MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Co‐operative learning for students with difficulties in learning: a description of models and guidelines for implementation

2005· article· en· W2138113084 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

VenueBritish Journal of Special Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning disabilityMainstreamInclusion (mineral)PsychologyMathematics educationGrey literaturePedagogyMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyMEDLINEMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a larger study regarding the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream classroom settings, Ellen Murphy, of the D Clin Psych programme at NUI Galway, with Ian Grey and Rita Honan, from Trinity College, Dublin, reviewed existing literature on co‐operative learning in the classroom. In this article, they identify four models of co‐operative learning and specify the various components characteristic of each model. They review recent studies on co‐operative learning with the aim of determining effectiveness. These studies generally indicate that co‐operative learning appears to be more effective when assessed on measures of social engagement rather than academic performance. Finally, Ellen Murphy, Ian Grey and Rita Honan present their account of the factors that contribute to the successful implementation of co‐operative learning for students with difficulties in 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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.384 · 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