Evaluation of Intelligent Grouping Based on Learners’ Collaboration Competence Level in Online Collaborative Learning Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we explore the impact of an intelligent grouping algorithm based on learners’ collaborative competency when compared with (a) instructor based Grade Point Average (GPA) method level and (b) random method, on group outcomes and group collaboration problems in an online collaborative learning environment. An intelligent grouping algorithm has been added in a Learning Management System (LMS) which is capable of forming heterogeneous groups based on learners’ collaborative competency level. True experiment design methodology was deployed to examine whether there is any association between group formation method and group scores, learning experiences and group problems. From the findings, all groups had almost similar mean scores in all group tests, and shared many similar group collaboration problems and learning experiences. However, with the understanding that GPA group formation method involves the instructor, may not be dynamic, and the random method does not guarantee heterogeneity based on learner’s collaboration competence level, instructors are more likely to adopt our intelligent grouping method as the findings show that it has similar results. Furthermore, it provides an added advantage in supporting group formation due to its guarantee on heterogeneity, dynamism, and less instructor involvement.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".