Trial reportPloS one2023
Minimum entropy collaborative groupings: A tool for an automatic heterogeneous learning group formation.
Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For some decades now, theories on learning methodologies have advocated collaborative learning due to its good results in terms of effectiveness and learning types and its promotion of educational and social values. This means that teachers need to be able to apply different criteria when forming heterogeneous groups of students and to use automated techniques to assist them. In this study, we have created an approach based on complex network theory to design an algorithm called Minimum Entropy Collaborative Groupings (MECG) in order to form these heterogeneous groups more effectively. The algorithm was tested firstly under a synthetic framework and secondly in a real situation. In the first case, we generated 30 synthetic classrooms of different sizes and compared our approach with a genetic algorithm and a random grouping. In the latter case, the approach was tested on a group of 200 students on two subjects of a master's degree in teacher training. For each subject there were 4 large groups of 50 students each, in which collaborative groups of 4 students were created. Two of these large groups were used as random groups, another group used the CHAEA test and the fourth group used the LML test. The results showed that the groups created with MECG were more effective, had less uncertainty and were more interrelated and mature. It was observed that the randomized groups did not obtain significantly better LML results and that this cannot be related to any emotional or motivational effect because the students performed the test as a placebo measure. In terms of learning styles, the results were significantly better with LML than with CHAEA, whereas no significant difference was observed in the randomized groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.