Evaluating the Outcomes of a Peer-Mentoring Program for Students Transitioning to Postsecondary Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".