Study buddy learning is associated with academic success in undergraduate science courses
Jones, A.; Reznik, G.; Hossain, A. R.; Dudarev, V.; Hui, B.; Belleville, P.; Williams, W.; Fussner-Dupas, E.; Enns, J. T.
Show abstract
This study reports on the outcomes of a formal peer-learning program for undergraduate science students. We implemented a cohort-based study buddy program in which high-scoring students (mentors) and lower-scoring peers (proteges) were invited to form study groups based on their first assessment scores in a given course. We then compared the performance of participants versus non-participants on subsequent assessments, while examining separately the effects for mentors and proteges. Results showed similar participation benefits for students in both mentor and protege roles. These findings emphasize the value of reducing barriers to collaborative learning in higher education and highlight the study buddy program as a cost-effective and scalable approach to enhance students educational experiences.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Preprint peer review enhances undergraduate biology students' disciplinary literacy and sense of belonging in STEM 96%
- Remote Learning Barriers and Opportunities for Graduate Student and Postdoctoral Learners in Career and Professional Skill Development: A Case Study 95%
- Flying in the Face of Adversity: A Drosophila-based Virtual CURE Provides Semester-long Authentic Research Opportunity to the Flipped Classroom. 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Open-loop lab-on-a-chip technology enables remote computer science training in Latinx life sciences students 92%
- Intention to learn modulates the impact of reward and punishment on sequence learning 91%
- Fitness tracking reveals task-specific associations between memory, mental health, and physical activity 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.