Intentional learning communities: Do students who live in academic learning clusters perform better than those living in non-intentional communities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residence learning communities (RLCs) refer to intentional groupings of students living together in residence with shared academic and non-academic interests1. Given that collaborative learning environments foster a higher motivation to learn, interpersonal development and active learning, RLCs may offer a unique opportunity to enhance student academic success2,3. This may be particularly important in science education. Despite the growing number of RLCs in Canada, the data describing their impact in the Canadian context are lacking. Additionally, optimal programming design and practice of RLCs are not well described.\nThe purpose of this research study is to determine if living in an RLC improves student academic performance compared to living in traditional residence or off-campus. Specific attention will be given to the Biological Sciences Cluster as anecdotal evidence suggests that these are the most successful. In order to objectively address this question, a complete cohort of students at the University of Guelph will be followed from their final year in high school and the succeeding 4-5 years of their undergraduate studies. Academic performance will be determined based on high school average, 1st year average by course, 2nd year registration (retention), and year of graduation. This poster will compare and contrast the common types of RLCs available to students and provide preliminary data on their impact on student academic success. Results of this study can inform other Canadian institutions considering implementing or expanding RLC, and may be used to improve the complete undergraduate educational experience.\nReferences\n[1] Goodsell Love, A. (2012). The growth and current state of learning communities in higher education. New Directions for teaching and learning, 132, 5-18.\n[2] Jongsma, K.S. (1990). Collaborative Learning, Questions & Answers. The Reading Teacher, 43, 346-347. [3] Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York: Garland.[3] Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. New York: Garland.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".