Effect of cooperative learning on undergraduate nursing students' self-esteem: A quasi- experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cooperative learning means method which learners work in a small group member and take advantages of each other’s expertise to achieve a common goal, and promote higher self-esteem which is an important quality and an attribute considered as specific requirement for better performance and interpersonal success. Objective: Evaluate effect of cooperative learning on undergraduate nursing students’ self-esteem, as well as assessing their attitude regarding cooperative learning. Methods: Quasi-experimental study was conducted along the second semester, academic year 2012/2013, at college of applied medical sciences, king Khalid University, Saudi Arabia. Total number of 61 female nursing students enrolled in growth& development course divided into two groups experimental group (32 students) and control group (29 students) was the study sample. Three tools of data collections were used: Preliminary sheet, Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale with high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient r = 0.844) and Likert rating attitude scale, its reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient r = 0.771). Results: Students’ mean age was 20.8±.983. Total students’ self-esteem pretest was low. The results indicated improvement of the experimental group self-esteem and presence of highly statistical significant differences between experimental and control group posttest p < .001. 62.5% and 68.8% of the experimental group strongly agree that cooperative learning enhanced students’ social skills and responsibility . Conclusion: The study findings reflected low self-esteem between nursing students. Cooperative learning method is an effective teaching approach improved their self-esteem and it is highly recommended instructional pedagogy prepared students for lifelong learning.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".