Enhancement of Professional Behaviours and Perceptions of Critical Skill Job Preparedness through the Use of a Group Work Contract in Fourth-Year Nutritional Science Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative group assignments in undergraduate education are important for promoting skill development and preparation for the workplace; however, they are subject to the challenges associated with group dynamics. We determined the effectiveness of a Group Work Contract to facilitate professional behaviours and positive experiences amongst fourth year nutritional science students (n=144) while working collaboratively to complete a Group Literature Critique Assignment designed to promote scientific literacy and critical thinking skills. Changes in students’ attitudes and approaches to group work were assessed before and after completion of the contract and the assignment via two online surveys (Pre- and Post-Group Work Surveys). Completion of the Group Work Contract improved group dynamics including i) frequency of communication, ii) distribution of effort between group members, iii) mutual reliability, iv) respectfulness and inclusivity. Students also reported fewer group problems and an improved ability to work collaboratively in problem solving (P<0.05). Importantly, students reported reduced feelings of anxiety related to group learning and perceptions of achieving a better outcome versus working alone and learning more as a result of working in a group (P<0.05). Additionally, students reported an improvement in their job readiness perceptions with respect to the development of their scientific literacy and critical thinking skills as a result of completing the Group Literature Critique Assignment (P<0.05). Collectively, this data demonstrates that structuring the group work process through the implementation of a Group Work Contract can support the development of positive and effective group dynamics resulting in reduced student anxiety about collaborative learning and perception of a better overall outcome.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".