MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062280517 · doi:10.1177/1469787408095848

Using action research to teach students to manage team learning and improve teamwork satisfaction

2008· article· en· W2062280517 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActive Learning in Higher Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkSocial loafingPsychologyTeam effectivenessPsychological safetyConflict managementAction researchCooperative learningMedical educationMathematics educationTeaching methodKnowledge managementApplied psychologySocial psychologyManagementComputer scienceSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on a study investigating strategies that students can use to develop skills in managing team learning. Two groups of second-year management students participated in a semester-long action research project over two semesters. The students were educated on team development, team processes and conflict management and how to review and enhance team development. Teaching staff supported the approach and students were regularly encouraged to reflect on and learn about how their behaviour contributed to team effectiveness. This approach encouraged student participation and ownership as well as early intervention if problems arose. Findings suggest that when students are taught to manage the processes of teamwork and take greater ownership of managing conflict and team relations they report less conflict and less social loafing and are more satisfied with their learning outcomes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it