Analyzing Student Experience on Group Work with the Application of Different Group Allocation Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working as a group can be as challenging as working by oneself. Common issues like ineffective group work, unequal work contribution, and poor communication are believed to be the reasons why many students preferred to work individually. The purpose of this study is to understand if there is a disparity in student experience on group work by implementing different methods of group formation, which are, intentional group formation and random assignment. Topics around team well-being, team communication, and team effectiveness are the main focus of this study. The second emphasis of this study is students’ opinions on whether or not there is a difference in student group work experience when students are working together in person or online during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study allows us to gain insights if the student group work experience is exclusively determined by the methods of group formation or the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, or a mixture of both. In the winter quarter of 2021, participants completed an online survey that took around 10-15 minutes. Data were collected anonymously and analyzed on R. The study focused on the qualitative end by understanding the students’ feedback, as well as performing descriptive analyses through graph visualization.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".