teachers
was selected by using random sampling technique. The sample was collected from Tirupati
town Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. The obtained data was analysed by using means,
S.D’s and t-test. The study revealed that there is no significant difference between the job
satisfaction of male and female teachers of Secondary schools. There is no significant
difference between the job satisfaction among rural and urban secondary school teachers. The
government secondary school teachers have higher job satisfaction than the private secondary
school teachers.
Raja Kumar Pydi & Srirama Vara Kumar
Recived Date: 2017-11-25 | Accepted Date: 2017-11-30 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9497 - 9505
Phani Saikrishna Pakala
Recived Date: 2017-11-10 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-25 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9506 - 9511
Dr. Maukam Singh
Recived Date: 2017-10-09 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-20 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9508 - 9514
Suresh G. Isave
Recived Date: 2017-12-12 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-28 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9515 - 9518
Dr. Durgesh Nandini
Recived Date: 2017-12-12 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-28 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9519 - 9531
Dr. Namita Dash
Recived Date: 2017-12-12 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-28 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9532 - 9539
This study investigates the self-concept of secondary school students concerning gender differences. Self-concept, a vital aspect of personality, influences behavior, attitudes, and academic performance, especially during adolescence—a period of significant biological, cognitive, and emotional changes. The research aims to compare the self-concepts of boys and girls in secondary schools, using a sample of 60 students (30 boys and 30 girls) from three government schools in Puri town. Data were collected through a standardized self-concept scale covering six dimensions: behavior, intellectual status, physical appearance, anxiety, popularity, and happiness. The analysis shows no significant overall difference between the self-concepts of boys and girls, though boys scored slightly higher on physical appearance and attributes. The findings suggest that while self-concept is similarly developed among boys and girls, certain aspects, such as body image, are more prominent in boys. The study emphasizes the importance of nurturing positive self-concept through supportive environments created by parents and teachers, especially during adolescence. Furthermore, it calls for future research across different regions and educational settings to deepen the understanding of gender-related self-concept development and its impact on academic and personal growth.
Dr. M. Jyosthana
Recived Date: 2017-12-12 | Accepted Date: 2017-12-28 | Published Date: 2018-01-04
Page No.: 9540 - 9543
The present study is to examine intermediate students' attitudes toward the English language in relation to some demographic factors. A sample of 500 intermediate students studying in Guntur City of Guntur district was selected by using a stratified random sampling technique. Attitude towards Learning English Language Scale was developed and standard by Abidin, M. J. Z. et al. (2012). It has 45 statements and 15 negative and 30 positive statements were included. The items were given a likert scale with three possible outcomes: Agree, Neutral, and Disagree. The reliability coefficient of correlation (r) was found to be 0.878 by using the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula. The findings of the research showed that Gender of intermediate students makes no significant difference in the attitude of towards the English language. Locality of intermediate students makes no significant difference in the attitude of towards the English language. Management of intermediate students makes no significant difference in the attitude of towards the English language.