Annah Bengesai Suri Moodley Vino Paideya Veena Singaram

Overview The presentation will seek to answer the following questions What is SI? Does it work? Why does it work? Way forward

Is there a need for academic development?

National Imperatives for Higher Education Increase graduation rates to more than 25% by How can we contribute towards this imperative?

History of SI  1963 (University of Kansas City) - Small Private University - Law, Music, Dentistry, Pharmacy - Reached to Urban Centres = UMKC  University of Missouri-Kansas City - Public Institution - No longer top 20% of High School graduates - Culturally & Academically diverse - Attrition rate from 20% - 45%  Survey of Academic Assistance Programmes

History of SI  Faculty wanted - Programme that did not lower standard - No Extra work - Not Remedial - Promoted independent learning

What is SI? A peer-assisted learning programme

What is SI? Targets ‘high-risk’ courses and not ‘high-risk’ students Two-tiered – course content and ‘how to learn’ SO the focus in SI is on learning rather than teaching.

Theoretical foundations Vygotsky Learning as collaboration, a product of social interaction Zone of proximal development Scaffolding

Zone of Proximal Development

Lave and Wenger’s situated learning- learning is a negotiated outcome resulting from interactions between students and or the more experienced academics. Learning takes place through participation in a community of practice

Social interactions

Biggs’ Meta-learning awareness of [own] learning and control over the strategy selection and deployment (Biggs, 1985)

Principles of SI Derived Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students Encourages active learning Provides a space where students can freely engage in their learning Combines the what (content) and the how to learn (study methods)

Other principles Voluntary Non remedial Pro-active- starts as soon as lectures start

Implementation of SI at UKZN Formal learning space Faculty approved and supported Learning spaces encourage communal arrangements and collaborative learning SI leaders- senior or postgraduate students Recruited by the SI supervisor and or Faculty members based on course competency and interpersonal skills

Implementation Re-attend lectures and consult with the lecturer Two day training for SI leaders on SI principles and facilitation techniques

Goals of the SI program Improve student performance Improve learning skills - Thinking and reasoning - Responsibility - Reflection Create independent learners

What SI is not Spoon feeding Re-lecturing Criticising the lecturer The facilitator dominating the session The facilitator providing all the answers

Overview Background to the study at UKZN Arendale(2002); Zerger (2006) Aims Literature Methodology Results

Background Parallels (UKZN and UMKC) Arendale (2002); Martin (); Zerger et al. (2006) SA context Hence SI implemented

What is the effect of SI on: Pass rates quality of passes – Retention – Projected time to graduation Progression Throughput – Students’ academic standing

Literature Pass rates: Arendale (2001); Malm, Bryngfors and Mörner (2011); ) McCarthy, Smuts and Cosser (1997); Pascarella and Terenzini (2005).

Retention: Blanc, deBuhr & Martin (1983); Bowles, McCoy and Bates (2008); Doty (2003); Pascarella & Terenzini (2005); Tinto (2005).

Methodology Sought to determine effect of SI on: pass rates Retention Progression Throughput Academic standing Civil engineering 2009 cohort (first entry) was traced over 3 semesters Students categorised: Regular SI participants (SI > 5) Inconsistent SI participants (SI < 5) Students who did not participate (No SI)

Pass rates 2009 data for civil engineering modules: Fluids 1 and Structural design 1(SD1) ModuleSI AttendancePass %Fail %Supp % Fluids 1SI >= SI < No SI8749 SD1SI >= SI < No SI335017

Quality of pass Charts for Mean. Median, mode for SD1 and Fluids 1 respectively

SD1 Pass rate FL157%61% 52%81%

2009 Civil engineering progression Current year of study 2009 SD1Exclud ed/ droppe d 2 nd year 2 nd & 3 rd year 3 rd year 3 rd and 4 th year 4 th year SI (>=5) (36) 3 %0 %3 %16 %0 %78 % SI (1 <= n<5) (9) 11 %0 % 22 %11 %56 % Non-SI (11) 18 % 9 %18 %0 %37 %

Robot system

Academic standing – Fluids 1 Status No SISI (0< x < 5)SI (>=5) Good74 %66 %92 % Risk4 %16 %8 % Under17 %9 %0 % Excl4 %9 %0 %

Mark distributionNo SI 0<x<5x >=5 0<x< <x< <x< <x< <x< <x< <x< <x<

Fluids 2No SIFL1 0<x<55<=x<=15 mean med mode Mark distribution 0<x< <x< <x< <x< <x< <x< <x< <x<100246

Conclusion Purpose of the study : to determine the effect of SI on pass rates, retention, progression, throughput and academic standing. In this study student with regular SI attendance show improved: Pass rates Retention Progression Throughput and academic standing