Cooperative and Competitive Dyad Learning Environments Influence Psychosocial, But Not Motor, Outcomes in a Relative-Timing Task
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
Research investigating the behavioral and psychosocial outcomes of individuals practicing motor skills in pairs (dyad practice) has generated mixed evidence regarding its effectiveness when compared with individuals practicing alone. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the motor performance, learning, and psychosocial outcomes associated with competitive or cooperative dyad practice contexts versus practicing alone. Participants practiced a relative-timing keypress sequence task alone, or in competitive or cooperative dyads. Relative timing errors for each movement component in the sequence were measured across the 40 practice trials and in a 24-hr retention test. Psychosocial measures of positive and negative affect, motivation, and efficacy were also collected. There were no group differences in timing errors during practice or retention, although partners in the cooperative group were more alike (correlated) in performance compared with partners in the competitive group. The cooperative group also reported higher levels of interest/enjoyment and commitment to continue practicing compared with the competitive group, but these outcomes were not different from the alone group. Overall, although there were indications that cooperative dyad practice led to greater task engagement and task “sharing” than competitive dyad practice, these effects did not impact the acquisition and retention of the motor skill.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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