MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learning How to Learn: A Student Success Course for At Risk Students

2017· article· en· W2771687497 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Elizabeth Bowering, Joanne Mills, Allison Shea Merritt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTest anxietyProcrastinationMedical educationHumanitiesPedagogyAnxietySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that university students with ineffective learning strategies and low motivation are at risk for lowered grades and stress. Given the needs of these students, Mount St. Vincent University developed the Student Success Course (SSC), a 14-week intervention that offers instruction in learning strategies, self-management, and motivation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the SSC for 100 undergraduates on academic probation. From pre- to post-test, participants reported a significant increase in cognitive strategies, study skills, and motivation as well as a significant decrease in test anxiety and procrastination (ps < .05). Over time, participants also demonstrated a significantly improved GPA (p < .0001). These results support the hypothesis that the SSC is an effective intervention, at least in the short-term, for improving learning and motivational strategies in at risk students. Il est reconnu que les étudiants d’université dont les stratégies d’apprentissage sont inefficaces et qui ont une faible motivation risquent de souffrir de stress et d’obtenir de mauvaises notes. Au vu des besoins de ces étudiants, Mount St. Vincent University a mis en place un cours pour faciliter la réussite des étudiants (Student Success Course - SSC). Il s’agit d’une intervention de 14 semaines au cours de laquelle on enseigne des stratégies d’apprentissage, de gestion autonome et de motivation. L’objectif de cette étude est d’évaluer l’efficacité de ce cours dans le cas de 100 étudiants de premier cycle placés en probation. Les participants ont rapporté, avant et après le test, une augmentation significative de leurs stratégies cognitives, de leurs compétences en matière d’apprentissage et de leur motivation, ainsi qu’une baisse importante de leur anxiété face aux examens et de leur procrastination (ps < .05). Avec le temps, les participants ont également démontré une augmentation de leur moyenne pondérée cumulative (p < .0001). Ces résultats soutiennent l’hypothèse selon laquelle le cours en question représente une intervention efficace, tout au moins à court terme, pour améliorer les stratégies d’apprentissage et de motivation chez les étudiants à risque.

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 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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0660.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.392 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207