MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating the Outcomes of a Peer-Mentoring Program for Students Transitioning to Postsecondary Education

2011· article· en· W2034855736 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedical educationPedagogyHumanitiesMedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A peer-mentoring program was developed for students in an introductory biology course at a university in Ontario, Canada. Students could attend up to five peer-mentoring sessions during their first semester. Quantitative-survey, participation, and academic data spanning from 2003 through 2007 were reviewed for the purpose of evaluating the program. An objectives-oriented approach was used to determine if the program was meeting its goals to improve students’ introductory biology grades, facilitate transitioning experiences, and encourage students to pursue studies in biology. Data analysis revealed that students who participated in the program felt that it was a valuable experience. Students attending three or more sessions performed significantly better in their introductory biology courses, measured by final grades achieved, than those attending fewer sessions. There were no indications that the peer-mentoring program had any impact on students’ perceptions of transitioning to university or on their program selection preferences. Recommendations are made to improve the peer-mentoring program to better align its components and objectives. Un programme de mentorat par les pairs destiné aux étudiants qui suivent un cours d'introduction à la biologie a été implanter dans un université situé dans la province de l’Ontario. Les étudiants avaient accès à cinq séances de mentorat par les pairs au cours du premier semestre. Afin d’évaluer le programme, les chercheurs ont effectué des sondages quantitatifs, examiné la participation et les notes des étudiants entre 2003 et 2007. Ils ont utilisé une méthode axée sur les objectifs afin de déterminer si le programme atteignait ses objectifs qui consistaient à améliorer les notes des étudiants au cours d’introduction à la biologie, à faciliter leur transition et à les encourager à poursuivre des études en biologie. L'analyse des données révèle que les étudiants qui ont participé au programme de mentorat, l’ont trouvé utile. Les notes des étudiants qui ont participé à trois ou quatre séances étaient considérablement plus élevées que celles de ceux qui ont assisté à moins de séances. Rien n’indique que le programme de mentorat par les pairs influe sur la perception des étudiants en ce qui a trait à la transition vers l’université ni sur leurs préférences en matière de choix de programmes. Les chercheurs recommandent d’améliorer le programme de mentorat afin de mieux harmoniser ses composantes et ses objectifs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it