Community and Questions codes most strongly separated the four groups, especially Group A from the others¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In a two-way analysis of main code frequencies, Community and Questions were very effective in separating the groups, especially Group A from the other groups. → Jan van Aalst 2009

Evidence¶

Jan van Aalst 2009¶

Jan van Aalst. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Chi-square analysis of main code frequencies (Table 5) using Cohen's guidelines to arrange codes by effect size. Community and Questions both reached p < .001 and were described as "very effective in separating the groups"; no standardized effect size is quoted in the supporting sentence.

"Accordingly, Community and Questions were very effective in separating the groups — especially Group A from the other groups."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Argumentation quality is associated with denser co-occurrence of scientific reasoning and self-regulation processes — related
• Learning agility, digital literacy, future work self salience, and perceived university digital support prospectively differentiate AI-attitude profile membership, especially separating Low-Perception Detached from engaged profiles — related
• A coding scheme distinguishing knowledge creation from knowledge sharing and construction can differentiate student groups' engagement in knowledge creation — a broader claim this one bears on