A Comparison of Responses to Group Learning between First-Year Asian and First-year Australian Veterinary Science Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Group learning has been used to enhance deep (long-term) learning and promote life skills, such as decision making, communication, and interpersonal skills. However, with increasing multiculturalism in higher education, there is little information available as to the acceptance of this form of learning by Asian students or as to its value to them. METHODOLOGY: Group-learning projects, incorporating a seminar presentation, were used in first-year veterinary anatomical science classes over two consecutive years (2003 and 2004) at the School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland. Responses of Australian and Asian students to survey forms evaluating the learning experience were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: All students responded positively to the group learning, indicating that it was a useful learning experience and a great method for meeting colleagues. There were no significant differences between Asian and Australian students in overall responses to the survey evaluating the learning experience, except where Asian students responded significantly higher than Australian students in identifying specific skills that needed improving. CONCLUSIONS: Group learning can be successfully used in multicultural teaching to enhance deep learning. This form of learning helps to remove cultural barriers and establish a platform for continued successful group learning throughout the program.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".