Supplemental Instruction (SI) started as a local initiative at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, to deal with low grades and student attrition, however it was quickly established that SI was of benefit to all students. The approach usually involves regularly scheduled, voluntary small-group, collaborative study sessions, organised outside normal classes. Each session addresses the students’ particular needs and is facilitated by a trained peer who has previously taken the course. The sessions use collaborative activities to activate peer learning. One of the main ideas underpinning SI is that it is the courses rather than students that need help. Ideally SI interventions are advertised directly at the start of a traditionally challenging course and are offered immediately to everyone rather than being recommended for some based on intermediate grades or diagnostic tests. In this way, SI cannot be associated with remedial help which has been associated with negative self-image and dropout.
One of the few criticisms levelled at SI has been that studies have tended to be small-scale, local initiatives that fail to follow student learning outcomes beyond the course itself. Moreover, it is of course difficult to control for self-selection into these voluntary SI programs (Dawson et al. 2014). A recent study published in the Journal of Experimental Education, endeavours to dispel any doubts there might be about the effectiveness of the approach, by following students across two semesters and adopting a propensity score analysis to deal with the thorny issue of self-selection.
The study involved 12,641 observations in 21 different courses across 2 semesters. Overall, SI participation was found to lead to higher course grades and retention across both semesters. The strongest relationships were often observed for underrepresented minority students and for students who attended at least five SI sessions. The results were the same irrespective of gender or high school grades. Since all students benefitted from SI, the authors suggest that this challenges the notion that academic support needs to be tailored to those students who are under-prepared for university studies.
Comment: Even though SI is not a new idea, it still continues to grow. The European Centre for SI-PASS based at Lund University is one of five centres around the world that organises initial SI-PASS supervisor training for those who would like to introduce SI into their courses.
Here at Stockholm University, SI has been used for almost ten years in the Departments of Physics and Philosophy. Recently, the number of departments using SI at Stockholm University has increased dramatically, in part due to the Centre for the Advancement of University Teaching receiving funding from the Swedish Council for Higher Education for the SILA project that combined SI with learning analytics. At the time of writing 13 departments at Stockholm University are currently using SI in at least one of their courses. In Stockholm, SI sessions can be either face-to-face or online. Experience suggests that the backing of course teachers in advertising and emphasising the value of SI is crucial and that SI sessions need to be carefully scheduled in relation to other course activities. The Centre for the Advancement of University Teaching employs an SI coordinator, Sama Agahi, who organises regular training for students who run SI sessions. If you have any questions about SI feel free to contact Sama.
More about SI at Stockholm University in Swedish
More about SI at Stockholm University in English
Text: John Airey, Department of Teaching and Learning
Keywords: Supplemental instruction, Peer-assisted study sessions, Student retention, Peer-assisted learning, Academic achievement, Undergraduate learning.
