The Peer Assisted Teaching Model for Undergraduate Research at a HBCU
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite wide application of research skills in higher education, undergraduate students reported research and computer anxiety, and low association between research and their professional goals. This study aims to assess whether peer-assisted mentoring programs would promote positive changes in undergraduates’ attitudes toward research. Using a quasi-experimental one-group, pretest-posttest research design, the study assessed changes in attitudes by having doctoral candidates mentor undergraduate students during a summer statistics camp. Findings from paired-samples t-test indicated that students became familiar with the twelve statistical concepts upon completion, gained more positive affect related to statistics and an increase in their positive attitude about statistical skills, whereas they had lower scores prior to it. Notwithstanding the small sample size, these data indicate that including a peer assisted statistics camp in the academic curriculum would be beneficial for undergraduate students and increase their knowledge about research and statistics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it