A three-predictor regression model (Source, APTTD, positive emotion) explains 32% of variance in group project grades¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The regression model is significant, F(3, 169) = 17.08, p < 0.001, with 32% variance in group performance explained by three predictors (R = .57). → Jaebong Yoo & Jihie Kim 2014

Evidence¶

Jaebong Yoo & Jihie Kim 2014¶

Jaebong Yoo & Jihie Kim. (2014). Can Online Discussion Participation Predict Group Project Performance? Investigating the Roles of Linguistic Features and Participation Patterns. Int J Artif Intell Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-013-0010-8

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Multiple regression with Z-transformed project grade as dependent variable; variables not significantly related to grade were excluded. "The multiple regression coefficient between the grade and the linear combination of the three predictors was R = .57."

"An analysis of variance test suggests that the regression model is significant, F(3, 169) = 17.08, p < 0.001, with 32 % variance in student group performance being explained by three predictors"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Earlier participation relative to project deadlines (higher APTTD) predicts higher project grades — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• A reduced set of non-cognitive factors alone explains 17–25% of the variance in university GPA across three years of a degree — related
• A latent global non-cognitive factor predicts a latent three-year GPA factor, explaining 27–29% of its variance — related
• Groups that provide more information to others (Source role) achieve higher project grades — related
• Online discussion participation predicted team project grades: students who answered others' questions more frequently and had a positive attitude received better grades — related