1

Running head: SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND

ACCESSIBILITY

A Survey of Supplemental Instruction and Accessibility:

Universal Design for Learning and Supplemental Instruction in Problematic Courses

Keith Williams
 2
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY

Abstract

The transition for students from post-primary to higher education presents a host of problems for

students, faculty, staff, and administration alike. Given these circumstances, any way by which

the student experience can be improved, by offering support, increasing skills, and enhancing

community and collaboration, is important. This research project surveys the Supplemental

Instruction (SI) program at a medium-to-large public university in New England. The SI program

is evaluated, in part, by the guidelines of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). The analysis

highlights a number of topics of interest: the strengths and weaknesses of the current SI program,

areas of limitation and potential utility for the SI program in the future, as well as the degree to

which it can assist in working within the UDL framework toward a universally accessible

curriculum. While the results point toward a certain degree of success in the implementation of

the UDL guidelines and supporting students, it remains clear that more research is needed.
 3
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY

1. Reflection

In my work with an academic support center for a higher education institution in the

northeastern United States, particularly in working to provide academic assistance to

undergraduate students, it is impossible to avoid some critical patterns. Certain courses cause

more trouble than others. I find these particular courses similar in subject matter, in their design,

and in their execution. Further, the rates of success, and of failure, are consistent among them.

These courses are largely, though not exclusively, in the natural sciences, such as chemistry,

biology, and anatomy.

By engaging in networking with colleagues both within and from without my institution,

I find that this perspective is not unique to me. I find many others thinking all the same things,

from faculty and staff across many institutions. Courses from the sciences, mathematics, and

social sciences seem to prove more difficult for students than other courses. Students tend to

spend more time and energy studying, only to receive lower grades than other introductory

classes. These courses are easy to identify from speaking with students; their reputations precede

them around campus.

Whether from the perspective of an administration looking to maximize retention rates,

from the perspective of a student hoping to succeed in one of these courses, or from my own

perspective of an academic support professional hoping to help students, it seems there needs to

be some change.

These very reasons have inspired many institutions of higher learning, my employer

included, to consider a variety of strategies for assisting students. Most relevant to my research

are Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and the Supplemental Instruction (SI) model. I want to

explore the SI program further, particularly with how it is currently assisting students in these
 4
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
circumstances, and how might it possibly assist students in these or similar circumstances, while

using UDL principles to serve as a reference. With the two together, my hope is to establish an

ultimate goal to achieve, universal accessibility, and to study a potential method to reach, at least

in part, that same goal.

2. Literature review

2.1 Entering Higher Education

Students entering higher education after high school face immensely complicated and

interconnected challenges. These run the entire spectrum of lifes obstacles. Even accounting for

the ever-present concern of inadequate preparation in our K-12 education (Conley, 2007), the

academic difficulty posed by some first-year and second-year courses proves insurmountable for

most. While courses from all disciplines pose their own unique challenges to new learners, the

more quantitative courses seem to be distinct in this aspect. It is difficult to discuss this matter

concretely, as no wide-ranging research of grade comparison by discipline in the US exists. One

survey, which tracked Advanced Placement students in high school during their transition to

higher education, showed that 85 percent of those students received As or Bs in college in

English classes, while only 54 percent of those students made As or Bs in math classes (Epstein,

2006). In discussing quantitative courses in the context of this research, the broad spectrum of

select social sciences, mathematics, and sciences are included, such as chemistry, biology,

physics, anatomy, calculus, statistics, and economics.

Several factors relate to the difficulty of the courses found in the social sciences,

mathematics, and sciences. These fields havent experienced the grade inflation that is found in

the non-science courses; these courses are often built on the concept that they are thought to

serve the community by weeding out the undeserving; and these courses are also frequently
 5
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
designed, constructed, and executed as large and impersonal (Epstein, 2006). In addition,

students face an incredibly rapid pace of instruction, an absence of any sense of community, a

dependence on conventional lecture as a means of distributing information and understanding,

and notoriously difficult examinations (Tobias, 1992). Also, many of these courses form popular

pre-requisites in programs which lead to various prestigious careers including, but not limited to

doctor, nurse, or veterinarian; engineer of any stripe; any of the numerous vocations in finance or

banking; or various scientists, such as field biologist or laboratory chemist. In addition to all of

the reasons listed above about why these kinds of courses may prove difficult, students face the

stress of succeeding or potentially derailing all of their dreams and future plans. For all these

reasons, courses in the sciences, mathematics, engineering, and quantitative social sciences seem

to serve as the ubiquitous difficult courses on every campus.

2.2 Addressing the Problems

Some potentially effective reforms are easy to point out. If class sections are too big

(Johnson, 2010), make them smaller. If lectures lack engagement, make them more accessible or

exciting (Willis, 2006; Hall et al., 2005). If students have over-activated amygdalae, then create a

more relaxing environment (Willis, 2006). Of course, the situation is more complicated than any

of these examples illustrated; any potential improvement is going to be more complicated than

those listed here, as well.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework inspired by Universal Design in

architecture, or the use of concepts without barriers to design spaces accessible to all people.

UDL framework, similarly, works to maximize accessibility to information in the classroom

(Hall et al., 2005). The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), an organization focused

on research and development in education (Hall et al., 2005), provides guidelines for UDL,
 6
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
which appeal directly to three neurological networks. The guidelines work to support the

recognition network through providing multiple means of representation, the strategic network

through providing multiple means of action and expression, and the affective network by

providing multiple means of engagement (Hall et al., 2005; CAST, 2011). These guidelines, and

the associated suggested changes to classrooms and curricula, are supported by research; not

only do these changes make courses more accessible for some students, but, in fact, all students

learn better with these in place (Willis, 2006).

There have been a number of models presented in educational research to attempt to

follow these very guidelines. In order to combat a lack of motivation, which is directly linked to

a lack of appeal to the affective network, interventions have been executed with the goal of

improving motivation in mind. Wagner and Szamoskozi (2012) explored academic enhancing

intervention programs, clearly outlining the correlation, and very likely the causation, between

interventions increasing motivations and the academic success of students. Where and when the

issue seems to be a lack of representation and action (connected with the recognition and

strategic networks of the brain), blended instruction has been implemented (Oh & Park, 2009;

Moore & Gilmartin, 2010; Hughes, 2007). Oh and Park (2009) define blended instruction as an

instructional method that combines, a mixture of various instructional events and activities,

such as information, interaction, simulation, games, collaborative learning, and class-room based

learning, as well as including, e-learning (p. 328). Blended instruction, too, shows

improvements in students performance.

These suggested strategies are relatively untested, somewhat nebulous in their execution,

and can prove to be costly for institutions. These models seem effective in singling out a specific

variable or set of variables; whether its motivation, or representation and interaction, positive
 7
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
results in student success ensued. The models are focused on particular issues, but, while they

remain consistent with UDL guidelines as presented by CAST, they do not effectively appeal to

all three different brain networks. Without appealing to each of these different networks, these

approaches are certain to limit, or exclude entirely, some students from the learning process.

And, in addition, without appealing to each of the different networks, a significant portion of

students will always be fated to struggle and potentially fail these courses; not for lack of

intelligence or effort, these students will be unsuccessful because the curricula are partially or

entirely inaccessible to them.

2.3 Supplementary Instruction

The Supplemental Instruction (SI) model fits these needs perfectly. SI is a non-remedial

academic support program, which targets high-risk courses, defined by a high percentage of

grades in the D or F range, in addition to course withdrawals (Lockie & Van Lanaen, 2008). It

was developed to improve the performance and retention rates of students. The SI model

revolves around structured study sessions, led by an SI leader, a student who has successfully

completed the targeted course. Embedded within course content, ranging from background

information to review of lecture material to practice and discussion of processes or concepts,

there are lessons on study skills and effective learning (Ning & Downing, 2010).

The SI model has consistently provided positive results in both grades as well as retention

rates, in a variety of programs, from all over the world (Bowles et al., 2008; Fayowski &

MacMillan, 2008; Lockie & Van Lanaen, 2008; McGuire, 2006; Ning & Downing, 2010; Rath et

al., 2010; Zerger et al., 2006). There does exist some disagreement on the effectiveness of the SI

model in improving retention rates. Oja (2012) agrees with the SI models results related to GPA

and pass rates, but contends that it does not increase persistence. The authors findings are
 8
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
limited in applying specifically to a community college, and only considers persistence from

spring to fall semester. Long-term persistence, or the long-term affects of experiences and skills

gained as a participant in the SI program are neglected, but reasonably so. Oja (2012) clearly

explains her findings are inconsistent with the results of others, and the area of interest simply,

warrants further investigation (p. 348).

SI works similarly to the other models discussed here; it works to appeal to the affective

network and improve motivation by putting a peer-facilitator in the groups, who can relate to

other students in ways an instructor cannot (Wagner and Szamoskozi). SI overlaps with blended

instruction a great deal, as some of the most significant pieces of blended instruction are tutoring,

collaborative group work, and out-of-class review sessions (Oh, 329). The SI model also goes

further than simply promoting group learning. Hassanien (2007), after looking at group learning

in higher education, suggests that the findings of the research, reflect the importance of training,

support, guidance, and motivation, and also suggests that, students should receive training in

group learning (p. 143). The SI model requires that very kind of training (UMKC, 2006). In

addition to all of this, the SI model is a cost effective one, and even with conservative

expectations, which are met and exceeded regularly (Bowles et al., 2008; Fayowski &

MacMillan, 2008; Lockie & Van Lanaen, 2008; McGuire, 2006; Ning & Downing, 2010; Rath et

al., 2010; Zerger et al., 2006), it can easily earn the amount of money spent on its management

through increasing retention (Congos, 2001-2002).

Further, SI has the potential of initiating even more important developments in the

experience of students and the communities at large. Perhaps more critical than GPAs or

persistence rates, the SI model encourages shifts in the culture of an institution, perhaps most

notably in how individuals interact with one another and approach learning.
 9
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
There are clearly established links from social connectedness and motivation to

performance and retention. Relationships and social interactions are a critical piece in addressing

academic issues (Allen, et al., 2007). With positive personal connections and emotional

stimulation such critical parts of the learning process (Willis, 2006), how students work and learn

together is important. A common indirect product of any collaborative learning experience is the

positive and helpful relationships established between participants throughout the process

(Robinson & Niemer, 2010).

The SI model can help to encourage those relationships. By promoting structured study

sessions, students engage in learning with one another; they have the ability to bond through a

shared experience, focused on a (potentially) shared interest. Beyond these social interactions

and relationships, an active SI program can shift the entire culture within an institution. McGuire

(2006) insists that SIs primary strength is its ability to teach students how to learn. He writes that

SI can contribute to promoting more meaningful learning, thereby improving the ability of

students, to understand the course concepts, brainstorm ideas, and engage in discussions of how

the concepts relate to each other, and he says, These activities facilitate their greater conceptual

understanding, and their success on problem-solving tasks and examinations increase

substantially (McGuire, 2006, p. 8). Zerger, et alia (2006), go even further. They posit that SI

helps to promote, a culture of belonging and the deepening of understanding of what it entails to

be studying at a university (p. 70).

This study hopes to explore the Supplementary Instruction model and the ways in which

it can affect student success in some of these difficult first and second-year courses.
 10
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
3. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore, through the lens of UDL, the ways in which the

Supplementary Instruction program here at UVM affects students in large, quantitative,

historically difficult courses, particularly in the areas of collaboration and community, student

comprehension and confidence, and academic success.

UDL principles promote diversity and access in how material is presented, how students

interact with it, and how students are supported. By offering multiple means of representation

(CAST, 2011), and ensuring, that students of all abilities are actively engaged in learning- that

is, that the subject matter is cognitively challenging to them and they are appropriately

supported, regardless of developmental level (Hall et al. 149, 2005), it can be ensured that

students have the means to be academically successful in any circumstance. This is the ultimate

goal; curriculum should be designed, and the learning experience should unfold, in such a way

that all students can succeed. The SI model is potentially one way in which a students

experience can be made more supportive, engaging, and accessible. Further, this is one way

academic support staff can actively assist faculty in meeting this goal.

The research questions for this study include:

1. How does the SI model affect academic success in first and second year students
enrolled in large volume, introductory-level courses?

2. How does the SI model affect the collaborative efforts of community members?

3. How does the SI model affect student comprehension of course material, student
confidence, and general academic proficiency?
 11
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
4. Participants

In this research project, I analyzed observations from both lectures and SI sessions

connected to associated courses, as well as interviews with individuals who have all participated

in the program both as student attendees as well as SI leaders. All students observed are currently

enrolled in the second semester of one of four year-long sequences (two semesters) in the

sciences: BIOL 001 and 002, an introduction to biology for non-biology majors; CHEM 031 and

032, an introduction to chemistry for non-chemistry majors; CHEM 141 and 142, an

intermediate survey of organic chemistry for non-chemistry majors; and ANPS 019 and 020, an

intermediate-level introduction to anatomy and physiology. All students interviewed have

completed one or more of these sequences satisfactorily, based upon standards outlined by the SI

program (UMKC, 2006). All students, whether observed or interviewed, are actively enrolled in

this university, and each of the interviewees as well as the vast majority of students observed are

between the ages of 18 and 23.

5. The Intervention

5.1 The Supplementary Instruction Program

The SI program is, an academic assistance program that increases student performance

and retention (UMKC, 2006). A program coordinator recruits and hires SI leaders, or students

who have completed the target course with a satisfactory grade. Those leaders undergo training

prior to the semester, and then every week throughout the semester attend the course lecture, host

an office hour, and facilitate three, one-hour review sessions.

Courses are selected based on actual difficulties students face, measured by rates of DFW

grades (letter grades D or F, or course withdrawals). Enrolled students are informed about all SI
 12
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
program related activities, and attendance is entirely voluntary. SI sessions are comprised of

students of varying abilities and no effort is made to segregate students based on academic

ability (UMKC, 2006).

The SI program at this university has deviated in only small ways from the original

program. As opposed to offering three review sessions and one office hour every week, SI

leaders at my institution host two office hours and two review sessions. Unlike the method for

scheduling suggested by the SI Center at UMKC distributing time surveys to all students

enrolled in the participating course, and organizing the pile of potentially hundreds of responses

SI leaders work with instructors and their supervisor to find a time that should serve the

broadest swath of students as possible. Other components of the program, including the primary

objectives, strategies and suggested activities, training themes, and personnel structure, all

remain the same as suggested by the original program.

5.2 The Efficacy of the SI Program

The University of Missouri at Kansas City has diligently recorded statistics for the

performance of SI programs across the country. Based on data collected between 2003 and 2006,

including 37 institutions, 1003 courses, and 119,009 students, students attending SI sessions

outperformed non-SI participants significantly. Broken down into a standard average of all

institutions, 2-year public institutions, 4-year public institutions, and 4-year private institutions,

SI participants received marks ranging from 0.42 to 0.5 greater than non-SI participants on a 4.0

scale (UMKC, 2006).

When looking at a single institution, just a few courses, and a much smaller number of

students, its more difficult to present a clear relationship. At UVM, a GPA comparison between

SI participants and non-participants over the last five semesters reveals some inconsistencies,
 13
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
and certainly no clear numerical advantage for the participating group. For this data, see Table 1

on page 22. In fact, between the fall 2010 term to the spring 2012 term, looking at the difference

between those who attend and those who do not, there is almost no difference, ranging at most

0.15 points in one direction or the other, and even in the Spring 2011 term there was no

difference at all. In the most recent term, Fall 2012, we did see SI participants with an advantage

of 0.225 points over non-participants.

There is more consistency when student performance is broken down by how many

sessions are attended. In most singular programs and terms (presented in Table 2.1 through 2.5

on pages 23 and 24), and very clearly when averaged, there is a positive correlation. With all

courses averaged over the five terms (see Table 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 on pages 24 and 25), the

average performance for a student attending one to four sessions is 2.556, from five to seven

sessions it is 2.716, and for eight sessions or more it is 2.811. Of the five terms reviewed, there

are two discrepancies. In Spring 2011 (2011/01), students received marks 0.313 points worse in

eight or more sessions than those who attended five to seven sessions. In Fall 2012 (2012/09),

students received marks 0.015 worse when attending five to seven sessions, as opposed to

attending one to four sessions.

With the self-selecting nature of the participants, there are a number of variables that

affect attendance; ranging from the way the program is presented by the SI leader, by the

instructor, or by the program coordinator, a student may decide to attend or not. Its not possible

to say with certainty that the SI program at UVM is proving to help students earn better grades

than peers not participating, but what can be said is that by attending more sessions, a students

grade does tend to improve.

 14
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
6. Acquiring Data

6.1 Observations

In order to gather more information about the SI program, I observed both the lecture and

the SI session for the focused courses. This experience resulted in eight total observations.

All eight of these observations took place on campus throughout the month of April 2013.

Classes and SI sessions took place in a variety of campus complexes and classrooms, which

posed a variable setting.

Of the four SI session observations, all utilized small to medium-sized classrooms, with a

maximum capacity of between 24 and 48 individuals. For the observations of the lectures, large-

volume lecture halls were used. The lectures observed range from 108 to 226 in total students

enrolled. None of the observations made were either the session or lecture immediately prior or

following an exam, and all observations were complete at least three weeks before the start of

finals, in order to most accurately observe a typical experience in either setting, whatever that

may be.

For lectures, I noted the length of time, which ranged somewhat, depending on the

schedule of the course, between 50 and 75 minutes. SI sessions are all approximately 60 minutes,

and so I did not note their duration.

For both lectures and sessions, I documented some quantitative data. Given the difference

in subject matter, and the other numerous variables that create inconsistencies, I chose to use

very general measures of engagement and interaction. I recorded an estimate for those in

attendance, the number of students participating verbally, the number of verbal contributions, the

total approximate amount of time students spoke, and the total approximate amount of times

students interacted non-verbally. The data, at points, is somewhat inconsistent, as its difficult to
 15
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
enumerate the number of contributing students in a large, densely packed lecture hall. Further,

for the rather broad category of non-verbal interaction, I included independent problem solving,

the raising of a hand, or any form of work at the board in front of the class. For total time spent

speaking, I timed any activities completed in pairs or small groups just as I did for a single

student speaking.

Further, I attempted to assess both the lectures and sessions qualitatively, using the UDL

guidelines as a reference. Very simply, I took notes on the setting, the instructor, the students, any

vocal interactions, and any activities. Following an observation, I collated the notes to match, as

best as I could make them, to the thirty-one UDL subset guidelines.

Finally, treating each group of four observations as a snapshot of some general

experience, I totaled the instances of observed meeting of UDL guidelines, and also found

averages for each of those other phenomena: total students, vocally contributing students, total

vocal contributions, total time speaking, and total time engaged in non-verbal interactions.

6.2 Interviews

In addition to observations, I also performed four interviews, one with each of the leaders

of the four sections studied. Each individual had engaged with at least one section of SI as a

student, although not always the same section they would go on to lead. Each individual, of

course, also served as an SI leader. Three of the four leaders were approaching their second full

year (or completing their fourth semester) serving as SI leaders, while the fourth was finishing

his first full year (finishing his second semester). Of the four individuals, two were in their third

years and continuing on to their final years, while the other two were fourth years and preparing

to graduate. Between the four of them, they presented a variety of science-minded academic

tracks, including Microbiology, Medical Laboratory Sciences, Mathematics, and Biological

 16
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
Sciences, coming out of the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Nursing and Health

Sciences, and two from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

The interviews themselves were brief, ranging from eleven to twenty-one minutes in

length. I spoke to each about the efficacy of the SI program, in their opinions, for the students

who use it. Their biases are quite obvious, as they themselves attended SI, were successful with

it, and went on to lead it. Nevertheless, they are among a very specific group on campus,

knowing both the sides of the SI program, as both a participant and a leader.

Some strong patterns arose from the interviews. First, when asked to assess the efficacy

of the SI program on a numerical scale, all gave it high marks. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is

severely detrimental, 7 is very helpful, and 4 is neutral, two leaders offered a 6, and two leaders

offered a variable scale, ranging from 4 for some participants, and 7 for the rest. Each individual

spoke to a topic that could possibly be best related back to UDL guideline 8.3, or, Foster

collaboration and community. Two mentioned group work specifically, one of which explained

SI sessions as potentially comfortable places for students, where they, dont feel judged by their

peers. A third discussed how some prior relationships were incorporated into the SI setting,

while other new relationships were formed. The simple idea of extra time for practice arose on a

few different occasions. The sense that SI was different, or at least offered something that was

different, came up again and again. One leader discussed how the SI program offers interactive,

alternative strategies for learning, while another brought up, alternative ways for learning. A

third said simply that SI, offers a different setting [from the classroom].

7. Results

In SI sessions, the attendance averaged 13.75 students, the average number of vocally

contributing students was 7.25, the number of contributions averaged 31.25, the amount of time
 17
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
speaking averaged 4.9 minutes, and other interactions counted for 10.48 minutes. For lectures,

approximate attendance amounted to 92.5, with 6.33 students contributing 8.25 vocal responses

for a total time of 1.08 minutes, and an additional 0.48 minutes with other interactions. One can

find this data on Table 3.1 and 3.2 on pages 25 and 26. In the SI sessions observed, between

28.2% to 71.4% of the attending students contributed verbally. In the lecture, 0.44% to 6.0%

contributed verbally. Those numbers can be found in Table 4.1 and 4.2 on page 28.

There is a wide gap in simply the number of student vocalizations; its, on average, 8.25

in lectures while 31.25 in sessions. More students are discussing the material with each other in

an SI session than in their lecture. This could be explained away as a logistical matter; it might

be posited that discussion, small group work, and a more informal setting can work in an SI

session, as they are relatively small, but not in a large, conventional lecture. For that reason, I

believe one of the other numbers from the lists above, the amount of time students engaged in

non-verbal interaction or contribution is telling; 0.48 minutes to 10.48 minutes from lectures to

sessions. Students engaged in nearly 22 times more nonverbal interactions, including

independent and small group problem-solving and board work, in their SI sessions compared to

their lecture. In SI sessions, students spent 4.45% to 68.3% and an average of 25.63% of their

time engaged with the material, including both verbal and non-verbal interactions, while in

lectures that was 0.67% to 9.0% and an average of 2.96% of their time (see Table 4.1 and 4.2 on

page 28).

The UDL guidelines provided more information by which I could compare the sessions

and the lectures, as well. After each observation, I reviewed my qualitative notes, and tallied the

number of instances where any of the UDL guidelines were addressed. For each of the four

instances, four lectures and four SI sessions, I compiled a total. I then used these totals as a
 18
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
reference by which evaluate the degree to which these activities are aligned with the UDL

framework. For the visual representation, see Table 3.1 and 3.2, as well as the supplemental

Tables 3.1a and 3.2a.

Based on my assessment, simply on total numbers, the two are pretty similar. In one way

or another, each guideline was addressed at least once in one of the courses except for three in

the SI sessions and two in the lectures. For the sessions, guidelines addressed from one to four

times numbered 21, while in lectures it was 22. For SI sessions, there were seven UDL

guidelines which received five or more tallies, including, in descending frequency: 4.1: Vary the

methods for response and navigation; 6.4: Enhance capacity for monitoring progress; 8.3:

Foster collaboration and community; 2.5: Illustrate through multiple media; 3.2: Highlight

patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships; 5.3: Build fluencies with graduated

levels of support for practice and performance; and 8.4: Increate mastery-oriented feedback

(CAST, 2011). On the other side, for lectures, there were also seven UDL guidelines which were

attended to five or more times, including, again, in descending frequency: 1.3: Offer alternatives

for visual information; 3.2: Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships;

2.5: Illustrate through multiple media; 3.3: Guide information processing, visualization, and

manipulation; 6.2: Support planning and strategy development; 7.2: Optimize relevance,

value, and authenticity; and 7.3: Minimize threats and distractions (CAST, 2011).

There is some overlap between the two, as they both include guideline 3.2 and 2.5. In

both lectures and SI sessions, students are experiencing the highlighting of critical ideas and the

illustration of materials through a variety of ways. Of the seven characteristics, the direct

similarities end there. Beyond these links, the lectures and sessions seem to offer distinct

experiences. Even in areas where one might argue some overlap for example, lectures seem to
 19
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
address providing options for recruiting interest and SI sessions seem to address options for

sustaining effort, both within the column of engagement in the UDL guidelines sessions and

lectures are doing this in different ways and in different frequencies.

8. Conclusions

Much of this research is based on a limited data set, and the analysis incorporates a great

deal of subjective assessment. No conclusions drawn from this research can be seen as a wide-

reaching and unassailable. The SI program is built around individual leaders; for better or worse,

the program varies widely from semester to semester and across subjects. Further, there are a

countless number of variables that affect the group of students enrolled in the course, their

success, and the decision whether or not to attend SI sessions.

Nevertheless, I believe that the findings of this project demonstrate that the

Supplementary Instruction model can effectively augment a course, and can contribute

substantially to the goal of executing a universally accessible learning experience. With the UDL

guidelines as a system of reference, the SI program can contribute to the experience of the

student by offering alternatives to an instructors methods for representation, expression, and

engagement.

Further, what the literature review and the interviews with the leaders have shown clearly

is the potential within the SI program to help encourage and improve a sense of community and

collaboration within a university community. This is a characteristic that proves difficult to

observe or study, and doesnt lend itself to simple quantitative analysis. In addition, it illustrates

a point that the effectiveness of a student support program cannot be easily evaluated by looking

simply at short-term results and our numbers alone. Speaking with the SI leaders left me with the

clear impression that the grade they earned while a student participant in the SI program is a
 20
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
rather small piece of the programs contributions; the interaction with other students, the

relationships formed, the opportunity to learn just a little bit about how to learn, and the

opportunity for peers to teach peers all stand out as important.

I believe this research project shows that for the students participating in the SI program

there is a positive correlation with the number of sessions attended. The act of attending SI

sessions is enhancing the performance of the participating students. The observations recorded

here reveal that SI sessions provide opportunities not available to students in the lecture most

notably to discuss and engage with the concepts and material introduced in the course. This, in

theory, as well as described by SI leaders, seems to foster collaboration and community.

From here, there are a number of topics that need further research. There needs to be

more study on how non-leader participating students view the program and its strengths and

weaknesses. There needs to be analysis on any potential effects the SI program might have on

both short-term and long-term retention rates, as well as long-term effects on academic

performance.
 21
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY

Appendix - Tables

1. Grade comparisons of SI participants compared to non-participants

Term CHEM CHEM CHEM CHEM BIOL BIOL ANPS ANPS Average
031 032 141 142 001 002 019 020
2010/09 -0.3 - 0 - -0.3 - 0 - -0.15
2011/01 - 0 - 0 - -0.1 - 0.1 0
2011/09 0.1 - 0.3 - 0 - 0.2 - 0.15
2012/01 - -0.1 - 0 - -0.1 - 0.3 0.025
2012/09 0.2 - 0.3 - 0.1 - 0.3 - 0.225
Average 0 -0.05 0.2 0 -0.067 -0.1 0.167 0.2 0.044

Terms are listed by year and month of start date, so 2010/09 represents September, 2010, or Fall
term of 2010. In this group of courses, all odd course numbers run in the fall, and even course
numbers run in the spring, and thus are not offered during the other term.

2. Grade comparisons of SI participants, based on number of sessions attended

 22
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY

2.1 Semester: 2010/09

1 TO 4 5 TO 7 8+
CHEM031 2.1 2.44 2.17
CHEM141 2.59 2.83 3.3
BIOL001 2.39 2 n/a*
ANPS019 2.51 2.33 2
2.398 2.4 2.49

*During this semester, no students attended SI session for BIOL 001 eight or more times.

2.2 - Semester: 2011/01

1 TO 4 5 TO 7 8+
CHEM032 2.51 2.17 2.17
CHEM142 2.59 3.08 2.93
BIOL002 2.38 4 3
ANPS020 2.54 n/a* 3
2.505 3.083 2.775

*During this semester, no students attended SI sessions for ANPS 020 between five to seven
times.

2.3 Semester: 2011/09

1 TO 4 5 TO 7 8+
CHEM031 2.5 2.65 2.29
CHEM141 2.57 3 3.04
BIOL001 2.65 2.5 2.67
ANPS019 2.82 2.7 3.12
2.635 2.713 2.78

2.4 Semester: 2012/01

1 TO 4 5 TO 7 8+
CHEM032 2.35 2.13 2.73
CHEM142 2.48 2.78 2.91
BIOL002 2.5 3 3
ANPS020 2.67 3 3.46
2.5 2.728 3.025

2.5 Semester: 2012/09

 23
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY

1 TO 4 5 TO 7 8+
CHEM031 2.6 2.62 3
CHEM141 2.89 2.6 3
BIOL001 2.67 2.5 2.5
ANPS019 2.8 3.18 3.14
2.74 2.725 2.91

2.6 Average for all terms and all courses

1 to 4 5 to 7 8+
ANPS* 2.668 2.8025 2.944
CHEM** 2.412 2.402 2.472
ORGO*** 2.624 2.858 3.036
BIOL**** 2.518 2.8 2.7925
2.556 2.716 2.811

* Here, ANPS denotes an average of ANPS 019 and 020.

** Here, CHEM denotes an average of CHEM 031 and 032.
*** Here, ORGO denotes an average of CHEM 141 and 142, a survey of organic chemistry.
**** Here, BIOL denotes an average of BIOL 001 and 002.

2.7 Average for all fall terms

1 to 4 5 to 7 8+
ANPS 019 2.71 2.737 2.753
CHEM
031 2.4 2.57 2.487
CHEM
141 2.683 2.81 3.113
BIOL 001 2.57 2.333 2.585
2.591 2.613 2.735

2.8 Average for all spring terms

 24
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
1 to 4 5 to 7 8+
ANPS 020 2.605 3 3.23
CHEM
032 2.43 2.15 2.45
CHEM
142 2.535 2.93 2.92
BIOL 002 2.44 3.5 3
2.503 2.895 2.9

3.1 Lectures

UDL Guideline BIOL 002 CHEM 142 ANPS 020 CHEM 032 Total
 25
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
1.1 X 1
1.2 X 1
1.3 XXX XXX X 7
2.1 XX 2
2.2 X 1
2.3 XX 2
2.4 X 1
2.5 XX XXX 5
3.1 X 1
3.2 XXX X XX XX 8
3.3 XX X X X 5
3.4 X 1
4.1 X XXX 4
4.2 XX 2
5.1 X X 2
5.2 X 1
5.3 X X 2
6.1 XX XX 4
6.2 XX XXX 5
6.3 X X 2
6.4 XXX 3
7.1 X X X 3
7.2 X XX XX 5
7.3 X X XX X 5
8.1 X XX X 4
8.2 0
8.3 XX X 3
8.4 X X 2
9.1 0
9.2 X X 2
9.3 X 1
Average
Time (minutes): 50 50 50 75 56.25
Total Students: 140 20 130 80 92.5
Students
contributing: 8 4 n/a 7 6.333
Contributions: 9 11 6 7 8.25
Time speaking: 3 0.38 0.62 0.33 1.083
Non-verbal
interactions: 1.5 0 0.07 0.17 0.435

3.2 SI Sessions

UDL Guideline BIOL 002 CHEM 142 ANPS 020 CHEM 032 Total
1.1 0
 26
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
1.2 X 1
1.3 X X X 3
2.1 X X 2
2.2 XX 2
2.3 0
2.4 X X 2
2.5 XX X X X 5
3.1 X X X 3
3.2 XX XX XX 6
3.3 XX X 3
3.4 X X 2
4.1 X XXXX XX X 8
4.2 0
5.1 X X 2
5.2 X 1
5.3 X XXX X 5
6.1 X X 2
6.2 X X 2
6.3 X 1
6.4 XXXX XX XX 8
7.1 X 1
7.2 XX 2
7.3 X XX X 4
8.1 X X 2
8.2 XX X 3
8.3 X XXXX X XX 8
8.4 XXX X X 5
9.1 X X 2
9.2 XX X X 4
9.3 X 1
Average
Total Students: 7 24 17 7 13.75
Students: 5 7 11 6 7.25
Contributions: 36 9 38 42 31.25
Time speaking: 3.2 11.5 2.4 2.5 4.9
Non-verbal
interactions: 1.66 29.5 0.27 10.5 10.483
3.1a Lectures

0 2
1 to 2 16
3 to 4 6
5 to 6 5
 27
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
7+ 2

1.3: Offer alternatives for visual information

3.2: Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships
2.5: Illustrate through multiple media
3.3: Guide information processing, visualization, and manipulation
6.2: Support planning and strategy development
7.2: Optimize relevance, value, and authenticity
7.3: Minimize threats and distractions

3.2a SI Sessions

0 3
1 to 2 15
3 to 4 6
5 to 6 4
7+ 3

4.1: Vary the methods for response and navigation

6.4: Enhance capacity for monitoring progress
8.3: Foster collaboration and community
2.5: Illustrate through multiple media
3.2: Highlight patterns, critical features, big ideas, and relationships
5.3: Build fluencies with graduated levels of support for practice and performance
8.4: Increate mastery-oriented feedback

4.1 More data on student interaction in lectures

 28
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY

BIOL 002 CHEM 142 ANPS 020 CHEM 032

A 6 0.76 1.24 0.44
B 5.714 20 n/a 8.75
C 1.125 2.75 n/a 1
D 9 76 1.38 0.667

A: Percentage (%) of duration students spend speaking

B: Percentage (%) of total students who contribute verbally
C: Average number of contributions per contributing student
D: Percentage (%) of time students spend interacting both verbally and non-verbally combined

4.2 More data on student interaction in SI sessions

BIOL 002 CHEM 142 ANPS 020 CHEM 032

A 5.333 19.167 4 4.167
B 71.429 29.167 64.706 85.714
C 7.2 1.286 3.455 7
D 8.1 68.333 4.45 21.667

A: Percentage (%) of duration students spend speaking

B: Percentage (%) of total students who contribute verbally
C: Average number of contributions per contributing student
D: Percentage (%) of time students spend interacting both verbally and non-verbally combined
 29
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
Allen, J., Robbins, S. B., Casillas, A., & Oh, I. (2007). Third-year College
Retention and Transfer: Effects of Academic Performance, Motivation, and
Social Connectedness. Research in Higher Education, 49, 647-664.

Bowles, T. J., McCoy, A. C., & Bates, S. (2008). The effect of supplemental
instruction on timely graduation. College Student Journal, 42(30), 853-
859.

CAST (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield,
MA: Author.

Congos, D. H. (2001-2002). How Supplemental Instruction (SI) generates

revenue for colleges and universities. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 3(3), 301-309.

Conley, D. (2007, July). The Challenge of College Readiness. Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development, 23-29.

Epstein, D. (2006, July 26). So Thats Why Theyre Leaving. Inside Higher
Education. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from
http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/26/scipipeline

Fayowski, V., & MacMillan, P.D. (2008). An evaluation of the Supplemental

Instruction programme in a first year calculus course. International Journal
of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(7), 843-855.

Hall, T., Meyer, A., & Strangman, N. (2005). UDL Implementation: Examples
Using Best Practices and Curriculum Enhancements. In D. Rose, A. Meyer &
C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The Universally Designed Classroom:
Accessible Curriculum and Digital Technologies. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.

Hassanien, A. (2007). A Qualitative Student Evaluation of Group Learning in

Higher Education. Higher Education in Europe, 32(2/3), 135-150.

Hughes, G. (2007). Using blended learning to increase learner support and

improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 349-363.

Johnson, I. Y. (2010). Class Size and Student Performance at a Public

Research University: A Cross-Classified Model. Research in Higher
Education, 51, 701-723.

Lockie, N. M., & Van Lanaen, R. J. (2008). Impact of the Supplemental

Instruction Experience on Science SI Leaders. Journal of Developmental
Education 31(3), 2-14.
 30
SURVEY OF SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND ACCESSIBILITY
McGuire, S. Y. (2006). The Impact of Supplemental Instruction on Teaching
Students How to Learn. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 10,
3-10.

Moore, N., & Gilmartin, M. (2010). Teaching for Better Learning: A Blended
Learning Pilot Project with First-Year Geography Undergraduates. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 34(3), 327-344.

Ning, H. K., & Downing, K. (2010). The impact of supplemental instruction on

learning competence and academic performance. Studies in Higher
Education, 35(8), 921- 939.

Oh, E., & Park, S. (2009). How are universities involved in blended
instruction? Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 327-342.

Oja, M. (2012). Supplemental Instruction Improves Grades but Not

Persistence. College Student Journal, 46(2), 344-349.

Rath, K. A., Peterfreund, A., Bayliss, F., Runquist, E., & Simonis, U. (2010).
Impact of Supplemental Instruction in Entry-Level Chemistry Courses at a
Midsized Public University. Journal of Chemistry Education, 89(4), 449-455.

Robinson, E., & Niemer, L. (2010). A Peer Mentor Tutor Program for Academic
Success in Nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(5), 286-290.

Tobias, S. (1992). Science Education Reform: Whats Wrong with the Process?
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 24(3), 12-19. Retrieved
March 19, 2003, from
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00091383.1992.10544022>

University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC). (2006). Supplemental

Instruction supervisor manual. Kansas City: Curators of the University of
Missouri.

Wagner, E., & Szamoskozi, S. (2012). Effects of Direct Academic Motivation-

Enhancing Intervention Programs: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Cognitive and
Behavioral Psychotherapies, 12(1), 85-101.

Willis, J. (2006). Research-Based Strategies to Ignite Student Learning.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Zerger, S., Clark-Unite, C., & Smith, L. (2006). How Supplemental Instruction
Benefits Faculty, Administration, and Institutions. New Directions for
Teaching & Learning, 10, 63-72.