依据群体模组监控之网路群体学习系统【精品-ppt】.ppt

* Experiments and ResultsCausal relationship analysis – communication relationships Factor analysis for 37 GLCN elements into 4 primary factors Leader = 組長功能 由因素負荷量最高的特徵“組長的討論流量” 代表。 Sub-group = 2至3人之間關係 由因素負荷量最高的特徵“2-in-star數目”代表。 Student = 學生互動數量 由因素負荷量最高的特徵“學生間溝通總次數”代表。 Leaf Center = 單一溝通與溝通中心 由因素負荷量最高的特徵“BRIDGE個數”代表。 * Experiments and ResultsCausal relationship analysis – communication relationships GLCN vs. drop out rate －BKD “sub_group” 影響 Pattern “組長功能” 影響 “subgroup” “組長功能” 影響 “單一溝通與溝通中心” Pattern 影響 “學生輟學率” * Experiments and ResultsCausal relationship analysis – communication relationships GLCN vs. drop out rate－BKD Pattern 輟學 未輟學 Unresponsive 0.338 0.662 Unsocial 0.824 0.176 Dominant 0.115 0.885 Tete-a-tete 0.187 0.813 Fragmented 0.107 0.893 Ideal 0.026 0.974 “unsocial”pattern的小組有82.4%的機率成為較易輟學的小組 組長討論量大致上與小組輟學的可能性為負相關 * Experiments and ResultsCausal relationship analysis – communication relationships GLCN vs. resource sharing frequency－BKD Resource sharing frequency was influenced by Communication Pattern “sub_group” “Leader” “Student” “Leaf Center” * Experiments and ResultsCausal relationship analysis – communication relationships GLCN vs. group project grade－BKD 小組成績與 communication relationships 無明顯相關性 Experiments and ResultsCausal relationship analysis – communication relationships bridge個數 = 1::...2-in-star_with_reciprocity次數 = 1: E (29.0/13.0): 2-in-star_with_reciprocity次數 1:: :...普通學生-普通學生_的討論流量 = 3: C (2.0): 普通學生-普通學生_的討論流量 3: B (4.0)bridge個數 1::...PATTERN = ”unresponsive”: B (2.0/1.0) PATTERN = ”ideal”: B (0.0) PATTERN = ”unsocial”: B (1.0) PATTERN = ”fragmented”: :...bridge個數 = 3: B (5.0/1.0) : bridge個數 3: C (4.0/1.0) PATTERN = ”dominant”: :...普通學生-普通學生_的討論流量 1: D (3.0/1.0) : 普通學生-普通學生_的討論流量 = 1: : :...2-in-star_with_reciprocity次數 = 4: C (5.0/2.0) : 2-in-star_with_reciprocity次數 4: B (8.0/3.0) PATTERN = ”tete-a-tete”: :...bridge個數 = 2: C (3.0/1.0)