Social regulation of learning in interdisciplinary groupwork
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
Engineering education has seen a growing interest in how students regulate their learning as a group in interdisciplinary projects. This study adds to the current literature on social regulation of learning by conducting a comparative case study of three interdisciplinary group projects addressing real-world challenges. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were synthesised into narrative episodes representing key aspects of the groups’ regulative behaviours. We found indications of co- and socially shared regulation across all groups, with noteworthy differences in the project phases that led to varying student experiences. We discuss key factors that affected regulation along four themes we identified: (1) goal setting and planning, (2) implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, (3) the role of supervisors, and (4) the impact of disciplines. We offer insights for practitioners and provide a foundation for future research on social regulation in interdisciplinary group learning.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it