Page 1 of 13 A SSESSING E FFECTIVENESS OF P EER A SSISTANCE P ROGRAMMING Sally Lipsky, Ph.D., Peer Assistance Coordinator ( sal@iup.edu ) Center for Learning Enhancement, Developmental Studies Department Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA 15705 U.S.A. www.iup.edu/devstudies At Indiana University of Pennsylvania peer assistance consists of Supplemental Instruction and Walk-In Tutoring. Both target high-risk freshman-level courses, that is, courses with “D/F/W” rates of 30% and higher. Effectiveness of these academic support models is measured accordingly: I. Student Participants ( undergraduate students using the programs ). Outcomes are reported for participation rates, final course grades, success rates as measured by % of D/F/W’s, as well as annual satisfaction surveys sent via e-mail. II. Peer Educators ( undergraduate, paraprofessionals leading the sessions ). Outcomes are measured according to objectives set forth in the 1-credit training course, which all must successfully complete before starting their paid positions. Also, outcomes are reported for end-of-term surveys and focus groups, which produce qualitative information regarding the academic, personal/social, and career effect of peer educators’ work experiences. III. The Institution ( Indiana University of Pennsylvania ). Outcomes are reported according to student persistence and revenue saved by the peer assistance programs. Since students’ participation results in an approximate 10% higher persistence rate, peer assistance is quite cost-effective for the institution. Lipsky, S. A. Assessing Efgectiveness of Peer Assistance Programming . 20 th International Conference on The First-Year Experience, Kona, Hawaii, July 2007.
Page 2 of 13 Student Participants : Annual Satisfaction Survey Student Participants WALK-IN PEER ASSISTANCE WALK-IN PEER ASSISTANCE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION * E-mailed to 181 students attending 2 or more * E-mailed to 347 students attending 3 or more times ; 27 responded — an overall response rate times ; 109 responded — an overall response of 15% . rate of 31% . My participation helped me learn course My participation helped me complete assignments & learn course content . content . A. Yes 75% C. No 3% A. Yes 85% C. No 4% B. Somewhat 22% D. Not sure 0% B. Somewhat 11% D. Not sure 0% My participation helped me to develop My participation helped me develop more efgective learning strategies & study skills. efgective learning strategies & study skills . A. Yes 46% C. No 6% A. Yes 70% C. No 4% B. Somewhat 48% D. Not sure 1% B. Somewhat 26% D. Not sure 0% The leader was prepared and organized. The leader responded to my questions & A. Yes 84% C. No 3% needs . B. Somewhat 13% D. Not sure 0% A. Yes 96% C. No 0% B. Somewhat 4% D. Not sure 0% The leader incorporated active participation by all students. Most valuable features? A. Yes 79% C. No 3% – Helpful peer educators. B. Somewhat 17% D. Not sure 1% – Flexible, able to come and go as Most valuable features of SI? needed. – Worksheets, practice exams, study Suggestions do you have for improving? guides. – More tutors, more times. – Increased understanding of course material. * Results for fall term 2006. Suggestions for improving? – More time, sessions, individual help. Lipsky, S. A. Assessing Efgectiveness of Peer Assistance Programming . 20 th International Conference on The First-Year Experience, Kona, Hawaii, July 2007.
Student Participants : Participation Rates, Final Course Grades, and Success Student Participants Rates Supplemental Instruction Walk-In Assistance Supplemental Instruction Walk-In Assistance Ofgered in 29 high-risk* natural science Ofgered for lower-level, high-risk* courses course sections for 2006-7 . with many sections . Mean fjnal course grade for participating students (1 or more times) was 2.08 vs. 1.55 Approximately 16% of students in targeted for non-participants. courses participated. This .53 mean grade difgerence exceeds the Participants’ mean fjnal course grade was national mean of .29 for 4-yr. public 1.96 vs. 1.69 for non-participants, a universities . difgerence of .27. Participants averaged 7 sessions per term. Participants averaged 3 sessions per term. Participants’ mean D/F/W rate* was 32% vs. Participants’ mean D/F/W rate* was 34% vs. 48% for non-participants, a difgerence of 47% for non-participants, a difgerence of 16%. 13%. Total contact hours = 6,093 . Total contact hours = 1,887 . ( 1,265 fall; 622 spring) Average contacts per week = 218 . Average contacts per week = 93 fall; 48 Results reported for academic year 2006- spring. 7.
Reporting Outcomes for Student Participants Reporting Outcomes for Student Participants P ARTICIPATION P ARTICIPATION R R ATES ATES Participation rate for students in courses with peer assistance . (Contrast with national data for 2-yr./ 4-yr. • institutions.) Mean number of sessions participants attended (refer to results of participation study). • Total student contacts for peer assistance at your institution. Can you chart growth rates? • M EAN F INAL G RADES M EAN F INAL G RADES Difference in mean final course grades : participants vs. non-participants. • Are participants’ mean final course grades at or above the 2.0 cut-off for good academic standing ? • Note criteria for identifying participants : students attending 1 or more times during the term, 3 or more times, or • other. Contrast your mean to national mean for 2-yr./ 4-yr. private or public institutions . • D/F/W R ATES D/F/W R * As an academic retention model, peer assistance targets high-risk high-risk , introductory-level courses— ATES courses in which 30% or more students earn D ’s, F ’s , or withdraw. High D/F/W rates increase costs for students and the institution since students repeat courses (filling valuable seats), become increasingly frustrated and less satisfied, and are more likely to leave. As a result, the institution expends more money to recruit new students as replacements. Peer assistance intervenes in this costly cycle via peer-led sessions focusing on how to learn course content. Thus, a measure of success of peer assistance is a reduction in D/F/W’s for historically difficult courses. D/F/W rate for participants vs. non-participants . • Overall rate for peer assistance courses. Has it fallen below the 30% standard for high-risk courses? •
Student Participants : Incoming Characteristics Student Participants One common assumption is that students who choose to participate in SI are academically stronger than students choosing not to participate. However, previous research has demonstrated that this is not the case—both SI participants and non-participants tend to possess similar incoming characteristics. For the 2006 admit year , I examined mean SAT scores for beginning freshmen in the same major and college — Nursing/Allied Health — at IUP . Hypothesis: There is no difgerence in academic ability, as measured by SAT total scores, between freshmen choosing to participate in SI and freshmen choosing not to participate in SI for Biol 105: Cell Biology. Results: No statistical difgerence in SAT scores was revealed between the two groups. However, mean SAT scores for freshmen choosing not to participate in SI was 24 points higher than for the participants . NO , did not YES , attended SI * F ALL 2006 attend SI for Biol for Biol 105 Freshman Nursing & 105 Allied Health majors n = 83 n = 64 Mean SAT total score 998 974 difgerence mean SAT 24 favoring non-participants scores t-value (2-tailed) .43 – not signifjcant at .05 level Mean fjnal grade Biol 1.43 1.88 105 difgerence mean fjnal .45 favoring SI participants grades *Averaged 8.6 sessions during fall term .
Note: The freshmen attending SI had lower entering SAT scores yet earned higher fjnal grades in Cell Biology, underscoring the positive afgect of peer-led SI sessions, especially when students participate regularly as did these freshman participants.
Peer Educators : Peer Educators : Outcomes measured according to Objectives for 1-credit Training Course R OLE OF THE P EER E DUCATOR : T HEORY , P RACTICE , & A SSESSMENT R OLE OF THE P EER E DUCATOR : T HEORY , P RACTICE , & A SSESSMENT COURSE OBJECTIVES COURSE OBJECTIVES : Students will be able to: Describe purposes & impacts of peer educator roles. • Observe & summarize characteristics of effective peer-led sessions. • Understand elements of facilitative helping & collaborative learning. • Demonstrate effective problem solving skills. • Demonstrate knowledge of appropriate resources for referring peers. • Demonstrate understanding of how to apply college learning strategies. • Assess performances of peer educators. • Relate effective practices to student success outcomes. • EVALUATION METHODS EVALUATION METHODS Actively participate in class activities (discussions, simulated sessions, role-playing) & complete all assignments. 25% of fjnal grade Observe & critique four peer-led sessions. 50% of grade Lead & critique a trial session. 25% of grade
Recommend
More recommend
