The Perceived Efficacy of Cooperative Group Learning in a Graduate Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses a gap in the literature about the study of the implementation of cooperative/collaborative group learning, and the assessment of its efficacy in facilitating transformative learning in the context of graduate studies. These topics have been widely discussed in the scholarly literature at the K-12 and post-secondary (college and undergraduate) level for many years, and cooperative group learning has generally been found to facilitate student learning. What has not been addressed is the use of this form of group learning in graduate studies. This paper reports on an intentional model of cooperative group-learning used in a Master of Education in Higher Education program at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Higher Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto. A brief review of the literature that grounds this praxis, the elements of the model used, and a post-hoc analysis of the perceptions of 77 graduate students (90% response rate) surveyed in a case study regarding its efficacy in facilitating their learning are presented. The findings suggest that this model of group-based learning has the potential to enhance the process for transformative learning at the graduate level of education.Cet article traite de l’écart qui existe dans la recherche publiée entre la mise en oeuvre de l’apprentissage coopératif/collaboratif en groupe et l’évaluation de son efficacité pour faciliter l’apprentissage transformatif au niveau des études supérieures. Ces sujets ont été largement discutés pendant des années dans les travaux de recherche publiés sur l’apprentissage au niveau de la maternelle à la douzième année ainsi qu’au niveau post-secondaire (collège et premier cycle universitaire) et les recherche ont montré que l’apprentissage coopératif en groupe facilitait l’apprentissage des apprenants. Toutefois, la question qui n’a pas été traitée est celle qui se rapporte à cette forme d’apprentissage en groupe au niveau des cycles supérieurs. Cet article présente un rapport sur un modèle intentionnel d’apprentissage coopératif en groupe employé dans un programme de maîtrise en éducation de l’enseignement supérieur à l’Institut for Studies in Higher Education (OISE) de l’Université de Toronto. Une brève revue des publications qui fondent cette praxis, les éléments du modèle employé, ainsi que l’analyse après coup des perceptions des 77 étudiants à la maîtrise (taux de réponses de 90 %) ayant participé à ce sondage dans le cadre d’une étude de cas concernant son efficacité pour faciliter leur apprentissage, sont présentées dans l’article. Les résultats suggèrent que ce modèle d’apprentissage en groupe a le potentiel d’améliorer le processus d’apprentissage transformatif au niveau des études de cycles supérieurs.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".