Instruction in Teaching Mathematics for Engineers Galina Nilsson and Elena Luchinskaya
3.5 The Role of the Course Leader
Having analysed the feedback from the SI leaders and the interviews with the course leader, we can see that both the student-learners and the SI leaders benefit from par-ticipating in SI sessions. However, at times, the preparation and running SI sessions put high demand on the SI leaders. Therefore, the role of the course leader becomes crucial in ensuring a successful implementation of the SI method. This argument is supported by the evidence that we have collected during our involvement with the SI starting from the SI pilot (2009–2010) where the same-peer model was used. There were regular weekly meetings between the course leader and the SI leaders. The SI leaders had constant support with the course content and session planning provided by the course leader. This close collaboration ensured a smooth running of the SI sessions. The student learners who participated in the 2009–2010 SI pilot valued this well-structured approach to the running of the SI sessions.
At the same time, from the SI literature (e.g., Birkett et al., 2017), we can see that it is a common practice that the SI leaders have regular meetings only with the SI administrators. This approach was implemented in the 2014–2015 SI project when the dedicated SI administrator was appointed. The SI leaders did not have regular meetings and discussion with the course leader but had regular meetings with the SI administrator instead.
In the beginning, in 2014–2015, we followed a widely adopted approach that stu-dents should lead the way that SI sessions are run. We did not set up the SI session topics in advance. Instead, we encouraged students to propose the topics they wanted to discuss. The SI leaders did not receive any advice from the course leader regarding what issues should be addressed, common misunderstandings or session planning.
This situation caused some confusion among the students and SI leaders alike. Two weeks into the SI support programme, we decided to introduce some control into the running of the SI sessions. Having discussed the situation with the SI administrator and the SI leaders, we developed a list of topics for each SI session and announced them in advance. The course leader provided the SI leaders with a plan for each ses-sion and suggested that the sesses-sions should include a summary of the topic, practical exercises, and discussion. This had a positive impact on the learning experience; the SI sessions were well attended – 61% of the student cohort attended more than two sessions. The collaboration between the course leader and the SI leaders is the
impor-tant link that ensures that objectives of the SI implementation will have been achieved.
Regular meetings with the SI administrator are not sufficient, as SI leaders themselves need support with the maths content and advice on how to explain maths to students.
Here we arrive at the importance of considering the didactic aspects of teaching maths when implementing the SI method. Maths is a difficult subject, and the SI lead-ers often need to explain key steps in solving problems or to answer questions students have or to explain why a certain approach is chosen. From our experience, we can see that the SI leaders need to develop some knowledge of maths didactics to achieve a positive outcome of the SI sessions. As the SI leader training does not normally cover subject-specific aspects of running SI sessions, the understanding of maths didactics by the SI leaders can only be achieved through the close collaboration with the course leader. It is important that the latter discusses and demonstrates the didactic aspects of teaching maths concepts and their applications in the regular meetings with the SI leaders.
The interviews with the course leader gave an interesting perspective on the re-lationship between the application of different SI models and outcomes. The course leader indicated that the objectives for using SI could shape the way the SI is imple-mented.
4. Discussion
In the course of our reflective journey, we looked at the changing role of subject-spe-cific SI in the learning process and the application of two different SI models in teach-ing maths. At first, we used the SI method to enhance student engagement with the learning process, develop their conceptual understanding, confidence, and skills.
Later we used SI to support the students enrolled on a high-risk course with a high maths content. We discussed the benefits the students and SI leaders alike have from participating in the SI sessions. Overall, we have collected and analysed a large volume of data that helped to shape our understanding of successful SI implementation.
Having used different SI models, we have gained a better understanding of their potential and challenges. This gives us an ability to develop flexible course designs with embedded SI elements which are tailored to meet certain learning objectives.
The same-peer SI model is more straight forward to set up than the near-peer SI model. It does not require substantial administrative support or centrally organised training for SI leaders, and it is easy to find times when the students are available. The number of sessions offered can also vary depending on students’ preparedness for the course. The course leader can identify the topics that are difficult for students to grasp and works closely with the SI leaders in designing and planning the sessions.
If the SI leaders are first-year students, they might not have enough experience of working with peers or might not be knowledgeable enough in detecting the un-derlying causes of why students have problems with understanding the material and may need to advance their skills of explaining course content to peers. That is why we
recommend the use of the same-peer SI model as a learning resource when teaching large classes and in achieving targeted improvements in student understanding of the subject; e.g., the course leader wants to focus on more challenging and stand-alone topics and problems. In this case, some scheduled tutorials or time during a tutorial can be allocated to an SI session. It is also possible that preparation for SI sessions can take a long time, and SI leaders could feel under pressure which, in turn, impacts the range of the same-peer SI model application.
The near-peer SI model is better suited than the same-peer model when support-ing students on high-risk courses or students with big gaps in their maths knowledge when they need this support for the whole duration of the course. At the same time, in the near-peer SI model, the SI leaders’ experience, skills, and confidence create an opportunity for them to become role models for the first-year students. The students commented in their feedback that they received a better view of the whole programme, developed a better understanding of what it means to study at the university level and became more motivated in and more responsible for their own studies after attending the SI sessions. This outcome is very important, because following a role model could have a positive impact on the learning experience. However, first-year students who act as SI leaders in the same-peer SI project are not able to act as role models as they are lacking the experience of studying at the university level.
The implementation of the near-peer SI model requires more advanced planning as well as dedicated administrative staff and organisational support for recruiting SI leaders, organising their training, and hiring administrative staff. The SI sessions should be run during the whole duration of the course as students need extra support with learning maths as they have big gaps in their knowledge. This demands a certain commitment from the SI leaders as they need to be involved in the SI sessions during this time. We also recommend timetabling SI sessions in advance to ensure that there are no clashes in year one and senior-year student timetables; this will have a positive effect on SI session attendance.
Having dealt with many SI leaders during our involvement with the SI method, we recommend overrecruiting SI leaders to account for unplanned situations that may arise. SI leaders may drop out from SI projects, sometimes without giving advanced notice. We experienced a situation where an enthusiastic student who was chosen as an SI leader unexpectedly refused to participate in the SI activity at short notice.
Although these situations do not happen often, we need to plan for them. Even when SI leaders do not show a lack of confidence and know the course material quite well, they could be under pressure with their own study or other commitments. In any case, it is key that the SI leaders are in close communication with the course leader or with the SI administrator to help mitigate and avoid unexpected situations and to ensure that the SI sessions run smoothly.
Since 2017, the near-peer SI method has been implemented on a wide range of courses at the University West. It has proven to be a successful and valuable experi-ence for the students. We believe that our reflection will be useful for other educators
who are thinking to embark on this interesting and challenging journey of using SI in their teaching.
References
Achat-Mendes, C., Anfuso, C., Johnson, C., & Shepler, B. (2020). Learning, leaders, and STEM skills: Adaptation of the supplemental instruction model to improve STEM educa-tion and build transferable skills in undergraduate courses and beyond. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 20(2), 14–23.
Arendale, D. R. (1994). Understanding the supplemental instruction model. New directions for teaching and learning, (60), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219946004
Arendale, D. R. (1998). Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of learning for first year stu-dents through supplemental instruction. National Association for Developmental Educa-tion and NaEduca-tional Center for the Study of the First Year Experience and Students in Tran-sition.
Birkett, M., Neff, L., & Deschamps, E. (2017). Low high school GPA: Another reason to try SI. Supplemental Instruction Journal, 3(1), 24–37.
Blanc, R. A., DeBuhr, L., & Martin, D. C. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: The effect of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981646 and https://doi.org/10.1080/002 21546.1983.11778153
Bowles, T. J., McCoy, A. C., & Bates, S. (2008). The effect of supplemental instruction on retention: A bivariate probit model. Journal of College Student Retention, 5(4), 431–437.
https://doi.org/10.2190/JG2Q-VNXR-K6GQ-N810
Buth, J. S., & Hasbun, J. E. (2017). Student led supplemental instruction to improve student success in classical mechanics. Georgia Journal of Science, 75(1), 98.
Cheng, S., & Johnston, S. (2014). Participation in peer-led academic support services: One ad-aptation of a natural sciences peer learning model to enrichment in the humanities. Jour-nal of Peer Learning, 7, 23–35.
Dawson, P., Van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). On the effectiveness of sup-plemental instruction: Systematic review of si and peer-assisted study sessions litera-ture between 2001 and 2010, Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 609–639. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654314540007
Dion, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2007). Peer-mediated programs to strengthen class-room instruction: Cooperative learning, reciprocal teaching, classwide peer tutor-ing, and peer-assisted learning strategies. In L. Florian (Ed.), Sage handbook of spe-cial education (pp. 450–459). London, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781848607989.n35
Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London, New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Fayowski, V., & MacMillan, P. D. (2008). An evaluation of the supplemental instruction pro-gramme in a first year calculus course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(7), 843–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390802054433 Giles, M., Zacharopoulou, A., & Condell, J. (2016). An overview of the benefits of peer
men-toring for PASS leaders. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 2, 1–14.
Hensen, Kari A., & Mack C. Shelley. 2003. The Impact of Supplemental Instruction: Results from a Large, Public, Midwestern University. Journal of College Student Development 44(2), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0015
Hurley, M., Jacobs, G., & Gilbert, M. (2006). The basic SI model. In M. E. Stone & G. Jacobs (Eds.), Supplemental instruction: New visions for empowering student learning (New Di-rections for Teaching and Learning No. 106, pp. 11–22). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tl.229
Jimenez, R. (2018). Supporting STEM college student success via traditional and online supple-mental instruction: A mixed-methods causal comparative study. New Jersey City Univer-sity.
Johnson, E., Robbins, B., & Loui, M. (2015). What do students experience as peer leaders of learning teams? Advances in Engineering Education, Summer 2015. https://advances.asee.
org/wp-content/uploads/vol04/issue04/Papers/AEE-16-Loui.pdf
Lithner, J. (2011). University mathematics students’ learning difficulties. Education Inqui-ry, 2(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v2i2.21981
Lozada, N. (2017). The benefits of supplemental instruction (SI) for the SI leader. SIJ, 3(1), 64–80.
Luchinskaya, E., & Kristiansson, L. (2013). Creativity and innovation in higher education: The use of project-based learning for mechanical engineering students’ competence development [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER 2013), Is-tanbul, Turkey.
Luchinskaya, D., Luchinskaya, E., Nilsson, G., & Kristiansson, L. (2010). Competence devel-opment and employability prospects: Using non-traditional teaching methods in a changing higher education environment [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Education-al Research (ECER 2010), Helsinki, Finland.
Luchinskaya, E., & Nilsson, G. (2007). Problem-based learning in university mathematics. A study of university students’ knowledge development in mathematics on a computer sci-ence program [In Swedish]. Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 3, 13–22.
Luchinskaya, E., & Nilsson, G. (2009). Using problem-based and peer-assisted learning in teaching mathematics to university students: Focus on competence development [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER 2009), Vienna, Austria.
Luchinskaya, E., & Nilsson, G. (2017). Embedded or ad-hoc peer mentoring? In search of best practice of supporting students studying mathematics [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER 2017), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Luchinskaya, E., & Nilsson, G. (2018). The role of peer leaders in supporting university stu-dents studying mathematics [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER 2018), Bolzano, Italy.
Luchinskaya, E., & Nilsson, G. (2019). Peer assisted learning: Evaluating peer leaders’ experi-ence in supporting students learning in maths [Paper presentation]. European Conferexperi-ence on Educational Research (ECER 2019), Hamburg, Germany.
Luchinskaya, E., Nilsson, G., & Kristiansson, L. (2015). Improving students’ maths knowledge through supplemental instruction and workshops [Paper presentation]. European Confer-ence on Educational Research (ECER 2015), Budapest, Hungary.
Luchinskaya, E., Nilsson, G., & Kristiansson, L. (2016). Enhancing students’ performance in maths through supplemental instruction [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER 2016), Dublin, Ireland.
Malm, J., Bryngfors, L., & Fredriksson, J. (2018). Impact of Supplemental Instruction on dropout and graduation rates: an example from 5-year engineering programs. Journal of Peer Learning, 11(1), 76–88.
Malm, J., Bryngfors, L., & Mörner, L. L. (2016). The potential of supplemental instruction in engineering education: Creating additional peer-guided learning opportunities in diffi-cult compulsory courses for first-year students. European Journal of Engineering Educa-tion, 41(5), 548–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1107872
Malm, J., Mörner, L. L., Bryngfors, L., Edman, G., & Gustafsson, L. (2012). Using supplemen-tal instruction to bridge the transition from secondary to tertiary education. Internation-al Journeducation. Internation-al of Education, 4(3), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v4i3.1826
Martin, D. C., & Arendale, D. R. (1992). Supplemental Instruction: Improving first-year stu-dent success in high risk courses. National Resource Center for The First Year Experience.
Martin, D. C., Arendale, D. R., & Hall, P. T. (1992). Use of supplemental instruction at an ur-ban high school. National Resource Center for The First Year Experience and Students in Transition.
McGuire, S. Y. (2006). The impact of supplemental instruction on teaching students how to learn. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 106, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.228 Mellander, E. (2017). Upper secondary curriculum reform in Sweden: A case study. https://roy
alsociety.org/-/media/policy/topics/education-skills/Broadening-the-curriculum/swe den-case-study.pdf.
Musah, R. A., & Ford, M. (2017). Peer-based supplemental instruction in STEM: Differenc-es in effectivenDifferenc-ess across transfer and nontransfer undergraduatDifferenc-es. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(3), 596–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1213341 Ning, N. K., & Downing, K. (2010). The impact of supplemental instruction on learning com-petence and academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (8), 921–939. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03075070903390786
Ogden, P., Thompson, D., Russell, A., & Simons, C. (2003). Supplemental instruction: Short-and long-term impact. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 2.
Parkinson, M. (2009). The effect of peer assisted learning support (PALS) on performance in mathematics and chemistry. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903301784
Peterfreund, A. R., Rath, K. A., Xenos, S. P., & Bayliss, F. (2008). The impact of supplemental instruction on students in STEM courses: Results from San Francisco State University.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 9(4), 487–503. https://
doi.org/10.2190/CS.9.4.e
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (2013). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence:
An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. London: Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315009674
Podolsky, T. (2018). Building leadership skills: A small cohort study of the associated benefits of being an SI leader. Supplemental Instruction Journal, 3(1), 6–23.
Power, C., & Dunphy, K. (2010). Peer facilitated learning in mathematics for engineering: A case study from an Australian university. Engineering Education, 5(1), 75–84. https://doi.
org/10.11120/ened.2010.05010075
Rogers, C. (2012). Client centred therapy (new ed.). London: Hachette UK.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9034-5 Skalicky, J., & Caney, A. (2010). PASS student leader and mentor roles: A tertiary leadership
pathway. Journal of Peer Learning, 3(1), 24–37.
Skoglund, K., Wall, T.J., & Kiene, D. (2018). Impact of supplemental instruction participation on college freshman retention. Learning Assistance Review, 23(1), 115–135.
Spedding, J., Hawkes, A. J., & Burgess, M. (2017). Peer assisted study sessions and student performance: The role of academic engagement, student identity, and statistics self-effica-cy. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16 (1), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315009674 Spaniol-Matthews, P., Letourneau, L., & Rice, E. (2016). The impact of online supplemental
instruction on 19 academic performance and persistence in undergraduate STEM Cours-es. The Journal of Supplemental Instruction, 2(1), 19–32.
Tai, J., Molloy, E., Haines, T., & Canny, B. (2016). Same-level peer-assisted learning in medi-cal clinimedi-cal placements: A narrative systematic review. Medimedi-cal Education, 50(4), 469–484.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315009674
Tennyson, M. F., Casteele, J., & Morena, A. R. P. (2018). A study of peer-assisted learning in introductory programming courses. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 33(5), 55–62.
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172
Vygotsky, L. (1935/1978). Interaction between learning and development. In L. Vygotsky, Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.