1. Evaluating the Impact of Peer Programmes on Student Learning and Academic Attainment – A Cross-Discipline Approach
Presenters: Amanda Pocklington, Bella Magner & Ferdinand Boucher
Project research team: Tim Fawcett, David MacDonald, Ellis Langley & Jonny Gurr

2. Project Background - Literature
Participation in peer-learning programmes is associated with: higher mean grades; lower failure and withdrawal rates and higher retention and graduation rates. However, the methodology used in many studies has been heterogenous (Dawson et al., 2014)
Many studies reviewed use a quasi-experimental design and have required qualitative synthesis due to a lack of definition in qualifying what the ‘treatment’ of peer-learning is (Dawson et al., 2014; Keenan, 2014; Stigmar, 2016; Asgari & Carter, 2016)
Some quantitative research has been conducted, however this has mainly been on small samples with inadequate methodology e.g., no randomization of groups (Asgari & Carter, 2016) or has only been on specific subjects with no comparison groups in other disciplines (Kim et al., 2013)

3. Methodology – Study Design
Two Peer-Programmes at The University of Exeter were evaluated, which ran in the Colleges of Medicine & Health and Life & Environmental Sciences during Term 2
In addition, a pilot study in the Medical school was conducted in Term 1 to test the study design
All studies followed the same design, consisting of four different protocols, which participant groups were randomly assigned to.

4. Methodology – Study Design
Weekly pre- and post-session quizzes to evaluate participant learning gain
Completed by all participants
10 MCQ questions delivered online using Qualtrics software
1min to attempt each question
Confidence rating included with each question
Answers provided following completion of study
David
screengrab showing MCQ quiz and confidence bar.

5. Methodology - Recruitment
Recruitment of Peer Impact Mentors:
Existing Peer Mentors were eligible to join the project as Peer Impact Mentors
Underwent project-specific training
Received remuneration
Recruitment of student participants:
Open to all Year 1 students in respective programmes
Project information sessions timetabled where participant sign-up forms were circulated
£10 voucher offered to participants completing the study

6. * * Results: MCQ performance
Attending the introductory session increased the proportion of correct answers, but this did not reach significance (p = 0.079) * *
Attending the review session led to a significant improvement in the proportion of correct answers (p = 0.023*)

7. * ** ** Results: confidence
Attending the introductory session led to a significant increase in self-reported confidence (p = 0.047*) * ** **
Attending the review session led to a significant increase in self-reported confidence (p = 0.007**)

8. * Results: response speed
Attending the introductory session led to significantly quicker responses (p = 0.015*) *
Attending the review session had no effect on response speed

9. “They could share common mistakes made by themselves and their peers”
Evaluation Survey Statements
“They could share common mistakes made by themselves and their peers”
“Comfortable environment where it feels easier to ask questions to clarify misunderstandings, PALS are very encouraging and approachable ”
Ferdinand & Bella
“explanations were made for/by students so they know how to effectively convey information to their audience”

10. Review sessions led to significant improvement in MCQ performance
Conclusions
Review sessions led to significant improvement in MCQ performance
Introductory and review sessions led to a significant increase in self reported confidence – individually & combined
Introductory session led to significantly faster response times
Ferdinand and Bella

11. Comments
Students that participate in peer programmes may have different qualities to those who do not; e.g. higher motivation and engagement in their studies
Participant attrition was high across all studies. Conflicting demands on student time (e.g. coursework submissions during final weeks of Term 2) may have contributed to this
The study design of delivering student-led introductory and review sessions each week was time intensive, but was valued by participating students
Could this peer support programme operate without financial incentives for Peer Mentors?
Ferdinand and Bella

12. Any questions?

13. References
(1) Dawson P, van der Meer J, Skalicky J, Cowley K. On the effectiveness of supplemental instruction: A systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and Review of Educational Research Dec;84(4):
(2) Keenan C. Mapping student-led peer learning in the UK. York: Higher Education Academy Nov.
(3) Martin Stigmar. Peer-to-peer Teaching in Higher Education: A Critical Literature Review, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning. 2014; 24:2,  , DOI:  /
(4) Asgari S and Carter Jr F. Peer mentors can improve academic performance: A quasi-experimental study of peer mentorship in introductory courses. Teaching of Psychology Apr;43(2):131-5.
(5) Kim SC, Oliveri D, Riingen M, Taylor B, Rankin L. Randomized controlled trial of graduate-to- undergraduate student mentoring program. Journal of Professional Nursing Nov 1;29(6):e43-9.
(6) Ody, M. and Carey, W. Peer Education. In: E. Dunne and D. Owens (eds). The Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher Education. Bingley. Emerald Publishing

14. gave more correct answers
Results—Psychology study
In the post-MCQ test, students who had attended the introductory session …
gave more correct answers
(P = 0.041)
answered more quickly
(P < 0.001)
had higher confidence
(P = 0.006)
Attending the review session also led to higher confidence (P = 0.008), but did not affect answering speed or correctness

15. Results—Medical Sciences study
Attending the introductory session did not affect confidence, answering speed or correctness
Attending the review session led to higher confidence (P = 0.027), but did not affect answering speed or correctness