Supplemental Instruction (SI) as a form of peer support for university students studying maths have been a focus of our research for many years [1-4]. The Covid-19 pandemic brough about a range of unprecedented issues that needed to be dealt with in all areas of our lives, including education. The quick massive shift to online teaching and learning created challenging and, in many aspects, unfamiliar situations where educators and students found themselves in. As university academic staff, we are aiming at providing the best possible learning experience and support for our students at this demanding time.

In this study we look at the role of peer support for the first-year students on Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering programmes at the University West in Sweden at the time of pandemic.

There is a vast volume of literature that demonstrates the effectiveness of SI (e.g. [5, 6]) as a form of learning support provision. The SI method has become widely used in the higher education environment. Having originated in US in 1973, it is has now spread around the globe with the dedicated centres in Europe and Australia. SI has been increasingly used within programmes for Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) disciplines (e.g. [7-9]), an effective way of improving students’ academic performance and retention, enhancing students’ learning process as well as developing their competences and skills.

As the SI approach is grounded in the social constructivist learning theories (e.g. [10, 11]), which emphasise that learning is constructed in an interactive social context, SI places students’ collaboration with their peers at the heart of this method. As a result, students enhance their learning experience through being more engaged with their learning, developing a deeper understanding of course material, and earning higher grades.

The University West have been offering SI sessions on a range of programmes since 2017. A traditional ‘near -peer’ model is used where second or third-year students play the role of SI leaders who run the sessions for first-year students. SI leaders provide guidance and facilitate interaction within the group of students.  We use this type of learning support for the first-year students on ‘Algebra and Calculus I for Engineers’ course. In our previous studies (e.g. [1-4]), we analysed the effectiveness of this support for improving students’ academic performance and the role SI leaders and course convenors play in delivering successful and efficient maths support.

However, the pandemic and the consequent shift to online teaching, have changed the traditional and well-established way of teaching at universities. In the first semester of 2021-22 academic year, ‘Algebra and Calculus I for Engineers’ course was delivered using a ‘flipped classroom’ approach where the lectures were pre-recorded and uploaded online in advance. The seminars were delivered in a blended way as a combination of online and in-class delivery that was also broadcasted to the students studying remotely. The SI support sessions were delivered in person.

This study sought to evaluate the way how the SI support works in helping the students learn maths when a large part of the course is delivered online. We apply the framework used in [12] to look at the main themes that come out from the research on the benefits of the SI support for learners like e.g., learning environment, interaction and cooperation with peers and SI leaders, and exam/test preparation and the impact of the online course delivery on these benefits.

SI maths sessions were offered at University West in 2021-22 academic years to support around 90 students enrolled on the ‘Algebra and Calculus I’ course on Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering programmes. The SI sessions ran in person in addition to pre-recorded lectures and synchronous online seminars and covered the topics that were introduced in the lectures in the same week. This support was optional, but all students registered on the modules were encouraged to attend. The two-hour SI sessions were offered once per week for the duration of 10 weeks. The sessions were timetabled. Two SI leaders were running the sessions. The SI leaders were recruited from the year two/three students who successfully studied this course. A specialist training of peer leaders based on the training material provided by the European SI/PAL/PASS Centre at Lund University was carried out. The SI leaders decided as to when to run the sessions, how to communicate with the students, how to structure the sessions and facilitate the group work. The leaders had regular meetings with the SI administrator/manager. To evaluate the students’ experience, the students were asked to complete a questionnaire which contained a combination of the 4-scale Likert-type and open-ended questions. The neutral option of the Likert scale was omitted to improve the response. The questions were related to the learning environment that the sessions offered, helpfulness with understanding the course material and exam preparation, communication with peers and SI leaders, and some administrative issues.

44 out of 90 students returned the questionnaire, of which 21 students attended the SI sessions. The main reasons why the rest of the students did not attend the sessions were the late scheduled time of SI sessions, conflict with other commitments and no perceived need of extra help with maths. 18 out of 21 attended at least four SI sessions. Those students who stopped coming to the SI sessions explained that there were too many students in the group and not enough time to answer all the questions. The students who attended the SI sessions highly appreciated the relaxed and fun atmosphere and the collaboration with peers that the sessions facilitated. They liked the ease of asking question and friendliness of the SI leaders. The students found the SI sessions effective in enhancing their conceptual understanding of the subject and in preparing for the end-of-course exams and the weekly tests on Mobius. To improve the way the SI sessions were run, the students suggested to have them timetabled, to run them more often and to more groups to accommodate the students’ demand. Some students suggested to make the session compulsory. Our previous analysis of time students spent on learning new material in the ‘flipped classroom’ setting [13] showed that the majority of students spent on average 1-2 hours a week studying new material before the class. However, the students who did not attend the SI sessions spent much more time studying after the class compared to those students who attended the SI sessions. This demonstrates the importance of collaboration with peers while learning new material. The paper concludes that the online course delivery creates a higher demand for collaboration between students and recommends using SI sessions as a complementary activity for a successful ‘flipped classroom’ or online course delivery.

1.Nilsson, G. and Luchinskaya E. ‘A Reflection on Using Two Models of Supplemental Instruction in Teaching Mathematics for Engineers’, in Strømmen-Bakhtiar, A., Helde, R. and Suzen, E. eds., 2021. Supplemental Instruction: Volume 2: Student Learning Processes. Waxmann. 2.Luchinskaya E, Nilsson G. and Kristiansson L. Enhancing Students’ Performance In Maths Through Supplemental Instruction. ECER 2016, University College Dublin, Ireland, August 2016. 3.Nilsson G. and Luchinskaya E. The Role Of Peer Leaders In Supporting University Students Studying Mathematics. ECER 2018, The Free University of Bolzano, Italy, September 2018. 4.Nilsson G. and Luchinskaya E. Peer Assisted Learning: Evaluating Peer Leaders’ Experience in Supporting Students Learning in Maths. ECER 2019, University of Hamburg, Germany, September 2019. 5.Topping, K.J. 2006. Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology 25, no. 6: 631–45. 6.Dawson P., Van der Meer J., Skalicky J., Cowley K. “On the Effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction: Systematic Review of SI and Peer-Assisted Study Sessions Literature between 2001 and 2010”, Review of Educational Research, 2014, vol. 84, No 4, pp.609-639 7.Malm, J., Bryngfors, L. and Fredriksson, J., 2018. Impact of Supplemental Instruction on dropout and graduation rates: an example from 5-year engineering programs. Journal of Peer Learning, 11(1), pp.76-88. 8.Spaniol-Matthews, P., Letourneau, L. & Rice, E. (2016). The impact of online supplemental instruction on 19 academic performance and persistence in undergraduate STEM Courses. The Journal of Supplemental Instruction, 2 (1), 19-32. 9.Musah, R.A. & Ford, M. (2017). Peer-based supplemental instruction in STEM: Differences in effectiveness across transfer and non-transfer undergraduates. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10 (3), 596-618. 10.Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 11.Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. The growth of logical thinking. New York: Basic Books, 1958. 12.Glynn, L.G., MacFarlane, A., Kelly, M. et al. Helping each other to learn – a process evaluation of peer assisted learning. BMC Med Educ 6, 18 (2006). 13.G. Nilsson and E. Luchinskaya, Supplemental Instruction: A case study of supporting university students learning maths in a flipped classroom environment, ECER 2020, Network 22 (Research in HE) online session, August 2020.