Are high achievers successful in collaborative learning? An explorative study of college students’ learning approaches in team project-based learning

References

• Bain, S., & Bell, S. (2004). Social self-concept, social attributions, and peer relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 167–178.10.1177/001698620404800302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capraro, R., & Slough, S. (2008). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. Rotterdam: Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, C., Lee, S.-Y., & Stevenson, H. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6, 170–175.10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21.10.1007/BF00988593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dunne, E., & Rawlins, M. (2000). Bridging the gap between industry and higher education: Training academics to promote student teamwork. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37, 361–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French, L., Walker, C., & Shore, B. (2011). Do gifted students really prefer to work alone? Roeper Review, 33, 145–159.10.1080/02783193.2011.580497
   Google Scholar
• Harzing, A., Köster, K., & Zhao, S. (2012). Response style differences in cross-national research. Management International Review, 52, 341–363.10.1007/s11575-011-0111-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, L. (1993). High and low achievers’ perceptions and cooperative learning in two small groups. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 399–416.10.1086/esj.1993.93.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H.-J., & Lee, J. (2012). Who gets the best grades at top universities? An exploratory analysis of institution-wide interviews with the highest achievers at a top Korean University. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 13, 665–676.10.1007/s12564-012-9227-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H.-J., Lee, J., Makara, K., Fishman, B., & Hong, Y. (2015). Does higher education foster critical and creative learners? An exploration of two universities in South Korea and the United States. Higher Education Research and Development, 34, 131–146.10.1080/07294360.2014.892477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H.-J., Lee, J., Makara, K., Fishman, B., & Teasley, S. (2015). A cross-cultural comparison of college students’ learning strategies for academic achievement between South Korea and the US. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1045473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H.-J., & Lim, C. (2012). Peer evaluation in blended team project-based learning: What do students find important? Educational Technology and Society, 15, 214–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, M., & Siegle, D. (2008). A multilevel analysis of gifted Korean American students’ characteristics and school context effects on learning style preferences. Gifted and Talented International, 23, 25–38.
   Google Scholar
• Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project based learning handbook (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
   Google Scholar
• McCoach, D., & Siegle, D. (2001). A comparison of high achievers’ and low achievers’ attitudes, perceptions, and motivations. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 2, 71–76.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Application to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362–376.10.1177/104973239800800307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moursund, D. (2003). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Nihalani, P., Wilson, H., Thomas, G., & Robinson, D. (2010). What determines high- and low-performing groups? The superstar effect. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 500–529.10.1177/1932202X1002100306
   Google Scholar
• Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. (2003). Societal and school influences on student creativity: The case of China. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 103–114.10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phuong-Mai, N., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2005). Cooperative learning versus Confucian heritage culture’s collectivism: Confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch. Asia Europe Journal, 3, 403–419.10.1007/s10308-005-0008-4
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, S., Lauver, K., Davis, D., & Langley, R. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.10.1016/0883-0355(89)90018-9
   Google Scholar
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (pp. 1370–1373). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Shin, J., Jung, J., & Shin, T. (2008). Causal relations between college student academic achievement and its factors. The Journal of Educational Administration, 26, 287–313.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1993). Competency at work: Models for superior performance. New York, NY: Jone Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Vaquero, L., & Cebrian, M. (2013). The rich club phenomenon in the classroom. Scientific Reports, 3, 1–8. doi:10.1038/srep01174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar