Supplemental Instruction (SI) is prominent and well-researched postsecondary academic support program. For 50 years, the model has been consistently evaluated based on data collected by campus programs. Practitioners and education researchers have used a variety of methods to determine whether SI is effective, including analysis of final course grades, course completion, and persistence rates. While practitioners’ expertise is often documented in unpublished reports available only to campus stakeholders, a growing body of publications, conference presentations, and publicly accessible resources contributes to the rich evidence that contributes to the consensus that SI does work.
In 1995 the US Department of Education validated three claims about the effectiveness of SI:
- “Students participating in SI within the targeted high-risk courses earn higher mean final course grades than students who do not participate in SI. This finding is still true when analyses control for ethnicity and prior academic achievement.
- Despite ethnicity and prior academic achievement, students participating in SI within targeted high-risk courses succeed at a higher rate (withdraw at a lower rate and receive a lower percentage of fail final course grades) than those who do not participate in SI.
- Students participating in SI persist at the institution (reenroll and graduate) at higher rates than students who do not participate in SI” (Lang, 1995)
These claims are based on data from the University of Missouri, Kansas City (Blank, DeBuhr, & Martin, 2014) UMKC initially published a longitudinal study on the effectiveness of their campus program, but once they established an accreditation scheme for quality assurance in American SI programs, they started examining these claims across a much larger, aggregated data set. The evidence consistently shows that students who attend SI sessions have better grades and lower withdrawal rates, and that the effect size is larger for students who attend more sessions in a semester (CITATION NEEDED). Canadian SI program data is not aggregated across institutions, but unpublished data from the University of Guelph, home of the Canadian National Centre for SI, also illustrates that SI attendees do better in courses than non-attendees.
In a 2014 systematic review, Dawson et al. identify multiple elements that have been discussed in the literature regarding the effectiveness of SI for attending students. The systematic review takes a broader perspective on effectiveness to include qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence collected though various research methods, addressing the following factors:
- Final course grades
- Course Completion
- Assessment Tasks Performance
- The Question of Self-Selection and Effectiveness
- Effectiveness for Traditionally Underrepresented Student Populations
- Differential Effects of SI on Male and Female Students
- Effectiveness Beyond the Course in Which SI Was Implemented
- Impact on Academic Skill Development
- Effect on General Satisfaction or Well-Being
- Enhanced Social Relationships
- Effectiveness in Engagement
This list suggests compelling evidence that Supplemental Instruction is not only an effective academic support, but also has a real impact on student well-being, social relationships, and overall engagement in their post-secondary institution. The collaborative learning environment in an SI session allows students to meet other like-minded peers and form lasting bonds. The opportunity to learn in an alternative, peer-to-peer environment can create a deeper connection between students and their studies, increasing student success and retention.
Supplemental Instruction programs in Canada are diverse and innovative, and Canadian practitioners and researchers contribute to the body of research about why SI works. There is a strong, growing community of practice in Canada, as demonstrated by the high participation rate of Canadians at the 2022 International SI Conference in Toronto. The Canadian National Centre for SI continues to promote existing literature and encourage Canadians to share their knowledge and innovations with the global community.
References
Blanc, R., DeBuhr L., & Martin, D. (1983). Breaking the Attrition Cycle: The Effects of Supplemental Instruction on Undergraduate Performance and Attrition. The Journal of Higher Education (Columbus), 54, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981646
Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). On the Effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction: A Systematic Review of Supplemental Instruction and Peer-Assisted Study Sessions Literature Between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 609–639. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314540007
Lang, G. (1995). Supplemental Instruction (SI): Improving Student Performance and Reducing Attrition. Educational Programs that Work. (21st ed., p. 14-4). National Dissemination Association, Sopris West.