Team dynamics feedback for post-secondary student learning teams
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
In the current research, we introduce the team CARE model for supporting team development during post-secondary education. Team CARE is part of a larger suite of assessments at itpmetrics.com. Team CARE is a free, online, survey-based assessment that allows team members to rate their team’s health and functioning in four key categories (communicate, adapt, relate and educate), as well as provide written feedback about the team’s functioning to add nuance and supplemental context to the numeric scores. Team members completing the assessment receive a report documenting their team’s scores on the variables measured. We report on data from student learning teams suggesting that the variables in the team CARE model are reliable, and that they are correlated with team performance outcomes. Students’ perceptions of the tool were also examined, and the findings suggest that team CARE is perceived to be valuable, useful and easy to use. Recommendations for practice are detailed, including sample assessment schedules for teams with differing life spans. Implications for future research and implementation are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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