MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591637276 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p75

The Impact of Cooperative Learning on CHC Students’ Achievements and Its Changes over the Past Decade

2017· article· en· W2591637276 on OpenAlex
Qiuxian Chen, Yuan Liu

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Graduate EducationJohnson and Johnson
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Agency (philosophy)SituatedClass (philosophy)Transfer of learningCooperative learningPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyMathematics educationArtificial intelligenceSocial scienceComputer scienceGeographyTeaching methodArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Informed by emergent learning theories and multiple evidenced benefits, cooperative learning has developed into a widely accepted organization mode of class in the Western context. For the same reason, cooperative learning is transferred, during the past decade, into classrooms of Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) contexts. Concerns, however, are raised regarding the effectiveness of the transfer, for contextual factors have long been acknowledged as a powerful barrier to borrowed initiatives, especially those that are not compatible with the deep-rooted cultural values in the situated contexts.This paper is built on Thanh-Pham’s (2014) review of literature, which is on the impact of cooperative learning on the CHC students’ learning achievements and conducted during 1990 to 2006. This paper has expanded Thanh-Pham (2014) with a similar review on available literatures, which were published from 2007 up to 2016. This review of 39 publications shows up noticeable changes regarding the impact of cooperative learning in the CHC contexts. Specifically, the positive findings have risen from 47.2% to 86.9%, whereas negative and null change studies fall considerably. Influencing factors are analyzed via SPSS22.0 Software and verified with exemplars. Reasons for these changes point to the changing context and adaptive agency.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.444 · 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