The importance of friendships for academic success

Abstract

No matter the level of the course (undergraduate or graduate), the size of the course (small or large), or the nature of the course (general education or an advance topic course), I am a huge fan of encouraging the students I teach to form study groups (real, effective study groups that is, not social gatherings disguised as study groups). These study groups are not meant to take the place of time studying alone, but rather to augment and strengthen the learning process. The literature is clear that study groups are a very effective strategy for helping students learn more deeply1 (for example, Sawyer & Berson, 2004). I readily share with my students that study groups are a great forum for them to talk about the material2, ask each other questions, and provide each other feedback. Study groups also help cut down on procrastination and can be a source of energy, motivation, and accountability (Florida National University, 2019; Oxford Learning, 2018).

I have always hoped that my encouragement to form study groups would influence my students to turn to their neighbor and say “Hey, you want to form a study group?”. The student being asked would, in turn, respond “Sure, sounds great to me”, and just like that a study group nucleus would form. Okay, I know that was a bit of wishful thinking, but I did think that students would form study groups with other students in the course and by being in the study group, become friends with one another. It turns out, according to recent research3 by Stadtfeld, Voros, Elmer, Boda, and Raabe (2019), that isn't really the way it works.

Though difficult to measure and quantify, Stadtfeld et al. (2019) set out to study how the dynamic social networks that informally develop between students can affect their academic performance. The researchers closely followed a cohort of engineering undergraduate students at a competitive Swiss university (ETH Zürich) over the course of their first year. The overall objectives of the study were to better understand: 1) how multiple social networks emerge within the student community and 2) how much integration in these networks explains students’ success in the final examination.

To capture the dynamic nature of developing social networks, the researchers conducted multiple surveys distributed over the academic year (from the first week of the first semester to right after the first-year examination period4 at the end of the second semester), measuring three dimensions of student relations: positive interaction, friendship, and studying together. In addition, the researchers collected self-reported measures of socioeconomic background (gender, age, first language, parental education, and support ties outside the university), abilities and motivation (high-school grade point average, study motivation, and time spent on studying), psychological well-being (stress, depression, and anxiety), and different types of peer perceptions (being perceived as smart) and behaviors (having a side job and free-time activities).

New statistical models for dynamic network data were used to investigate the processes of social network formation within the cohort (or community) and to determine the association between students’ social integration and their first-year examination scores.

In regards to how multiple social networks emerge within the student community (Objective 1), the researchers found that, most often, informal relationships lead to friendships, and, if students spend more time together and support each other, friendships ultimately lead to the formation of study groups. (Note: A link to the animation showing the emerging social network over time is given at the end of the Stadtfeld et al. (2019) reference.) The researchers found it interesting that students did not form strategic networks with those students who best understood the subject matter; instead their networks grew out of their informal relationships (Meyer, 2019).

In terms of statistical likelihood, the researchers reported that students were approximately 16 times more likely to become study partners with a friend than a nonfriend over the analyzed period (second half of the year after the initial network growth phase). Only weak evidence was reported for the reverse process that study partners are more likely to become friends (studying partners are only four times more likely to become friends). And students who were already friends and study partners were 27 to 33 times more likely to maintain these relations through time than individuals who only have either of those relations.

Thus, the researchers found strong evidence that studying ties emerged from friendships and that dual interpersonal relations are more stable than one-dimensional relationships (that is, just being friends or study partners). But do the emerging social network ties matter for academic success?

Regarding how much integration in these networks explains student's success in the first-year examination (Objective 2), researchers found that students who remained isolated in the network performed worse on the first-year examination and were more likely to drop out of university than students that were more strongly integrated into the network. The results are robust to individual differences in socioeconomic background factors and to various indirect measures of cognitive abilities, such as prior academic achievement and being perceived as smart by other students.

Researchers found that social integration differed descriptively and statistically between those students who passed the first-year examination (108 out of 163 students took the first-year examination and passed with a score of 4.0 or greater; 63 students dropped out or did not take the examination of the original 226 student cohort) and those who failed (55 out of 163). Successful students were on average named by 7.5 others as positive interaction partners, compared with 5.1 for those who failed; by 3.8 others as friends, compared with 2.6; and by 1.5 others as a study partners, compared with 0.6. These findings highlight the critical importance of understanding and further examining the social network dynamics in educational settings for student success.

For me, the take home message of Stadtfeld et al.’s research is the need for us to create opportunities and environments that facilitate the emergence of densely knit social networks – networks that can help students to achieve their full academic potential and help keep others from failing in their academic career (that is, “falling through the network”). These opportunities and environments need to be intentionally built into the fabric of the university setting, both inside and outside the classroom.

Inside the classroom: Taking time and making opportunities for students to meaningfully engage with one another in the classroom is a great way to facilitate social network development. Student-centered interactive activities can range from informal (for example, icebreakers, think-pair-share, breakout sessions) to formal (peer instruction, group projects, case studies, problem-based learning), but should take place regularly throughout the semester, not just as an isolated, one-and-done activity. I start my community building campaign5 on the first day of class, knowing that what I do on the first day sets the expectation for the rest of the semester (Gladwell, 2005). On the first day of class, I talk about how I want the class, OUR class, to function like a strong community, providing them with the following description (Kane, 2016): “Strong communities have members who have shared goals and experiences, who feel empowered to contribute, who trust in one another, and who feel understood and capable as individuals. These attributes enable teamwork, cooperation, a willingness to negotiate, and the ability to draw on one another's skills.” We talk about how people learn best when they feel part of a community in which everyone feels accepted and individually encouraged. Then we do an ice breaker6 to start building our community.

There are numerous ice breakers, but one that I often use is the “Familiar & Unique” icebreaker activity by Victoria Meyers at Grand Rapids Community College in Michigan (Lansing Community College, 2019, which contains this and a number of other icebreakers). First, I have the students break up into groups of 3 to 5 students. Each group is instructed to come up with at least four things they have in common (for example, all play a musical instrument, have all done a study abroad experience, all have a pet dog at home that they miss, and so on). Then the students are asked to share something unique about themselves with the group (for example, lived in Switzerland for a year, has blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do, volunteers at Habitat for Humanity, and so on). If time permits, the groups can then share their familiar and unique features with the rest of the class7. At the end of the icebreaker, the students are encouraged to exchange their contact information with each other and/or connect via social media. For students who don't know anyone else in the class, having the contact information of a few classmates can help them feel a little more secure. To me, doing an icebreaker (or two) on the first day of class raises the energy level, gets community building rolling, and allows the students to focus on the things they have in common, while sharing a unique and special thing about themselves. It also helps students start the process of getting comfortable with each other and helps set the tone of the course as being interactive and fun.

One of my favorite regular interactive activities is the breakout session8. Educational research shows that engaging students in problem solving as part of the course content promotes student motivation, recall of previously learned background information, and retrieval of relevant information learned in class. These beneficial results of problem solving are further enhanced by solving the problems with others, rather than alone (Light & Micari, 2013). During the course of the semester, students engage in 20 breakout sessions. The breakout sessions occur randomly (no advanced notice), and students can miss up to two without penalty. These breakout sessions allow the students time to practice and apply what they are learning during class, engage in problem solving in small groups, and have fun together. Breakout session examples include: 1) after discussing the different types of modified food starches (genetic, chemical substitution, cross-linking, acid and/or enzyme-catalyzed hydrolysis, pregelatinized, mechanical shear, and so on), the students are shown pictures of two different pudding products, Cook & Serve and Instant, and are asked to determine which type of modified starch is used in each product and why; 2) after discussing the D-value9 concept, the physical and chemical factors affecting the D-value, and the mechanisms of heat transfer, students are asked to arrange 4 cans of food (tomato sauce, pumpkin pack, peach halves in syrup, and chicken broth) from the can that requires the shortest D-value to the one that requires the longest D-value, at a fixed processing temperature; and 3) after discussing the different types of sensory tests, students perform an analytical difference test (using the triangle test) and affective preference and acceptance (using the nine point hedonic scale) tests using Pringles potato chips (original and either the reduced salt or fat versions). The students record their breakout session responses on a pre-printed Breakout Session card, which is available for them to pick up in the back of the lecture hall prior to the start of the lectures during which a breakout session will occur. Each breakout session usually last from 5 to 15 min and is worth up to 5 points.

Outside the classroom: Toward the end of the research article, Stadtfeld et al. (2019) strongly advocates for intervention outside the classroom “aimed at creating spaces and places for students to get to know each other, to develop positive relationships and group identities.” The purpose of creating such environments is to foster the emergence of densely knit social networks, which, as mentioned earlier, could prevent some students from failing in their academic career and help many others to achieve their full potential. As a result of Stadtfeld et al.’s research, ETH Zürich created a “Learning Spaces” project (Learning Spaces, 2017), where students were encouraged to contribute their ideas for learning and work spaces. Involving students in the creation of these “places and spaces” through the process of design thinking makes great sense, as they are the primary intended users.

GFF Architects have an intriguing webpage written by Jon Rollins (2019), entitled “Sticky Space: The Glue that Holds Your Academic Building Together,” that addresses the purpose and need for spaces and places where students can “shift from study to teamwork to relaxing between tasks, these spaces are places to see and be seen as well as places to work.” These “sticky” spaces attract students and encourage them to stay and collaborate and/or work individually. They provide opportunity for informal meetings and interdisciplinary connections. And, lastly, they mention that effective sticky spaces offer social benefits as well, building students’ sense of connection and community on campus.

Rollins (2019) goes on to discuss the three archetypal learning spaces that Futurist David Thornburg (1999) wrote about in his book entitled “Campfires in Cyberspace10” – the campfire, the cave, and the watering hole. The campfire is most analogous to a classroom setting or presentation space, a place where people gather to learn from “storytelling” by an expert. The cave is a place where students reflect on and process information individually – a personal “thinkspace” that is just as integral to the learning process as workspace. And last, but not least, the watering hole is a place where people can meet informally to discuss and dissect information, to share and compare perspectives and learn from each other. At the watering hole, each participant is both learner and teacher at the same time. The “watering hole” of Thornburg, the “sticky” spaces described by Rollins (2019), and “spaces and places” called for by Stadtfeld et al. (2019) all sounds like the perfect spot for the formation of densely knit networks needed by our students for academic success!

Now, where was I? Oh yes, study groups: I am a big fan of them, but as we have discussed, they just don't form out of thin air. They most often develop out of friendships, which form out of positive interactions. So the question seems to be, how do we help our students encounter positive interactions? We built them into everything we do—both inside and outside the classroom—to help them in their pursuit of academic success.