An exploratory study: impact of peer-led team learning on epistemology, self-efficacy, and belonging in chemistry

Abstract

Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) is a widely adopted active-learning strategy in undergraduate STEM education with known benefits for student achievement. While much of the existing literature focuses on academic outcomes of this pedagogy, the intent of this article is to highlight the underlying mechanisms that contribute to its impact (Chan J. Y. and Bauer C. F., (2015), J. Res. Sci. Teach., 52(3), 319–346). Through semi-structured interviews with ten students from a general chemistry course, this qualitative study addresses that gap by investigating how PLTL supports both cognitive and affective dimensions of learning, particularly in relation to sense of belonging and self-efficacy. Through detailed analysis of student reflections, our findings reveal that key mechanisms such as peer explanation, collaborative learning, and the development of a sense of belonging work together to create a supportive and interactive learning environment. By highlighting the how and why of PLTL's impact, the study offers valuable insights for educators seeking to design peer-led instructional models as a site for epistemological and identity development in STEM.

---

Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) is one of several active-learning approaches reshaping undergraduate education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). It is grounded in the theory of social constructivism (Eberlein et al., 2008), which emphasizes the importance of collaboration in the process of knowledge construction (Bodner, 1986), similar to Problem-Based Learning (PBL) (Barrows, 1996) and Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) (Moog and Spencer, 2008).

In the PLTL model, small groups of six to eight students meet weekly to work through problems built upon content covered in the lecture (Gosser and Roth, 1998; Gosser et al., 2001; Varma-Nelson, 2006; Gafney and Varma-Nelson, 2008; Wilson and Varma-Nelson, 2016). These sessions are led by a trained peer leader who has recently taken the course and received at least a grade B and receive training in both content and pedagogy to encourage collaboration and engagement. This study investigates the implementation of PLTL in a General Chemistry I course at a large public university, where the program is an important part of the course design. To explore these mechanisms in depth, we conducted semi-structured interviews with ten students from a cohort of 389 enrolled in the course. Students enrolled in the lecture are also registered for a corresponding PLTL workshop. At this institution, PLTL is a long-standing program, having been in place for over twenty years (Basu et al., 2025).

Research has consistently shown PLTL's benefits for student retention, motivation, and achievement across general and organic chemistry courses (Gosser and Roth, 1998; Kampmeier et al., 2000; Lewis and Lewis, 2005; Varma-Nelson and Coppola, 2005; Wamser, 2006; Hockings et al., 2008; Lewis and Lewis, 2008; Lewis, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2012; Shields et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2014; Fink et al., 2018; Stanich et al., 2018; Guden and Bellen, 2020; Maxwell and Wiles, 2022). Most recently, a comprehensive study analyzing 24 years of institutional data confirmed PLTL's significant impact on success and retention metrics, especially for underrepresented minority (URM) students (Basu et al., 2025).

While much of the existing literature has emphasized cognitive and affective outcomes, fewer studies have examined how PLTL influences students’ epistemological beliefs (Elby and Hammer, 2010). Recent work by Ouellette et al. (Ouellette et al., 2023) has underscored the alignment between students’ epistemological views and their experiences with course structures in introductory physics. Building on this broader understanding, the present study investigates how PLTL in undergraduate chemistry fosters epistemological development alongside gains in self-efficacy and belonging.

This qualitative research builds on prior work that has explored student perceptions of PLTL through surveys and interviews (Gosser et al., 2001; Gafney and Varma-Nelson, 2008), as well as studies of long-term impacts on former peer leaders (Gafney and Varma-Nelson, 2007). While these contributions have been valuable, they have largely remained evaluation-focused, documenting outcomes rather than examining the underlying mechanisms that lead to those outcomes (Chan and Bauer, 2015).

This study addresses that gap by analyzing how interactions within the PLTL workshops such as peer explanation, collaborative problem-solving, and the integration of diverse perspectives shape how students conceptualize knowledge and learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Bodner, 1986). By focusing on students’ lived experiences, we investigate how PLTL cultivates both content mastery and epistemic agency (Miller et al., 2018; Stroupe et al., 2019).

Our findings reveal that PLTL supports key epistemological shifts: students come to see chemistry as a subject that can be reasoned through collaboratively, rather than passively received; they develop confidence in their ability to generate and critique scientific ideas; and they report a stronger sense of inclusion in a learning environment where their thinking is valued. In turn, these shifts foster affective outcomes such as increased self-efficacy (Bandura, 1978), deeper conceptual understanding, and a sense of belonging grounded in shared goals and psychological safety (Walton and Cohen, 2007).

Research question

Building on prior research, this study addresses the gap by focusing on students’ lived experiences in PLTL environments, with particular attention to how peer interactions and collaborative learning influence their beliefs, self-perceptions, and sense of belonging in learning chemistry.

The research question for this study is: how, if at all, do PLTL environments influence students’ beliefs, experiences, and self-perceptions in learning chemistry?

To explore this question, the study examines the roles of peer collaboration, peer leader guidance, and collaborative problem-solving in shaping students’ learning processes. Additionally, it investigates how PLTL fosters a sense of belonging and a perception of community within the learning environment.

Theoretical framework

This study employs thematic analysis within an established theoretical framework that draws upon social constructivist learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978), Bandura's social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1978), and research on academic belonging to explore how PLTL impacts students’ beliefs and experiences in chemistry. Social constructivism provides the foundation for understanding how peer interactions and collaborative learning shape knowledge construction within the zone of proximal development. Bandura's social cognitive theory guides our exploration of students’ self-efficacy beliefs and how these develop through mastery experiences, vicarious learning, and social persuasion within peer learning contexts. Research on academic belonging (Strayhorn, 2018) frames our investigation of students’ sense of acceptance and community within learning environments.

Qualitative methods such as interviews are particularly well-suited to capture participants’ lived experiences and the meanings they attach to them. Thematic analysis allows for systematic identification of patterns in student experiences while situating findings within these established theoretical perspectives, making this framework appropriate for understanding the dynamic ways students interact within PLTL environments and how these interactions shape their epistemological beliefs, confidence in their abilities, and sense of community.

1. Methods

1.1 Course context

This study was conducted in CHEM-C 105: Principles of Chemistry I course during Spring 2024. The course enrolled 389 students, divided into two sections: 200 students in the first section and 189 in the second. The same instructor taught both sections. Students were required to register for the lecture and the PLTL workshops concurrently. The lecture sessions were conducted twice a week for 75 minutes, while the PLTL workshops took place once a week for 1 hour and 50 minutes. PLTL was a mandatory graded component of the course, with participation determining students’ grades.

Both course sections received the same problem sets, quizzes, and exams, and students’ grades were combined for overall assessment. In addition to the required components, students had access to supplementary learning opportunities. The instructor offered two-hour office hours twice a week for questions and additional support. Furthermore, the Chemistry Resource Center, staffed by graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants, was available for further help with course content.

1.2 Peer-led team learning workshop

The Spring 2024 PLTL workshops were organized into 46 sections, each consisting of seven to nine students and one peer leader. The peer leaders go through an intensive training process through the semester where they are required to attend 15 sessions each for 75 minutes. These sessions were tailored to refine their facilitation skills, including overseeing group collaboration and promoting an inclusive learning environment. During the training sessions, peer leaders work through the PLTL workbook, which contains self-tests, workshop problems, and post-workshop problems. There is no answer key available for the workbook. The instructor and super leaders (peer leaders with three or more semesters of experience) move around to provide support and guidance. In addition to problem-solving, peer leaders receive pedagogical training. This includes techniques for strategies for active learning, fostering student interaction and building a learning space where students feel comfortable asking questions and sharing their ideas.

The selection of peer leaders is based on both academic criteria and interpersonal qualities. They must have an average score above 80% on chemistry exams, with no individual exam score below 70%, and maintain at least a 3.0 GPA across the semesters. Furthermore, peer leaders go through an interview process to evaluate their ability to contribute to the workshops effectively. This process helps make sure that the peer leaders are not only academically proficient but also well-prepared to create an engaging and supportive learning environment for their fellow students.

1.3 Sample selection

The research was conducted at a large urban R1 research university with students enrolled in CHEM-C 105: Principles of Chemistry I. Three weeks before the end of the semester, a slide was presented at the beginning of the class to introduce the project and its objectives. To encourage participation, all interviewees were offered a $20 Amazon gift card. After obtaining informed consent, semi-structured, hour-long interviews were conducted with 10 participants. The interviews covered the following topics: (1) reasons for taking the course, (2) experiences with course content and structure, (3) the PLTL workbook (Malik and Zhu, 2013) and its impact on learning, (4) experiences in PLTL sessions, including peer interactions, and (5) suggestions for course improvements. The interview protocol (adapted from (Lewsirirat et al., 2025)) and demographic data of participants are included in the SI. Participants represented a range of demographics, including varied gender identities, racial/ethnic backgrounds, academic majors, and year levels (from freshmen to juniors). The sample also included transfer students and a student retaking the course, suggesting variation in academic pathways.

To ensure participant anonymity, pseudonyms were assigned to each interviewee. Of the ten participants, three were interviewed in person and video recorded, while the remaining seven chose to participate via Zoom. They decided the mode of the interview. All interviews were transcribed using Otter AI, and the resulting transcripts were used for thematic analysis. This study was approved by Indiana University's Institutional Review Board (IRB #22520).

1.4 Thematic analysis

This study uses thematic analysis (Creswell and Poth, 2016) to interpret the qualitative data collected from student interviews. Thematic analysis is a popular method employed to identify and analyze patterns or themes within qualitative data. It helps construct an in-depth understanding of the students’ experiences and how these experiences shape their beliefs about learning chemistry.

The research team read the interview transcripts multiple times to identify recurring patterns. Later, they coded the data inductively (emerging from the data itself) and deductively (guided by the research questions). Each transcript was broken into smaller, meaningful units to facilitate analysis. The codebook is included in the SI.

Inter-rater reliability was established through a systematic consensus coding approach to confirm credibility and trustworthiness. Two team members independently coded the same subset of interview transcripts using the initial codebook. Following independent coding, the researchers met to compare their coding decisions line-by-line, discussing any discrepancies in code application or interpretation. Through structured discussion, disagreements were resolved by revisiting the original data, clarifying code definitions, and reaching consensus on appropriate code assignment. This process led to refinement of the codebook, with clearer definitions and examples for each code. Once consensus was achieved on the coding framework and its consistent application, the researchers proceeded to code the remaining transcripts using the refined codebook. Periodic check-ins throughout the coding process ensured continued alignment between coders. This collaborative analysis approach increased the trustworthiness of the findings and provided a more comprehensive understanding of student perspectives.

Following the completion of coding, we conducted thematic analysis to identify overarching patterns across the coded data. Themes were developed through an iterative process of examining relationships between codes and clustering related concepts that addressed our research questions about PLTL's impact on epistemology, self-efficacy, and belonging. Our four main themes emerged as follows: Theme 1: Peer explanation, collaborative learning, and diverse perspectives was developed by clustering codes related to Epistemology, Collaboration, Question-based guidance, Feedback, and peer leader characteristics such as Relatability, as these codes all captured how students learned through interaction with peers and peer leaders. Theme 2: Active learning through problem-solving emerged from codes including Epistemology, Workbook, Whiteboard, and aspects of PLTL structure that emphasized hands-on engagement with chemistry content. Theme 3: Confidence building through structured support was formed by clustering codes such as Self-Efficacy, Growth Mindset, and peer leader characteristics including Approachability, Patience, and Availability, which all related to how PLTL's supportive environment built student confidence. Theme 4: Sense of belonging: fostering community, shared goals, and psychological safety directly incorporated the Belonging code while also drawing from Group size, Collaboration, and supportive peer leader characteristics such as Relatability that created an inclusive environment. This analytical approach allowed us to move beyond individual codes to understand the broader mechanisms through which PLTL impacts student learning and identity development. The team used NVivo software to organize and manage the data during the analysis. The identified themes form the foundation for understanding how PLTL impacts students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and overall learning in chemistry.

2. Results

The following section presents themes that emerged from the analysis of ten participant interviews. Using specific examples from their interviews, we demonstrate how these themes align with students’ sense of belonging and beliefs about learning chemistry. All the student quotes presented are verbatim; therefore, some participants use terms interchangeably for example, referring to the PLTL workshop as “recitation” and the peer leader as “teacher.” Table 1 provides an overview of the identified themes along with representative quotes from participant interviews.

Table 1 Themes and representative quotes from student interviews

Theme	Example quote
Peer explanation, collaborative learning, and the role of diverse perspectives	“…really working, gaining that perspective of other students to me that's academically enriching…”
Active learning through problem-solving	“…going to try it on my own first, and like I’ll ask like my partner and my group after I solved it, or even after you solved that, I’d be like, okay, let's check with our PLTL group”
Confidence building through structured support	“But he [peer leader] really does care about you understanding and learning the topic…”
Sense of belonging: fostering community, shared goals, and psychological safety	“I felt like she [peer leader] was always there for me, so I felt like that was really good like a sense of security.”

---

2.1 Peer explanation, collaborative learning, and the role of diverse perspectives

Participants in this study described the dual benefits of collaborative problem-solving and peer explanation within PLTL workshops. Through these peer interactions, they reported engaging with diverse perspectives that reinforced their understanding. These workshops offer students a space where they can alternate roles as teachers and learners. These observations align with established learning theories suggesting that teaching others promotes deeper understanding by requiring learners to organize and articulate their knowledge (Cortright et al., 2005; Fiorella and Mayer, 2013; Lachner et al., 2022). According to Vygotsky's social constructivist framework (Vygotsky, 1978), peer interactions provide scaffolding within the zone of proximal development, facilitating learning through collaborative engagement. Prior research on peer tutoring and peer instruction further supports the notion that explaining concepts to others enhances cognitive processing and problem-solving skills (Mazur, 1997). These findings are also consistent with prior empirical research on PLTL (Tien et al., 2002; Hockings et al., 2008; Wilson and Varma-Nelson, 2016).

In this context, students also developed a stronger sense of epistemic agency that is the belief that their own reasoning, questions, and intellectual contributions are valid and necessary for learning (Elby and Hammer, 2010). Students position themselves as contributors to collective process of sense-making rather than just passively receiving knowledge.

For example, Michael described how teaching others allowed him to learn from diverse perspectives and also deepened his understanding of challenging topics:

…really working, gaining that perspective of other students to me that's academically enriching… some days you struggle, some days you don’t… But then, yeah, so it's just enriching or being able to help people some days, like during thermochemistry, I was the one helping and teaching and getting people to understand, so very enriching, always always felt like I learned something when I came out.

He further highlighted how teaching others helped him to approach problems from a different standpoint, as peers often had different ways of thinking and understanding the material:

…when you’re teaching people, everyone has different questions. So it's like you have to come up with a way to explain that and how to get them to understand. That's what helped me learn better, too, because it made me think differently about the material.

Sarina further emphasized how the structured design of the problems found in the PLTL workbook supported this mechanism. She explained that the design of the problems requires both conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge, making peer interaction essential:

…we have to explain this before we can explain how to do the problem. Otherwise, though, I think, I think the problem was just made in such a way that like, you have to have both, okay, like, do just, you can’t like just understand the concept, or just know how to do the problem…

Through such interactions, students engaged with the material by solving problems and explaining their reasoning from the perspectives of their peers. Furthermore, Larry's experience also highlights how the PLTL environment encourages dynamic interactions. He shared how his peers not only help him solve problems but also provided opportunities for him to understand different problem-solving approaches:

So it just kind of depends, like, now, if I haven’t started the problem, I’d be like, well, can you help me approach this problem, and then we can work on it together. So it just kind of depends on where I’m at, but I definitely prefer them like, I definitely prefer their like approach and see how like they do it, but me also being there and like doing it, not just, you know, and understanding what they’re doing, and just like, you know, take notes or follow the steps.

Though students like Michael, Sarina, and Larry described these processes explicitly, many others also mentioned the value of engaging with their peers similarly. By offering structured, problem-solving tasks that require collaboration and engagement, this PLTL learning space allows students to see themselves as agents in the learning process not just mastering content but shaping its meaning through shared intellectual work.

2.2 Active learning through problem-solving

Drawing upon the collaborative dynamics discussed in the previous section, this section explores how collaboration fosters deeper learning through active engagement with content. This process aligns with Vygotsky's theory of learning (Vygotsky, 1978) as a socially mediated activity, where peer interaction provides the scaffolding necessary for students to progress within their zone of proximal development. For many students, this process began with an individual effort, followed by collaborative problem-solving with peers or guided support from the peer leader.

Larry highlighted this dynamic when he described his approach to solving challenging problems in the workshop. He preferred to attempt problems independently before asking his peers, saying:

…honestly, I’m going to try it on my own first, and like I’ll ask like my partner and my group after I solved it, or even after you solved that, I’d be like, okay, let's check with our PLTL group, and see if that's right. If not, I’ll be like, well, what did you do different than me, you know, and that's kind of how we just start to bounce off of each other…

Testing his understanding of concepts individually, followed by peer comparison and discussion, allowed Larry to hone his problem-solving skills and discover new perspectives. He highlighted the peer leader's role to help facilitate students to find answers collaboratively, stating:

He [peer leader] doesn’t want us just to mainly rely on him for everything. Even though he knows the stuff’cause he's already taken classes. He wants us to learn from each other, because at the end of the day, it's our learning that matters, you know, so kind of like that, you know. We approach it ourselves.

By guiding the group to rely on their shared knowledge, the peer leader created an environment where active participation and iterative problem-solving became central to the learning process. Neil also emphasized that handling problems as a group can lead to a more nuanced understanding. Looking back on his experience, he said:

… My first time coming around was like I would just like, kind of be like, oh, would like, just show me how to do it… but it's like it doesn’t really work like that. You kind of just have to do it yourself to learn. So, it's better they just take you one more step, and then see how far we can go…at some point, like you have you have to like just try your hardest to do as much as you can and then get help accordingly.

This reflected Neil's belief in the value of active engagement. He sought guidance only when necessary and leveraged group discussions to navigate complex parts of the problem.

Together, these perspectives illustrate how the PLTL framework provides a space where students actively engage with challenging content, supporting one another while developing critical problem-solving skills. Through this structured engagement, Larry, Neil, and their peers were able to address specific challenges and build a stronger and more lasting comprehension of the concepts at hand.

2.3 Confidence building through structured support

Self-efficacy is defined as a person's particular set of beliefs that determine how well one can execute a plan of action in prospective situations (Bandura, 1978). In simple terms, self-efficacy is confidence in one's own abilities to achieve a specific task or goal. The role of self-efficacy is well established in learning both by the researchers and practitioners (Bandura, 1982). Several key structures in the PLTL environment work together to help students build confidence in their academic abilities.

Research (Bandura, 1978) shows that people's beliefs in their self-efficacy develop through four primary sources of influence, one of which is social persuasion. According to Redmond (Redmond, 2010), self-efficacy is influenced by encouragement and discouragement pertaining to an individual's performance and ability to perform. Larry's experience in the PLTL environment emphasizes the critical role of social persuasion that a peer leader plays in fostering self-efficacy. As Larry shared:

But he really does care about you understanding and learning the topic… I’ve stayed after where he was like, okay, we’ve finished the problem… meet up with me after class, we’re gonna discuss this problem so you can understand it better… he really does care about your learning… I really do appreciate him a lot, because I mean, it might not be too common to see that nowadays, but he really does care…

Larry's reflection shows how encouragement and individualized support strengthen his belief in his ability to understand the content. The peer leader's actions, such as staying longer to discuss the problem, serve as positive reinforcement, helping him build confidence in his academic abilities. This support from the peer leader enhances Larry's self-efficacy by combining emotional encouragement with intellectual guidance.

Another source of influence that develops self-efficacy is mastery experiences (Bandura, 1989). According to Bandura's theory, repeated success in a particular domain strengthens individuals’ beliefs in their abilities. The experiences of students like Sarina illustrate how consistency and social support through PLTL contribute to her growing self-efficacy as she shares:

Yeah, the PLTL sessions, I think are definitely very helpful, especially now that I have a recitation that I actually like, enjoy attending, I used to be a little bit anxious about the other ones… I do really like my recitation, I like my peers, I like my leader. And I like the environment that like she's creating… After every recitation, I’ve either learned something, or I’ve gotten stronger in an area that I had previously struggled with… The recitation makes it so easy to start doing it.

Sarina explicitly mentions that she either learns something new or strengthens in an area she struggled with. This shows a consistent pattern of improvement over time that directly relates to mastery experiences. The frequency of the PLTL workshops provides her with these opportunities. She also highlights the supportive environment created by her peers and peer leader. The consistent social support provided by the peer leader helps create an environment where Sarina feels comfortable engaging with the content, which in turn strengthens her self-efficacy.

Taken together, these student experiences illustrate how various elements of the PLTL framework, structured practice, peer discussions, and the supportive presence of the peer leader all contribute to building self-efficacy, which is critically linked to academic performance (Chemers et al., 2001; Valentine et al., 2004; Zajacova et al., 2005).

2.4 Sense of belonging: fostering community, shared goals, and psychological safety

Sense of belonging is one of the foundational factors in the learning process that influences students’ academic engagement and motivation. Research (Walton and Cohen, 2007; Strayhorn, 2018) shows that when students feel they belong in an academic setting, they are more likely to persist and engage in the classroom. A key component of belonging is psychological safety, the belief that one can take academic and interpersonal risks without fear of embarrassment or rejection (Edmondson, 1999; Payne et al., 2025). When students feel safe making mistakes and expressing uncertainty, they are more likely to engage deeply and authentically with the material. Another contributor to belonging is relatability within peer groups. Students are more likely to feel connected when they can see aspects of themselves in their peers or leaders, such as shared experiences, identities, or academic journeys (Bensimon, 2007). As seen through participant interviews, a sense of belonging during PLTL workshops was fostered through both the relatability of the peer leaders and the psychological safety established in the group setting.

2.4.1 Peer leader relatability & support. In the PLTL workshop, the peer leader not only acted as a mentor but also as a peer who understood students’ challenges. Andrew's experience shows how shared academic status between the peer leader and students helps cultivate sense of belonging. Both Andrew and his peer leader are juniors which allowed them to connect easily and made the peer leader more relatable. As Andrew shares:

Yeah. So, I’m a junior, and my PLTL leader is a junior, too. So, we’re both on the same path. Also, she would tell us about how she did on the exams, like, oh, yeah, like, exam 1, I did fine, exam 2 did fine, but exam 3 I did not do too high was the worst exam for me, so like, but she would tell you like, oh, I probably didn’t prepare for it as much, or I didn’t study for it as much as I should have and something I can relate to like.

By sharing both her successes and setbacks, the peer leader helped Andrew realize that his struggles were normal and improvement was encouraged. Similarly, the peer leader's personality plays a crucial role in the social support that students receive. Sarina highlights how her peer leader's approachable nature made it easier for her to ask questions as she explains:

Um, I really like my, my peer leader, she's very, she's kind of intense, because she really knows her stuff. And it's very obvious that she like really understands chemistry. But she's also just easy to talk to, and I could probably talk to her about anything really, I could probably show her my dog pictures. So it's really, I really liked that she's so like, friendly and open. Just kind of chatty, I guess, it makes it easy to ask questions.

Sarina emphasized the combination of her peer leader's academic expertise and friendly nature. This environment made students feel comfortable, further strengthening their sense of belonging within the PLTL group. Lastly, Neil highlights on how his peer leader's consistent support contributed to his sense of security within the PLTL environment. He shares:

I would say my interactions with my PLTL leader were very lovely, lively, positive. I felt like she was always there for me, so I felt like that was really good like a sense of security. Kind of I don’t know that that's how I would describe it. I would say, she's she's became my friend so that's good.

Neil's experience emphasizes how the peer leader's supportive nature goes beyond academic guidance, creating a bond that resembles friendship. Together these experiences show how peer leaders cultivate an encouraging environment where students feel valued and understood.

2.4.2 Psychological safety, shared goals & participation-based grading. The structure of the PLTL workshop fosters an environment where students feel comfortable asking questions without fear of judgement. This promotes collaborative learning and a strong sense of belonging. In this space, students come together with the shared goal of academic success, while also supporting each other. Michael's experience illustrates how this environment enhances the group's sense of belonging. He shares:

… we were the type of class that had no shame in asking even the easiest of questions… no one shame them for that. It was like, okay, like there's gonna be a time where I don’t know what's going on, maybe it's your time, that you don’t know what's going on. So very comfortable with each other… since we’re so comfortable with each other, we even sometimes we didn’t even have to ask the teacher we’d ask each other, and we’d be comfortable, expanding it to each other and teaching each other, which was cool.

This environment, where confusion is normalized and questions are encouraged, creates a safe space where students can be vulnerable. Michael later in the interview also highlights that the group's shared goal was academic success. This alignment on a common goal made it easier for them to work together, help one another, and ultimately feel part of a community.

In the context of PLTL's grading structure, which focuses on participation rather than completion, students are encouraged to engage without the added pressure of competition. This nongraded approach, as described by Rachel, also alleviates the potential for negative comparisons. This structure helps create a relaxed atmosphere where students feel free to contribute and support each other. As she shares:

I think there definitely could be something like that, but with the group of students… finishing the workshop is not a requirement, just that like participation, if I think it if it was something that had to be graded and had to be completely finished, I feel like that kind of comparison would come in, because nobody wants to have work outside of class… more relaxed, I kind of, I don’t know if enjoys the right word, but I find it beneficial to if I figure out something, it helps me to actually have to teach somebody else. And this is the perfect place to do that…

By emphasizing participation through group work, PLTL at this institution fosters an environment where mutual support is prioritized, and students feel valued, regardless of their individual strengths or weaknesses. This atmosphere enhances both their academic confidence and their engagement in the learning process (Gillen-O’Neel, 2021; Fong et al., 2024).

Discussion

Across the themes described above, a central pattern emerged which is that students increasingly viewed themselves not just as learning chemistry, but as active participants in constructing their understanding. They spoke of proposing ideas, evaluating reasoning, and challenging one another's approaches. This reflects a growing sense of epistemic agency (Miller et al., 2018; Stroupe et al., 2019), the belief that their thinking is both valid and necessary in the learning process.

Peer explanation emerged as an important process in which students articulate their thinking, clarify each other's misunderstandings, and validate their conceptual understanding through dialogue (Vygotsky, 1978; Driver et al., 1994; Gosser and Roth, 1998; Kampmeier and Varma-Nelson, 2009; Chi and Wylie, 2014; Wood et al., 2014; Zhu and Carless, 2018). Consistent with constructivist theories of learning, PLTL encourages students to engage actively in sense-making which in turn contributes to better comprehension and retention of chemistry concepts.

Collaborative learning and exposure to diverse perspectives further helped students to engage with multiple ways of thinking (Vygotsky, 1978; Gosser and Roth, 1998; Johnson and Johnson, 1999; Springer et al., 1999). Students reported benefiting from hearing alternative perspectives which encouraged flexible thinking and increased conceptual adaptability. These findings strengthened prior research on the value of small-group learning in STEM contexts (Jones and Carter, 2005) and suggest that PLTL workshops normalize discussion and critical evaluation of ideas.

Active learning through problem solving ensures that students not only passively absorb information but also apply their knowledge in a structured, yet flexible manner (Rubin and Hebert, 1998; Willis and Miertschin, 2006; Swaminathan and Zhao, 2018). The scaffolded support provided by the peer leaders strengthens their ability to tackle challenging concepts with confidence.

Structured support and confidence building also played a crucial role. While much of the literature focuses on how PLTL contributes to the confidence-building of peer leaders (Gafney and Varma-Nelson, 2007; Utschig and Sweat, 2008; Chase et al., 2020); our study highlights how PLTL also builds confidence in participating students. Many students initially struggle with chemistry due to low self-efficacy and due to the transition from high school science experience to that of college. However, the structured low pressure nature of the PLTL workshops helps them through practice and peer validation.

Peer interactions serve as the foundation of PLTL, influencing cognitive (Vygotsky, 1978; Tenenbaum et al., 2020) and affective aspects of learning. The role of peer leader is particularly significant, as they provide structured guidance while maintaining a low-stakes, student-centered environment (Tien et al., 2002). This leadership style helps students feel comfortable asking questions, testing their understanding, and refining their problem-solving strategies. The reciprocal nature of these interactions fosters an environment where students take ownership of their learning, leading to increased self-efficacy and a positive academic identity.

Finally, sense of belonging (fostering community, shared goals, and psychological safety) emerged as a central affective mechanism contributing to PLTL's impact. The peer leader-led structure supports a learning community where students feel valued and supported. The shared academic challenges and achievements help students build a community, which leads to increased motivation and persistence. This finding aligns with broader research on the importance of a sense of belonging in STEM courses (Hoffman et al., 2002; Freeman et al., 2007; O’Keeffe, 2013; Zumbrunn et al., 2014; Yorke, 2016; Lewis et al., 2017; Rainey et al., 2018; Slaten et al., 2018; Fink et al., 2020; Hansen et al., 2024).

Taken together, these mechanisms form an interconnected framework that support student learning. PLTL's effectiveness is not solely due to its collaborative structure but to the dynamic interactions that occur within that structure. These workshops created a learning ecosystem where students could engage in disciplinary discourse, take intellectual risks, and recognize the value of their contributions.

To provide transparency about the prevalence of each theme across participants, the SI includes Table S3, which summarizes the number of students who contributed to each theme. This information helps readers gauge the relative prominence of themes within our sample.

Implications for practice

The findings of this study highlight the value of PLTL in fostering both cognitive and affective growth in students, particularly within chemistry education. While these recommendations are specifically grounded in PLTL research, they are broadly applicable to other peer-mediated instructional approaches. As students emphasize the importance of peer explanation and collaborative learning, this suggests that instructors in STEM fields may benefit from integrating student-facilitated, interactive models into their teaching practice. Based on our findings, we offer the following evidence-based recommendations for STEM educators. Central to effective implementation is optimizing peer explanation opportunities. Our findings reveal that students value peer explanations because peers communicate concepts in ways that are easy to grasp. Such approaches can help create dynamic, interactive classrooms that deepen conceptual understanding and cultivate problem-solving skills (Chi et al., 2001). This is particularly beneficial in disciplines where students struggle with complex or abstract concepts, as student-facilitated interactions can make learning more accessible and less intimidating. Building on peer explanation, students reported that collaborative work strengthened their conceptual reasoning and problem-solving skills, suggesting that instructors should design workshop activities that require active collaboration (Johnson and Johnson, 1987). This can be achieved by using problems that benefit from multiple perspectives and creating structured opportunities for students to engage with diverse viewpoints and approaches.

For instructors working with peer leaders, these principles can be implemented through targeted training approaches. As outlined in the comprehensive evaluation of PLTL implementation, effective peer leader preparation requires structured training workshops that focus on developing specific facilitation skills and pedagogical approaches (Gosser et al., 2001). Peer leaders should be trained to facilitate explanation-rich discussions rather than simply providing answers, with ongoing feedback to refine their approaches. Workshop problems should be structured to require students to justify their reasoning to peers, while peer leaders learn to recognize and redistribute participation effectively to ensure all voices are heard.

Equally important is preparing students for these pedagogical approaches at the course outset. To address this, instructors should explicitly orient students to the learning rationale behind peer interaction during the first week, including clear expectations for participation and the research evidence supporting these approaches. When students understand the pedagogical purpose and feel prepared to engage authentically, they are more likely to embrace the collaborative process and experience the benefits our findings highlight.

Moreover, the sense of belonging reported by students involved in PLTL workshops points to the broader importance of cultivating supportive academic environments. Since feelings of isolation are a common barrier to student persistence in STEM fields (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Seymour et al., 2019), student-led structures can play a critical role in enhancing engagement and retention. Instructors can cultivate belonging through structured support by training peer leaders to create psychologically safe spaces and establishing group norms that value questions and mistakes as learning opportunities (Dweck, 2006).

For instructors teaching without formal peer leaders, alternative strategies can still foster similar benefits. The structured, low-pressure environment that builds student confidence can be replicated through scaffolded collaborative learning opportunities. Instructors can implement structured peer explanation using think-pair-share activities during lectures, rotating “student teacher” roles during problem-solving sessions, and peer review of problem solutions (Mazur, 1997). Cooperative learning structures (Springer et al., 1999) can be created by establishing consistent study groups where students take turns serving as discussion facilitators, note-takers, and progress monitors, combined with problem-solving activities that require group consensus before moving forward.

Underlying these practical strategies is a fundamental epistemological shift. Instructors can support this epistemological growth through several interconnected approaches: explicitly discussing the nature of chemical knowledge and how it is constructed, modeling scientific reasoning while encouraging students to question and critique ideas (Hammer, 1994), and designing assessments that reward reasoning over recall. These recommendations are grounded in our participants’ reported experiences and align with social constructivist learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978), offering practical pathways for enhancing student epistemological development, self-efficacy, and belonging in chemistry education.

Limitations

The sample size of 10 participants in this study is appropriate for qualitative analysis, as data saturation was achieved. However, the findings may not be generalizable beyond the study context. As with any qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, recall bias and self-selection bias may have impacted the findings. For example, students might have reported certain aspects of their experiences more thoroughly than others, leading to an uneven portrayal of their overall PLTL workshop experiences. Although course grades were not collected, our sample included students with varied academic trajectories such as transfer students and a student retaking the course, suggesting the inclusion of individuals beyond only high-achieving students. The use of structured scenarios during the interviews, while helpful for guiding discussion, may have limited the emergence of unanticipated themes that could have provided additional insights into student experiences. Additionally, because the PLTL workshops examined in this study were conducted in a particular academic setting, variables like course design and institutional support may have influenced the outcomes.

Conclusions

The intent of this article is to highlight the underlying mechanisms (Chan and Bauer, 2015) that contribute to the impact of PLTL in chemistry education. Through in-depth analysis of ten participants, we demonstrate how PLTL fosters a supportive learning environment through interconnected cognitive and affective processes, namely peer explanation, collaborative problem-solving, confidence building, and sense of belonging.

Our findings emphasize the importance of structuring learning environments that maximize student engagement and self-efficacy rather than focusing only on academic outcomes. These insights are relevant for instructors seeking to implement evidence-based pedagogies that support both performance and persistence in STEM.

Future research could build on these findings by exploring similar dynamics across diverse populations. It would also be valuable to explore the experiences of students who face challenges within PLTL settings to better understand how to support them and enhance the effectiveness of these environments. Future work by the authors also include collecting survey data on epistemology (Grove and Bretz, 2007), sense of belonging (Fink et al., 2020) and growth mindset (Santos et al., 2021, 2022) within PLTL environments in general and organic chemistry courses to extend these findings.

Ultimately, this work contributes to a growing body of literature that emphasizes the value of lived experience and localized knowledge in shaping effective, inclusive chemistry education.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Data availability

The data supporting this article have been included as part of the supplementary information (SI). Supplementary information includes the interview protocol, codebook, participant information, and prevalence of themes. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d5rp00206k.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the student participants who volunteered to contribute to this study. Without their participation, this project would not have been possible. We would also like to thank Dr Hongqiu Zhao for his extensive support during the project. The authors also thank our colleagues, Dr Grant Fore and Dr Patrick Wilson for providing constructive feedback on a draft version of this paper. Finally, we thank Indiana University Indianapolis, for their institutional support.

Notes and references

1. Bandura A., (1978), Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Adv. Behav. Res. Therapy, 1(4), 139–161.
2. Bandura A., (1982), Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, Am. Psychol., 37, L22–I47.
3. Bandura A., (1989), Human agency in social cognitive theory, Am. Psychol., 44(9), 1175.
4. Barrows H. S., (1996), Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview, New Direct. Teach. Learn., 1996(68), 3–12.
5. Basu P., Malik D. J. and Graunke S., (2025), A 24-year longitudinal study on a stem gateway general chemistry course and the reduction of achievement disparities, PLoS One, 20(2), e0318882.
6. Bensimon E. M., (2007), The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success, Rev. High. Educ., 30(4), 441–469.
7. Bodner G. M., (1986), Constructivism: a theory of knowledge, J. Chem. Educ., 63(10), 873.
8. Chan J. Y. and Bauer C. F., (2015), Effect of peer-led team learning (pltl) on student achievement, attitude, and self-concept in college general chemistry in randomized and quasi experimental designs, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 52(3), 319–346.
9. Chase A., S. Rao A., Lakmala P. and Varma-Nelson P., (2020), Beyond content knowledge: transferable skills connected to experience as a peer-leader in a pltl program and long-term impacts, Int. J. STEM Educ., 7, 1–10.
10. Chemers M. M., Hu L.-T. and Garcia B. F., (2001), Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment, J. Educ. Psychol., 93(1), 55.
11. Chi M. T., Siler S. A., Jeong H., Yamauchi T. and Hausmann R. G., (2001), Learning from human tutoring, Cogn. Sci., 25(4), 471–533.
12. Chi M. T. and Wylie R., (2014), The icap framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes, Educ. Psychol., 49(4), 219–243.
13. Cortright R. N., Collins H. L. and DiCarlo S. E., (2005), Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: ability to solve novel problems, Adv. Physiol. Educ., 29(2), 107–111.
14. Creswell J. W. and Poth C. N., (2016), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, Sage publications.
15. Driver R., Asoko H., Leach J., Scott P. and Mortimer E., (1994), Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom, Educ. Res., 23(7), 5–12.
16. Dweck C. S., (2006), Mindset: The new psychology of success, Random house.
17. Eberlein T., Kampmeier J., Minderhout V., Moog R. S., Platt T., Varma-Nelson P. and White H. B., (2008), Pedagogies of engagement in science: a comparison of pbl, pogil, and pltl, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 36(4), 262–273.
18. Edmondson A., (1999), Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams, Admin. Sci. Quart., 44(2), 350–383.
19. Elby A. and Hammer D., (2010), 13 epistemological resources and framing: a cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies, Personal epistemology in the classroom, p. 409.
20. Fink A., Cahill M. J., McDaniel M. A., Hoffman A. and Frey R. F., (2018), Improving general chemistry performance through a growth mindset intervention: selective effects on underrepresented minorities, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(3), 783–806.
21. Fink A., Frey R. F. and Solomon E. D., (2020), Belonging in general chemistry predicts first-year undergraduates’ performance and attrition, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 21(4), 1042–1062.
22. Fiorella L. and Mayer R. E., (2013), The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 38(4), 281–288.
23. Fong C. J., Adelugba S. F., Garza M., Pinto G. L., Gonzales C., Zarei P. and Rozek C. S., (2024), A scoping review of the associations between sense of belonging and academic outcomes in postsecondary education, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 36(4), 1–44.
24. Freeman T. M., Anderman L. H. and Jensen J. M., (2007), Sense of belonging in college freshmen at the classroom and campus levels, J. Exp. Educ., 75(3), 203–220.
25. Gafney L. and Varma-Nelson P., (2007), Evaluating peer-led team learning: a study of long-term effects on former workshop peer leaders, J. Chem. Educ., 84(3), 535.
26. Gafney L. and Varma-Nelson P., (2008), Peer-led team learning: Evaluation, dissemination, and institutionalization of a college level initiative, vol. 16, Springer Science & Business Media.
27. Gillen-O’Neel C., (2021), Sense of belonging and student engagement: a daily study of first-and continuing-generation college students, Res. Higher Educ., 62(1), 45–71.
28. Gosser D. K., Cracolice M. S., Kampmeier J., Roth V., Strozak V. S. and Varma-Nelson P., (2001), Peer-Led Team Learning A guidebook, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
29. Gosser, D. K. and Roth, V., (1998), The workshop chemistry project: peer-led team-learning, J. Chem. Educ., 75(2), 185.
30. Grove N. and Bretz S. L., (2007), Chemx: an instrument to assess students’ cognitive expectations for learning chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 84(9), 1524.
31. Guden J. and Bellen J., (2020), A scoping review of the peer-led team learning to learner-participants and peer leaders in stem courses, Int. J. Res. Studies Educ., 9(5), 1–13.
32. Hammer D., (1994), Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics, Cogn. Instruct., 12(2), 151–183.
33. Hansen M. J., Palakal M. J. and White L., (2024), The importance of stem sense of belonging and academic hope in enhancing persistence for low-income, underrepresented stem students, J. STEM Educ. Res., 7(2), 155–180.
34. Hockings S. C., DeAngelis K. J. and Frey R. F., (2008), Peerled team learning in general chemistry: implementation and evaluation, J. Chem. Educ., 85(7), 990.
35. Hoffman M., Richmond J., Morrow J. and Salomone K., (2002), Investigating “sense of belonging” in first-year college students, J. College Student Retent.: Res., Theory Pract., 4(3), 227–256.
36. Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1987), Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
37. Johnson D. W. and Johnson R. T., (1999), Making cooperative learning work, Theory Pract., 38(2), 67–73.
38. Jones M. G. and Carter G., (2005), Small groups and shared constructions, Teaching Science for Understanding, Elsevier, pp. 261–279.
39. Kampmeier J. A. and Varma-Nelson P., (2009), Peer-led team learning: a student-facilitated process for success in science courses, in N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper and T. J. Greenbowe (ed.), Chemist's Guide to Effective Teaching, vol. II, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, pp. 122–145.
40. Kampmeier J., Varma-Nelson P. and Wedegaertner D. K., (2000), Peer-led team learning: Organic chemistry, Prentice Hall.
41. Lachner A., Hoogerheide V., van Gog T. and Renkl A., (2022), Learning-by-teaching without audience presence or interaction: When and why does it work? Educ. Psychol. Rev., 34(2), 575–607.
42. Lewis S. E., (2011), Retention and reform: an evaluation of peerled team learning, J. Chem. Educ., 88(6), 703–707.
43. Lewis S. E. and Lewis J. E., (2005), Departing from lectures: an evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative, J. Chem. Educ., 82(1), 135.
44. Lewis S. E. and Lewis J. E., (2008), Seeking effectiveness and equity in a large college chemistry course: anhlm investigation of peer-led guided inquiry, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 45(7), 794–811.
45. Lewis K. L., Stout J. G., Finkelstein N. D., Pollock S. J., Miyake A., Cohen G. L. and Ito T. A., (2017), Fitting in to move forward: belonging, gender, and persistence in the physical sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pstem), Psychol. Women Quart., 41(4), 420–436.
46. Lewsirirat S., Ouellette E., Adlakha V., Lundsgaard M., Krist C. and Kuo E., (2025), Interview questions for strum project.
47. Malik D. J. and Zhu L., (2013), PLTL Workbook: Principles of Chemistry I (Chemistry C105), Macmillan Learning Curriculum Solutions.
48. Maxwell M. C. and Wiles J. R., (2022), Cyber peer led team learning (cpltl) supports marginalized groups, including women, in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem), Biosciene, 48(1), 10–16.
49. Mazur E., (1997), Peer instruction: getting students to think in class, AIP conference proceedings, Iop Institute of Physics Publishing Ltd, pp. 981–988.
50. Miller E., Manz E., Russ R., Stroupe D. and Berland L., (2018), Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: epistemic agency and the next generation science standards, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 55(7), 1053–1075.
51. Mitchell Y. D., Ippolito J. and Lewis S. E., (2012), Evaluating peer-led team learning across the two semester general chemistry sequence, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13(3), 378–383.
52. Moog R. S. and Spencer J. N., (2008), Pogil: An overview.
53. O’Keeffe P., (2013), A sense of belonging: improving student retention, College Student J., 47(4), 605–613.
54. Ouellette E., Lewsirirat S., Sebastian R. B., Lundsgaard M., Krist C. and Kuo E., (2023), Alignment between student epistemological views and experiences with course structures in introductory physics: a case study, in ‘Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference, American Association of Physics Teachers.
55. Payne M. R., LaDue N. D., Dugas D., Winitkun D. and Schmidt S., (2025), “i feel listened to and heard”: How social support fosters a sense of belonging for low-income stem majors, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 62(2), 461–490.
56. Rainey K., Dancy M., Mickelson R., Stearns E. and Moller S., (2018), Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in stem, Int. J. STEM Educ., 5, 1–14.
57. Redmond B., (2010), Self-efficacy theory: Do i think that i can succeed in my work, Work Attitudes Motivation.
58. Rubin L. and Hebert C., (1998), Model for active learning: collaborative peer teaching, College Teach., 46(1), 26–30.
59. Santos D. L., Barbera J. and Mooring S. R., (2022), Development of the chemistry mindset instrument (chemi) for use with introductory undergraduate chemistry students, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 23(3), 742–757.
60. Santos D. L., Gallo H., Barbera J. and Mooring S. R., (2021), Student perspectives on chemistry intelligence and their implications for measuring chemistry-specific mindset, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22(4), 905–922.
61. Seymour E. and Hewitt N. M., (1997), Talking about leaving, vol. 34, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
62. Seymour E., Hunter A.-B. and Harper R., (2019), Talking about leaving revisited, Talking About Leaving Revisited: Persistence, Relocation, and Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education.
63. Shields S. P., Hogrebe M. C., Spees W. M., Handlin L. B., Noelken G. P., Riley J. M. and Frey R. F., (2012), A transition program for underprepared students in general chemistry: diagnosis, implementation, and evaluation, J. Chem. Educ., 89(8), 995–1000.
64. Slaten C. D., Elison Z. M., Deemer E. D., Hughes H. A. and Shemwell D. A., (2018), The development and validation of the university belonging questionnaire, J. Exp. Educ., 86(4), 633–651.
65. Smith J., Wilson S. B., Banks J., Zhu L. and Varma-Nelson P., (2014), Replicating peer-led team learning in cyberspace: research, opportunities, and challenges, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 51(6), 714–740.
66. Springer L., Stanne M. E. and Donovan S. S., (1999), Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res., 69(1), 21–51.
67. Stanich C. A., Pelch M. A., Theobald E. J. and Freeman S., (2018), A new approach to supplementary instruction narrows achievement and affect gaps for underrepresented minorities, first-generation students, and women, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(3), 846–866.
68. Strayhorn T. L., (2018), College students’ sense of belonging: a key to educational success for all students, Routledge.
69. Stroupe D., Moon J. and Michaels S., (2019), Introduction to special issue: epistemic tools in science education, Sci. Educ., 103(4), 948–951.
70. Swaminathan P. D. and Zhao P., (2018), Increased student engagement in problem solving courses in engineering through active learning, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2018.
71. Tenenbaum H. R., Winstone N. E., Leman P. J. and Avery R. E., (2020), How effective is peer interaction in facilitating learning? a meta-analysis, J. Educ. Psychol., 112(7), 1303.
72. Tien L. T., Roth V. and Kampmeier J., (2002), Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 39(7), 606–632.
73. Utschig T. T. and Sweat M., (2008), Implementing peer led team learning in first-year programming courses, 2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE, pp. F3C–13.
74. Valentine J. C., DuBois D. L. and Cooper H., (2004), The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review, Educ. Psychol., 39(2), 111–133.
75. Varma-Nelson P., (2006), Peer-led team learning, Metropolitan Univ., 17(4), 19–29.
76. Varma-Nelson P. and Coppola B. P., (2005), Team learning, in N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper and T. J. Greenbowe (ed.), Chemists’ guide to effective teaching, vol. 1, pp. 155–169.
77. Vygotsky L. S., (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, vol. 86, Harvard University Press.
78. Walton G. M. and Cohen G. L., (2007), A question of belonging: race, social fit, and achievement, J. Person. Soc. Psychol., 92(1), 82.
79. Wamser C. C., (2006), Peer-led team learning in organic chemistry: effects on student performance, success, and persistence in the course, J. Chem. Educ., 83(10), 1562.
80. Willis C. L. and Miertschin S. L., (2006), Mind maps as active learning tools, J. Comput. Sci. Colleges, 21(4), 266–272.
81. Wilson S. B. and Varma-Nelson P., (2016), Small groups, significant impact: a review of peer-led team learning research with implications for stem education researchers and faculty, J. Chem. Educ., 93(10), 1686–1702.
82. Wood A. K., Galloway R. K., Hardy, J. and Sinclair, C. M., (2014), Analyzing learning during peer instruction dialogues: a resource activation framework, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.--Accel. Beams, 10(2), 020107.
83. Yorke M., (2016), The development and initial use of a survey of student ‘belongingness’, engagement and self-confidence in uk higher education, Assess. Eval. High. Educ., 41(1), 154–166.
84. Zajacova A., Lynch S. M. and Espenshade T. J., (2005), Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college, Res. High. Educ., 46, 677–706.
85. Zhu Q. and Carless D., (2018), Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning, High. Educ. Res. Dev., 37(4), 883–897.
86. Zumbrunn S., McKim C., Buhs E. and Hawley L. R., (2014), Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: a mixed method study, Instruct. Sci., 42, 661–684.

---