Investigation of The Attitudes of University Students at Different Departments Against Cooperative Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative learning is a kind of teaching method, which includes students working together in projects. The teacher has to provide a cooperative situation that creates interdependence among the students. It consists of five different elements. These are positive interdependence, individual accountability, face to face interaction, interpersonal- small groups, social skills, and group processing. This study is aimed to investigate the attitudes of university students studying in different departments towards cooperative learning. Thus, the current situation is described with the analysis of the data obtained from the applied scales. The research is descriptive. The group of the research consists of students studying in different departments of Bozok University in Yozgat. For the research, the data collected and processed into the data coding form. Then, statistical analysis was applied to the data transferred to SPSS 24.0 Packet program. There is no statistically significant difference found between genders. There was a statistically significant difference in the attitude scores towards cooperative learning between the ages, the departments, and the grades. Cooperative learning is a more suitable method for students in the classes and develops learners' attitudes. Institutes are encouraged for positive collaboration involvement among students who will be connected in groups within the work environment in the long term.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".