A positive student experience of collaborative project work in upper-year undergraduate chemistry
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
Demands are placed on undergraduate courses in chemistry to develop transferable skills, such as teamwork, alongside subject content and technical skills. Such skills can be developed by implementing pedagogies which involve students working together. Such pedagogies can, however, pose various challenges, including unfavourable student perceptions and experiences including the occurrence of dysfunctional student teams. This article presents a research-informed group project assignment delivered as part of an upper-year undergraduate chemistry course which has been found to overcome these challenges. The instructional activity is characterized by a high degree of structure and support for teamwork. Student perceptions, collected by survey and interview, and peer- and self-evaluations of contributions to the work of the groups reveal that students have experienced the activity positively. Many perceived disadvantages of working in a team to complete a project were either reportedly not experienced or could be overcome by the students, while perceived advantages were often reported to be experienced. Dysfunction within teams did not represent a significant issue.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it