Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study involves a survey on student’s perceptions on whether group work is enjoyable, interesting, promotes interaction and an effective mechanism of learning. It further investigated if gender and performance in English had any bearing on group work. The instrument used consisted of four sections. Section A is for the descriptive data, while section B, C and D use a Likert scale where ‘5’ was the most positive answers. The sample of 70 respondents was randomly chosen from a semi urban school in the East Coast state of Terengganu. There were 27 males and 43 females and all of them were 16-year-old Malay Form Four students. The findings indicated that the students found group work to be enjoyable, interesting and promoted interaction. They also perceived it to be an effective means of learning. Through comparison of means and t-testing, it was established that there was no significant different between the genders in their inclination towards group work. Co-relational analysis indicated that there was no significant relationship between the students English language performance in their keenness towards group work. For future research, the study should be conducted in a longer period and in experiential way.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".