Effectiveness of Group Work Contracts to Facilitate Collaborative Group Learning and Reduce Anxiety in Traditional Face-to-Face Lecture and Online Distance Education Course Formats
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
Group work (GW) in undergraduate education facilitates the development of communication and collaborative skills. However, dysfunctional and inequitable group dynamics can have adverse effects, leading to increased anxiety. This research sought to determine the effectiveness of a Group Work Contract to facilitate the GW process in the face-to-face (n=168) and online (n=105) formats of a third year nutritional science course. Changes in students’ attitudes and approaches to GW were assessed before (semester week 4) and after (semester week 12) completion of the contract and assignment via online surveys. The results in both course formats were similar, wherein the Group Work Contract reduced student anxiety and improved group dynamics and communication between group members, resulting in an improved learning experience overall . Further, the preferred methods of GW online communication utilized social networking platforms. This data demonstrates the benefits of formally structuring the GW process to optimize the student learning experience.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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