Research on the Quality of Collaboration in Project-Based Learning Based on Group Awareness
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Quality of Collaboration
2.2. Group Awareness
- (1)
- How to design the project-based learning system we have built to collect and measure group awareness data through log text on project-based learning?
- (2)
- How to use the log text data generated during project-based learning to determine the quality of collaboration under the framework of group awareness theory?
3. Design
3.1. Research Content and Participants
3.2. Construction of PBL System
3.3. Content and Process of PBL
3.4. Evaluation of PBL
3.5. Data Collection
4. Method
4.1. Text Mining
4.2. Data Transformation and Processing
4.3. Interview
5. Results
5.1. Overview of PBL Data with NLP
5.2. Results of the Correlation Analysis of the PBL Data
5.3. Differentiation of PBL Dimensions
5.4. Multiple Regression Results of Quantitative Analysis
6. Discussion
6.1. Leaders’ Cognitive Awareness of Project
6.2. Group Members’ Cognitive Awareness
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhang, D.; Hwang, G.-J. Effects of Interaction between Peer Assessment and Problem-Solving Tendencies on Students’ Learning Achievements and Collaboration in Mobile Technology-Supported Project-Based Learning. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2022, 61, 208–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konrad, T.; Wiek, A.; Barth, M. Learning to Collaborate from Diverse Interactions in Project-Based Sustainability Courses. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setyowidodo, I.; Jatmiko, B.; Susantini, E.; Handayani, A.D.; Pramesti, Y.S. The role of science project-based peer interaction on improving collaborative skills and physical problem solving: A mini review. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1521, 022032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zen, Z.; Reflianto; Syamsuar; Ariani, F. Academic achievement: The effect of project-based online learning method and student engagement. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bell, S. Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. Clear. House J. Educ. Strateg. Issues Ideas 2010, 83, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Dea, X.; O’Dea, M. Is Artificial Intelligence Really the Next Big Thing in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education? A Conceptual Paper. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2023, 20, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EDUCAUSE. EDUCAUSE Horizon Report (Teaching and Learning Edition). 2023. Available online: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2023/5/2023-educause-horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition (accessed on 1 July 2023).
- EDUCAUSE. EDUCAUSE Horizon Report (Teaching and Learning Edition). 2022. Available online: https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2022/4/2022hrteachinglearning.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2023).
- Kokotsaki, D.; Menzies, V.; Wiggins, A. Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improv. Sch. 2016, 19, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davidson, N.; Major, C.H. Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. J. Excell. Coll. Teach. 2014, 25, 7–55. [Google Scholar]
- Mora, H.; Signes-Pont, M.T.; Fuster-Guilló, A.; Pertegal-Felices, M.L. A collaborative working model for enhancing the learning process of science & engineering students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 103, 140–150. [Google Scholar]
- Dym, C.L.; Agogino, A.M.; Eris, O.; Frey, D.D.; Leifer, L.J. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J. Eng. Educ. 2005, 94, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Kolmos, A.; Du, X. Forms of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education: A review of literature. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2021, 46, 90–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raine, D.; Symons, S. Problem-based learning: Undergraduate physics by research. Contemp. Phys. 2012, 53, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hidaayatullaah, H.N.; Dwikoranto; Suprapto, N.; Mubarok, H.; Wulandari, D. Implementation of problem-based learning to train physics students’ problem-solving skills. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1491, 012053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyal, M.; Gupta, C.; Gupta, V. A meta-analysis approach to measure the impact of project-based learning outcome with program attainment on student learning using fuzzy inference systems. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, P.; Saab, N.; Post, L.S.; Admiraal, W. A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 102, 101586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogler, J.S.; Thompson, P.; Davis, D.W.; Mayfield, B.E.; Finley, P.M.; Yasseri, D. The hard work of soft skills: Augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary teamwork. Instr. Sci. 2018, 46, 457–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.W. Effects of an online team project-based learning environment with group awareness and peer evaluation on socially shared regulation of learning and self-regulated learning. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2018, 37, 445–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Splichal, J.M.; Oshima, J.; Oshima, R. Regulation of collaboration in project-based learning mediated by CSCL scripting reflection. Comput. Educ. 2018, 125, 132–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alozie, N.M.; Dhamija, S. Automated collaboration assessment using behavioral analytics. Int. Soc. Learn. Sci. 2020, 2, 1071–1078. [Google Scholar]
- Boughzala, I.; De Vreede, G.-J. Evaluating team collaboration quality: The development and field application of a collaboration maturity model. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 129–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, C.; Lou, Y. Integrated Strategies of Participatory Design and PBL Towards Collaboration Quality. In Cross-Cultural Design. Applications in Cultural Heritage, Creativity and Social Development, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference, CCD 2018, Held as Part of HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–20 July 2018; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 46–59. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, C.L. Effects of the group-regulation promotion approach on students’ individual and collaborative learning performance, perceptions of regulation and regulation behaviours in project-based tasks. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 2278–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parsell, G.; Bligh, J. The development of a questionnaire to assess the readiness of health care students for interprofessional learning (RIPLS). Med. Educ. 1999, 33, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sa’diyah, K.; Muchyidin, A.; Izzati, N. Application of Collaborative Teamwork Learning Model and Guided Note Taking Model and Their Influence on Students’ Ability to Understand Mathematical Concepts. J. Math. Instr. Soc. Res. Opin. 2022, 1, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, H.; Li, Y.; Chen, F.; Xu, B. The Influence of Participant Subject Factors on Collaboration Effects in the Protection of China’s ICH: The Mediating Role of Relationship Quality. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chejara, P.; Prieto, L.P.; Rodriguez-Triana, M.J.; Kasepalu, R.; Ruiz-Calleja, A.; Shankar, S.K. How to build more generalizable models for collaboration quality? lessons learned from exploring multi-context audio-log datasets using multimodal learning analytics. In Proceedings of the LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, Arlington, TX, USA, 13–17 March 2023; pp. 111–121. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, B.; Pea, R. Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2013, 8, 375–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Som, A.; Kim, S.; Lopez-Prado, B.; Dhamija, S.; Alozie, N.; Tamrakar, A. A machine learning approach to assess student group collaboration using individual level behavioral cues. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2020 Workshops, Glasgow, UK, 23–28 August 2020; pp. 79–94. [Google Scholar]
- Chounta, I.A.; Avouris, N. Towards the real-time evaluation of collaborative activities: Integration of an automatic rater of collaboration quality in the classroom from the teacher’s perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2016, 21, 815–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dascalu, M.; Rebedea, T.; Trausan-Matu, S. A deep insight in chat analysis: Collaboration, evolution and evaluation, summarization and search. In Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference, AIMSA 2010, Varna, Bulgaria, 8–10 September 2010; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 191–200. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.; Kinshuk; An, Y. A survey of the literature: How scholars use text mining in Educational Studies? Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 28, 2071–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, D.; Lin, H.; Yang, Z. Opinion mining in e-learning system. In Proceedings of the 2007 IFIP International Conference on Network and Parallel Computing Workshops (NPC 2007), Dalian, China, 18–21 September 2007; pp. 788–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosé, C.; Wang, Y.-C.; Cui, Y.; Arguello, J.; Stegmann, K.; Weinberger, A.; Fischer, F. Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2008, 3, 237–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schnaubert, L.; Bodemer, D. Group awareness and regulation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2022, 17, 11–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buder, J.; Bodemer, D.; Ogata, H. Group awareness. In International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning; Cress, U., Rose, C., Wise, A.F., Oshima, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojas, M.; Nussbaum, M.; Guerrero, O.; Chiuminatto, P.; Greiff, S.; Del Rio, R.; Alvares, D. Integrating a collaboration script and group awareness to support group regulation and emotions towards collaborative problem solving. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2022, 17, 135–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, J.; Bodemer, D. Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 48, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodemer, D.; Dehler, J. Group awareness in CSCL environments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1043–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X. The effects of a group awareness tool on knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 1178–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Y.; Ren, J.; Song, X. The effects of group awareness tools on student engagement with peer feedback in online collaborative writing environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.-W.; Tsai, C.-W. The impact of an online project-based learning environment with group awareness support on students with different self-regulation levels: An extended-period experiment. Comput. Educ. 2016, 99, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strauß, S.; Rummel, N. Promoting regulation of equal participation in online collaboration by combining a group awareness tool and adaptive prompts. But does it even matter? Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2021, 16, 67–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, W.; Zhu, G.; Arslan, O.; Shim, J.; Popov, V. Using learning analytics to explore the multifaceted engagement in collaborative learning. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2022, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schnaubert, L.; Bodemer, D. Providing different types of group awareness information to guide collaborative learning. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2019, 14, 7–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodemer, D. Tacit guidance for collaborative multimedia learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1079–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehler, J.; Bodemer, D.; Buder, J.; Hesse, F.W. Guiding knowledge communication in CSCL via group knowledge awareness. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1068–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gijlers, H.; de Jong, T. Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cogn. Instr. 2009, 27, 239–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buder, J.; Bodemer, D. Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2008, 3, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sangin, M.; Molinari, G.; Nüssli, M.-A.; Dillenbourg, P. Facilitating peer knowledge modeling: Effects of a knowledge awareness tool on collaborative learning outcomes and processes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1059–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, F.G.K.; Yilmaz, R. Impact of pedagogic agent-mediated metacognitive support towards increasing task and group awareness in CSCL. Comput. Educ. 2019, 134, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bødker, S.; Christiansen, E. Computer support for social awareness in flexible work. Comput. Support. Coop. Work CSCW 2006, 15, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foo, S.Y. Analysing peer feedback in asynchronous online discussions: A case study. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 4553–4572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Y.; Li, Y.; Su, Y.; Chen, K.; Jiang, S. Effects of group awareness tools on students’ engagement, performance, and perceptions in online collaborative writing: Intergroup information matters. Internet High. Educ. 2022, 53, 100845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimmerle, J.; Cress, U. Visualization of group members’ participation: How information-presentation formats support information exchange. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2009, 27, 243–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimmerle, J.; Cress, U. Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2008, 3, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phielix, C.; Prins, F.J.; Kirschner, P.A.; Erkens, G.; Jaspers, J. Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1087–1102. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, X.; Liu, J.; Liang, J.; Fan, C. An empirical study on the effect of group awareness in CSCL environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 31, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, D.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, Y. Group Awareness and Group Awareness Tools in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), Hong Kong, 19–22 July 2022; pp. 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pifarré, M.; Cobos, R.; Argelagós, E. Incidence of group awareness information on students’ collaborative learning processes. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2014, 30, 300–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bodemer, D.; Janssen, J.; Schnaubert, L. Group awareness tools for computer-supported collaborative learning. In International Handbook of the Learning Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 351–358. [Google Scholar]
- Schnaubert, L.; Vogel, F. Integrating collaboration scripts, group awareness, and self-regulation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2022, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouvrais, S.; Ormrod, J.; Landrac, G.; Mallet, J.; Gilliot, J.-M.; Thépaut, A.; Tremenbert, P. A mixed project-based learning framework: Preparing and developing student competencies in a French Grande Ecole. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2006, 31, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, R.K. Multicollinearity: Causes, effects and remedies. IASRI New Delhi 2006, 1, 58–65. [Google Scholar]
- Daoud, J.I. Multicollinearity and regression analysis. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017, 949, 012009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolaides, V.C.; LaPort, K.A.; Chen, T.R.; Tomassetti, A.J.; Weis, E.J.; Zaccaro, S.J.; Cortina, J.M. The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 923–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, M.; Lavy, I.; Elata, D. Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic engineering course. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2003, 13, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.P.; Gregory, J.K.; Camp, C.L.; Juskewitch, J.E.; Pawlina, W.; Lachman, N. Learning to lead: Self-and peer evaluation of team leaders in the human structure didactic block. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2009, 2, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, R.; Karaoglan Yilmaz, F.G.; Keser, H. Vertical versus shared e-leadership approach in online project-based learning: A comparison of self-regulated learning skills, motivation and group collaboration processes. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2020, 32, 628–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, H.T.; Wang, S.M.; Lin, P.C.; Chang, K.E. Exploring the learner’s knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous platforms: Comparison of an online discussion forum and Facebook. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2015, 52, 610–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eun, B. The zone of proximal development as an overarching concept: A framework for synthesizing Vygotsky’s theories. Educ. Philos. Theory 2019, 51, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrasco, G.A.; Behling, K.C.; Lopez, O. Weekly team-based learning scores and participation are better predictors of successful course performance than case-based learning performance: Role of assessment incentive structure. BMC Med. Educ. 2021, 21, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Topic | Brief Description of Content |
---|---|
Investigation of oblique throwing motion | Examines the height of the throwing point and the effect of wind speed on the range of the throw. |
Measurement of gravitational acceleration | Measuring the acceleration of gravity through a sensing device on a mobile phone, combined with a single pendulum experiment. |
Bouncing of a small ball | Examining the process of inelastic collision of a small ball with the ground and measuring the coefficient of recovery. |
Paper springs | Examining the relationship between the distance a paper spring stretches under its own gravity and the parameters of the spring. |
Water rockets | Exploring ways to make water rockets go the furthest. |
Steepest descent curve | Study of a small ball descending along the steepest descending curve. |
Rolling of a ball on an inclined plane | Study of a ball rolling on an inclined plane with different coefficients of friction and inclination angles. |
Transfer orbit of a spaceship | Study of the transfer process of a spacecraft between two orbits. |
Study of the twin phenomenon | Examining the causes of the baryogenesis phenomenon in the framework of special relativity. |
Dominoes | The speed of dominoes as they fall to the ground. |
Design of stone-throwing machine | Designing a stone thrower with a long range. |
Design of a paper bridge | Designing a paper bridge that spans between two stacks of books, requiring it to be able to carry as much weight as possible. |
Exploring the tennis racket effect | Investigate why the tennis racket effect (Janibekov effect) occurs. |
Velocity of sound measurement | Designing an experiment to measure the speed of sound. |
Water wave velocity investigation | Investigate the factors that affect the wave speed of water waves. |
Acoustic investigation of the guitar | Investigating how the guitar occurs. |
Diffusion of ink in water | Studying the rate of diffusion of ink in water. |
Drinking water birds | Making a drinking bird. |
Evaluation Dimensions | Evaluation Scales | Evaluation Details and Scores | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
First Class (90–100) | Second Class (80–90) | Third Class (70–80) | Fourth Class (60–70) | ||
Reporting materials (60%) | Whether completed (10%) | Successful experiments. | Experiment largely successful. | Experiment fails after attempt. | Experiment failed. |
Quality (70%) | Experiment achieves true value and is within a 5% error. | The experiment was close to the true value. | Experiment barely reaches true value. | Experiment does not match the true value. | |
Inter-group ranking (10%) | The best quality completed among the groups selected for the same topic. | The next highest quality completed in the group that chose the same topic. | Third highest quality completed in the group that chose the same topic. | Worst quality of work in the group that chose the same topic. | |
Experimental reports (40%) | Whether the study process is standardized (10%) | Experiment report reflects background, methods, experimental procedure, results, discussion, etc. | Part of the experiment report is missing or written concisely. | Two parts of the experiment report were missing or written concisely. | Experiment report has a lot of missing parts and is concise. |
Workload meets PBL requirements (20%) | The workload is high. | The amount of work was appropriate. | Average amount of work. | The workload was low. | |
Whether innovative experimental protocols are proposed (40%) | Creative thinking about the project and commitment to practice. | There was innovative thinking about the project. | Little innovation shown for the project. | The project was not innovative. | |
Whether multiple protocols are proposed (40%) | The same project can be solved by multiple ideas and there is a comparison of options. | There is a comparison of different options. | The project is solved by one idea, and there are no options to compare. | The project was not solved, and there were no options to compare. |
N | Min | Max | Mean | SD | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comment texts | 39 | 141 | 4487 | 864.44 | 798.911 |
Leader texts | 39 | 69 | 816 | 368.38 | 230.692 |
PBL Grade | TN | CA | EA | SA | BA | GL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PBL Grade | 1 | ||||||
TN | 0.549 ** | 1 | |||||
CA | 0.558 ** | 0.819 ** | 1 | ||||
EA | 0.017 | −0.085 | −0.091 | 1 | |||
SA | 0.123 | 0.055 | 0.02 | −0.252 | 1 | ||
BA | −0.094 | 0.028 | −0.033 | −0.168 | 0.002 | 1 | |
GL | 0.667 ** | 0.336 * | 0.399 * | 0.015 | 0.042 | 0.107 | 1 |
Data | Sig. |
---|---|
TN | 0.042 * |
CA | 0.04 * |
EA | 0.113 |
SA | 0.031 * |
BA | 0.136 |
GL | 0.005 ** |
R Square | Variables Incorporated |
---|---|
0.435 | GL |
0.117 | CA |
0.006 | EA |
0.006 | BA |
0.000 | SA |
Variable | B | t | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|
GL | 0.620 | 5.144 | 0.000 |
CA | 0.240 | 1.987 | 0.055 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, R.; Shi, J.; Zhang, J. Research on the Quality of Collaboration in Project-Based Learning Based on Group Awareness. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511901
Zhang R, Shi J, Zhang J. Research on the Quality of Collaboration in Project-Based Learning Based on Group Awareness. Sustainability. 2023; 15(15):11901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511901
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Rui, Ji Shi, and Jianwei Zhang. 2023. "Research on the Quality of Collaboration in Project-Based Learning Based on Group Awareness" Sustainability 15, no. 15: 11901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511901
APA StyleZhang, R., Shi, J., & Zhang, J. (2023). Research on the Quality of Collaboration in Project-Based Learning Based on Group Awareness. Sustainability, 15(15), 11901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511901