Skip to content Skip to navigation

Peer Instruction Discussion Notes - Metro Atlanta Regional Meeting

Peer instruction was one of three shared areas of interest for participants at the Metro Atlanta CCG Regional Meeting held at Atlanta Metropolitan State College on April 4, 2016. Brief notes from the breakout conversation on this issue at the meeting follow:

Key Observations and Concerns

  • How do peer instructors support student meta cognition and success
  • There is a need to foster clear, open, frequent communication between faculty, staff and students to strengthen peer work
  • Challenging logistics for implementation (getting the right group at the right time in the right space)

Discussion Notes

  • Faculty confidence and instructional quality
    • It was observed that a tutoring center with student tutors were underutilized because the some faculty (specifically STEM department head and English department faculty) were not sending students because the tutors were not teaching in the way that the faculty wanted. Of note, most who did send students were pleased with the outcomes, but some were not.
    • A proposed resolution is to have the faculty create tutoring portfolios that outline how they teach material and provide tutors the resources for specific courses/instructors.  This would help to make tutoring more consistent across tutors.  
    • Professors need to be linked with the peer tutor so the tutor knows how to present the material and that the faculty has confidence in the tutors and have buy in.  
    • Generally, tutors are subject specific and are recommended by the faculty 
    • Embedded peer instruction as well as tutors need the buy-in from faculty.  
    • Supplemental instruction gets to the issue of consistency, because the peer instructors attend the course with the students they serve and that helps to have the students teach in the way the instructor does.
    • Biggest challenge is getting the buy in from the stakeholders and then connecting the stakeholders.  
    • It is critically important to close the loop between partners (instructors, advisors, and tutors) to improving usage.  
    • Peer instructors help guide students to answers without giving them the information; Tutoring exists for students who need more specific instruction and support; but SI is to help students master the material.
    • Experience can be hit or miss at tutoring centers in terms of who is present and what is available.  Work on STEM support center to help students get good direction regardless of when they arrive.  Aligning office hours with center hours could help to place faculty on site when peer instructors are also present to provide additional support.
  • Training
    • Training for the peer instructors is built locally, but not in a vacuum. At Tech training utilized resources from University of Missouri in Kansas City along with Center for Teaching and Learning.  Across campuses, faculty in discipline help with the structure and the training.  
    • Peer Instructors take courses in leadership and such that is also an asset.
    • Training is a part of the process; it is a constant cycle.  Trainers are staff generally
    • Training for students is non-credit bearing but earns a certificate
    •  
  • Usage, efficiency and effectiveness
    • An emerging need is to research the type of topics and the courses that students are coming in for in order to adjust the program to meet student/faculty needs
    • Conduct surveys about student usage, faculty recommendation for use
    • Many campuses do not have common syllabi for the courses, which limits the extension of peer instruction.
    • Right before an exam, peer sessions run for longer periods.  
    • Campus focuses on supplemental instruction for history/accounting/and American government b/c these are the high DFW classes.  A big challenge is writing--students who may be academically capable but are not fully capable in writing.  
    • Is there a difference in the students who participate in peer instructional sessions in terms of commuters vs. residential
    • Challenges in measuring who counts as a student receiving SI? How do you determine outcome metrics for a student attending the sections.  How do you count a student who receives SI only twice a term? are they an SI student.  
    • Do campuses do any research on the effect of SI? What level of treatment is effective? And how do we measure its value? 
    • Are there quantitative markers for success for SI? 
    • Academic advisors may or may not capture the usage data for students who particpate in supplemental instruction.  
    • Gordon logs the topics that students seek support for.  Tech has specific rooms for each topic, so they don't have an issue with capturing their data.
    • West merged tracking with advising, which means when a student signs up for an advising session, it is captured there
  • Logistics & practices
    • Peer instructors do the work for the leadership opportunities and letters of recommendation; which may help to keep the wage rate down. Competing for higher caliber students at some campuses may make the pay rate higher.
    • Most peer instructors are undergraduate; graduate level are more along the line of TAs
    • Supplemental instruction--standard practice for the peers to take the course and have a relationship with the faculty.
    • Chemistry at UWG has done this for years and has had success for years.  
    • Decentralizing tutoring--would this help to improve participation instead of having students find them (like stopping folks in a hallway and referring them to the center if they need support).
    • What scale are we looking at? How many tutors are there? There is a tremendous amount of variability of use.  GSU may have 100 student tutors.  
    • Using to use a technology solution to track and identify student usage (Tutor track vs. grades first vs. local solutions).  At Tech they have to card swipe to do everything so they are trained to log in tutoring; the same is true at West Georgia).  This is not the case at GSU or Gordon. 
    • CRM technology can track participation, but the system may not be fully integrated.
    • Faculty at AMSC generate an early alert for advising, who communicate with the students and evaluate the response.  Students may be sent to the center for academic success, but there is no tracking record for students that is shared.
    • Supplemental instruction takes place in classrooms, generally, but are scheduled after classrooms, which can make it hard to ensure availability.  Some campuses are running out of space for SI or are at capacity.  The solution may be to change schedules (placing them at night for adult learners).
    • Dedicated writing center at West Georgia supplements this peer instruction.
    • There is a challenge with establishing feedback loops from peer instructors and instructors, although this may be localized between specific instructors and peer instructors.  Ideally there is a relationship between faculty and peer instructor that supports this conversation, but this may not exchange across instructors.