Individual or collaborative projects? Considerations influencing the preferences of students with high reasoning ability and others their age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conditions influencing 328 students’ (Grades 6-8) preferences for collaborating or working alone on challenging projects were investigated, as well as their potential interactions with ability, grade and sex. Each student completed the Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 7) and Project Context Survey. No overall preference for individual or collaborative projects was found. Students’ preferences were sensitive to features of the context (subject, nature of the task and social dynamics). Individual projects were preferred in art and shared projects in science and social studies. Students with high ability and boys preferred individual projects in Math. Principal components analyses revealed three contextual considerations influenced students’ desire to work on projects alone (enjoyment, optimizing the outcome, and risk management) and five influenced the appeal of collaborating (inclusiveness and trust, access to the strengths of others, their perceived need for support, familiarity, and fair assessment). High ability students were more concerned with the efficiency and quality of their work, and their grades while others their age were more influenced by the potential for fun. Grade 8 students were more concerned with risk management and the assessment process than younger students. If the safe, supportive, fair conditions they sought for collaborating were not available, students’ default preference was to work alone on a challenging project.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".