Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer teaching refers to the process of students teaching other students and has been applied in various contexts because of its positive impact on student academic performance as well as its social and cognitive values. Yet, most research on peer teaching tends to be long-term programmes with fixed student tutors and is mostly conducted in the field of science. This research, therefore, aims to examine the effectiveness of reciprocal peer teaching in a 50-minute EAP lesson to undergraduate students in a transnational university in China. Students alter their roles to teach and be taught by their peers on provided materials. Retention of knowledge was tested after 2 weeks to investigate the effectiveness of peer teaching, and a questionnaire-based survey was conducted to gather students’ perceptions of this learning approach. Results show that peer teaching has a positive impact on student retention rate, especially for student tutors. Students’ perception of reciprocal peer teaching is mainly positive but mixed with concerns, particularly regarding unguaranteed teaching quality. Further considerations have been discussed in this regard. Future research is also recommended to expand peer teaching in other teaching contexts and combine peer teaching with other instructional methods to better facilitate learning.
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 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 | 0.059 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".