TEACHING ECONOMICS USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPROACH: ACCOUNTING STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE AND ATTITUDE
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using experimental and post experimental setting, this study examines whether different learning approach influence students’ behaviour. Specifically, this study examines whether using cooperative learning approach could improve students’ performance in economics course better than the conventional approach. This study also examines the students’ attitude towards economics subject, communication skill and social skill upon reliance on the learning approach used in the experiment. Sixty one undergraduate accounting students in a public university in Malaysia participated in this study. The results show that although there is a difference in performance between students using cooperative learning approach and students using conventional approach, the result is not significant. However, the students’ attitude toward economic subject, communication skill and social skill is more positive among the cooperation learning approach group compared to the conventional approach group. The findings of this study provide some understanding to academics and universities on the use of different learning approaches in teaching economics subject to accounting students. Keywords: economics; undergraduate students; cooperative learning approach
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it