Learner Views about Cooperative Learning in Social Learning Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to reveal the attitudes and views of university students about the use of Edmodo as a cooperative learning environment. In the research process, the students were divided into groups of 4 or 5 within the scope of a course given in the department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology. For each group, Edmodo small groups were formed, and the students used these Edmodo small groups to share and communicate with their group friends in relation to the group tasks assigned to them within the scope of the study. This process lasted one academic term. As the data collection tool, an online cooperative learning attitude scale and a semi-structured interview form were used. At the end of the academic term, 15 students were interviewed about their cooperative learning experiences within the scope of the course as well as about how they made use of Edmodo in the process. The results demonstrated that the students had positive attitudes towards online cooperative learning. The findings obtained via the qualitative data analysis were examined under the headings of “social networks used”, “preferences of forming groups”, “communication within group” and “views about the courses executed via Edmodo”.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".