MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389475437 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295611

Investigating student collaborative problem-solving competency and science achievement with multilevel modeling: Findings from PISA 2015

2023· article· en· W4389475437 on OpenAlexaff
Xuyan Tang, Yan Liu, Marina Milner‐Bolotin

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultilevel modelMultilevel modellingTeamworkMathematics educationPsychologyAcademic achievementStudent achievementScience educationComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative problem-solving (CPS) competency is critical for 21st century students. However, reports from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 have revealed significant deficiencies in this competency among young students globally, indicating a critical need for the cultivation of CPS skills. Therefore, it is essential for educators and researchers to examine the factors that influence CPS competency and understand the potential role of CPS in secondary education. The present study aims to investigate the relationship between collaboration dispositions and students' CPS competency as well as the relationships of CPS competency and inquiry-based science instruction (IBSI) with science achievement using the PISA 2015 data. A total of 408,148 students from 52 countries and economies (i.e., regions) were included in our analysis. Unlike most previous studies that only investigated one country at a time and neglected the multilevel data structure of PISA, this study provided a global view through adopting multilevel modeling to account for the cluster effect at the school and country levels. Our findings revealed that valuing relationship was positively associated with CPS, whereas valuing teamwork was negatively associated with CPS. Furthermore, CPS competency was found to be a dominant and positive predictor of science achievement among all study variables, underscoring the importance of integrating CPS into teaching practices to promote student success in science. Additionally, different IBSI activities show varying relationships with science achievement, indicating that caution should be taken when recommending any specific practices associated with IBSI to teachers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207