Comparing Student- and Teacher-Formed Teams on Group Dynamics, Satisfaction, and Performance
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
We compared student- and teacher-formed teams on aspects of group dynamics, satisfaction, and performance. Two sections of an introductory psychology research methods course were randomly assigned to either student-formed or teacher-formed teams. We conducted t tests on 10 measures related to group dynamics, satisfaction, and success. Academic performance and group work contribution were the only measures found to be statistically different, with the student-formed teams scoring higher than the teacher-formed teams. Follow-up individual interviews or focus groups conducted with 13 students suggested a slight preference for the teacher-formed method because it was transparent and eliminated the stress of having to choose one’s team members. We further recommend this method because of its simplicity and closer approximation to real-world scenarios. Several factors identified as being important for effective team functioning, regardless of group formation method, are also 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it