Enhancement of collaboration activities utilizing 21st century learning design rubric
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Twenty first century learners have incredibly diverse learning interests, needs, and aspirations. Engaging middle school students and sculpting successful, confident, and creative learners is a constant endeavor for educators [4]. In the 21st century classroom environments in which students can develop the skills they need in workplace. Collaboration occurs when students work together to create, discuss challenge and develop deeper critical thinking. In today’s workplace, collaboration is essential as only few tasks are completed alone (Calgary and Park, 2016). The collaborative project-based curriculum used in this classroom develops the higher order thinking skills, effective communication skills, and knowledge of technology that students will need in the 21st century workplace. The study therefore aims to promote collaboration skills among learners as it is deemed as one of the top 21st century skills. Collaborative learning unleashes a unique intellectual and social synergy. This study aims to enhance the collaborative skills of students through conducting collaboration activities in learning the Ecosystem. This research utilizes pretest-posttest and employs descriptive research designs. It uses modified activities about the lesson on Ecosystem and utilizes a Collaboration Rubric to rate the modified activities. The activities were rated by ten In-Service teachers and there are 105 students who participated in doing the activities. The paired t-test is then used to analyze the data. The In-Service teachers evaluated the 1st and 2nd adapted activity and are rated as fair. Thus, the modified activities were enhanced since the ratings of each activity did not meet the criterion of the collaboration rubric. As for the 3rd adapted activity is rated as excellent and is ready for implementation. The evaluators provided comments and suggestions such as producing colored pictures on the activities, omitting some questions, and making the words simpler to enhance the activities. The findings of the study shows the students’ performance in the posttest is higher than the pretest which indicates that there is a significant difference between the two tests given. The students’ conceptual understanding was also improved after conducting the activities. Some students’ outputs were Outstanding, Satisfactory, Fairly Satisfactory and Did Not Meet the Expectation. These results indicate that the students learned and developed their collaborative skills. The students found the activity interesting, enjoyable and useful. Furthermore, they understood the concept behind the activity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».