From “faculty-student” to “student-student” partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research moves beyond the conventional students-as-partners discourse to explore student-student partnership practices in higher education, addressing research gaps regarding such partnerships in inter-institutional and non-Western contexts. Through a qualitative study of a student-initiated virtual service-learning project which involved student partners from two research-intensive universities in Hong Kong and Singapore, the research unveils novel conceptualizations of student partners as professional co-explorers and challenges prevailing negative perceptions of learners in Asian higher education institutions, a population that the literature has tended to characterize through stereotypical views of Confucianism. The findings emphasize possibilities for student-student partnerships to enhance agency and promote positive ripple effects in subsequent student-student and faculty-student partnerships. These benefits emerge through co-development in the perceived safer and egalitarian partnership learning community fostered between students. The study calls for restructuring partnership language formalizing integration of student-student partnerships into institutional practices. This research sets the stage for future studies on student-student partnerships in diverse contexts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".