Claims

The three pattern types differed significantly on behavioural codes (Type 1 > Type 2 > Type 3 for concept mapping) and on several interactive, cognitive and regulative codes, but not on socio-emotional codes

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction and cross-checking Kruskal-Wallis tests found significant differences (p < .05) on Int-B, KS, KM, TU, RM, CM, and OB, with CM ordered Type 1 > Type 2 > Type 3, but no significant differences on any socio-emotional code. → Fan Ouyang 2023

Evidence

Fan Ouyang 2023

Fan Ouyang, Weiqi Xu, Mutlu Cukurova. (2023). An artificial intelligence-driven learning analytics method to examine the collaborative problem-solving process from the complex adaptive systems perspective. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn (2023) 18:39–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09387-z

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Frequencies of five-dimensional codes compared across 24 CPS activities (n = 5, 14, 5 for Types 1–3); CM means were 160.80 (Type 1), 97.36 (Type 2), 42.20 (Type 3), with significant ANOVA results on Int-B, KS, KM, TU, RM, CM, and OB. "there were statistically significant differences between the three types along the behavioural dimension".

"there were significant differences in the frequency of Int-B, KS, KM, TU, RM, CM, and OB (p < .05) with a Bonferroni correction using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Specifically, there were statistically significant differences between the three types along the behavioural dimension (RM, CM, OB)"

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id dimension-frequency-differences-pattern-types
title The three pattern types differed significantly on behavioural codes (Type 1 > Type 2 > Type 3 for concept mapping) and on several interactive, cognitive and regulative codes, but not on socio-emotional codes
description The three pattern types differed significantly on behavioural codes (Type 1 > Type 2 > Type 3 for concept mapping) and on several interactive, cognitive and regulative codes, but not on socio-emotional codes
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2023
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — fan-ouyang-2023

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.