RECOMENDACIONES

I have used the quantitative data to examine whether particular types of students attended PS, and to examine whether students gained from attending PS. I have used two types of statistical tests. I have examined the differences between two groups, PSUs and non-PSUs. I have considered the relationship between the amount o f PS students attended and their performances in examinations. I have used non-parametric statistical tests to analyse both types of data. This is because they can be used with ordinal data; they do not rely on assumptions about the distribution of the sample and the general population and are well suited to data that include a small number of observations (Peers 1996). I used the Wilcoxon Mann Whitney Test to analyse the differences between the groups, and Spearman’s rho (rank order correlation coefficient). These tests both examine the rank orderings of data. However, in presenting the Wilcoxon Mann Whitney Test statistics, I give the mean of the two groups, rather than their mean ranks. This is because the mean gives more useful information with which to analyse any differences in the performance of the two groups. I analysed all quantitative data using SPSS v.7.0.

I defined PSUs as those students who attended five or more PS sessions, and non- PSUs as those students who attended less than five PS sessions. When I refer to PSUs, I am referring to students’ who attended more than five PS sessions. When I use the phrase ‘students who attended PS’, I am referring to student who attended one or more sessions. I chose five sessions as the dividing point between PSUs and non- PSUs before I analysed the data. I chose it for three reasons. First, it is the most

commonly used measure in SI evaluations (see McCarthy et al 1997). Second, I chose it because of the time it takes for PSers and PSUs to understand each other’s and their own roles in the sessions. Third, I chose it because students who are very motivated to achieve high marks seem likely to attend any support offered to see if it is suitable for them. To include students who attended less than five hours of support may simply pick out those students who are motivated, rather than those who may have benefited from PS.

This is the only attempt I made to control for motivation. I have not sought to categorise students’ levels of motivation. This is a problem because students who are prepared to give up an hour of their time to attend PS are probably motivated by

something. However, the approach I have taken is to triangulate research methods to establish whether PS supported students, by using both quantitative and qualitative data. Even if motivation was controlled for, there would still have been other factors that affect students’ learning that would not have been accounted for. Peer learning is a small part of students’ educational experience that is implemented into a particular context and is affected by the context in which it is implemented. Therefore, it is not possible to isolate the percentage effect that PS had on students' achievement. However, qualitative and quantitative data was used to build a case that showed whether or not students’ valued PS and whether those who used PS performed better academically than those who did not.

5.3 How did P e e r S u p p o rt o p e ra te o n ‘A* level S c ie n c e ?

In this section I describe the structure of the ‘A ’ level Science course, and the history of peer learning on ‘A ’ level Science. I show how it was developed from SI in a manner that was representative o f the way the college-wide SI implementation strategy was developed in to Peer Support implementation.

In summarising the approach to PS for Y ls, I show that there were two schemes initially set up. I describe the schemes and show how the development of these schemes differed from the SI approach. I demonstrate that one PS scheme was

successful in terms of student attendance and the other was not. I examine possible reasons for the success of one and the failure of the other. I conclude that the different outcomes o f these schemes show how the schemes are rooted in the context in which they are established. Each year as new students use the schemes, they may need to be altered to fit with this new context.

Finally, I describe PS for Y2s. This was run by a student who had progressed to university from the college. I examine the possible affect that the distance in the ‘peer’ relationship may have had on the scheme. I show in Section 5.4, that it may have resulted in students with higher levels o f previous achievement attending PS. This demonstrates how changes in the make up of peer learning, can effect which students are interested in it.

5.3.1 A description o f the course

The PS schemes I will consider in this case study operated from October 1997 to May 1998. In 1997-8 ‘A* level Science had 95 students in the second year and 108 students in the first year of the course. Students usually study three ‘A ’ levels. They have a choice of subjects from two groups of subjects. The first group is Chemistry, Biology, Pure Mathematics and Statistics, or Statistics. The second group is Chemistry, Physics, Pure and Applied Mathematics, and Computing. They can choose one ‘A ’ level from the ‘A ’ level Humanities department. Students can study four ‘A ’ levels but the college makes no provision for students to study a single ‘A ’ level. Students’ progression from Y1 to Y2 is dependent on their performance in the ‘promotional examinations’ that are taken at the end o f Y l.

The department has changed in a way that is consistent with the general changes in the college outlined in Section 4.5.1. For example, at the end o f 1996-7 two of the longest serving full-time members of the department took early retirement and the college did not replace their posts. Their workload was covered by an increase in teaching hours for existing staff, and the use o f temporary staff.

5.3.2 The history of the peer learning on 1A ' level Science

Peer learning has run on A level Science since SI was introduced into the college in September 1993. P S 1997-8 P S 1996-7 S11995-6 S 11994-5 S 1 1993-4 Y2 Y1 Y1 Y1 Y1 Y1 No of s e s s io n s run 29 46 33 18 39 17 H ours of SI/PS s tu d e n ts received 157 446 340 49 76 53 A verage A tte n d a n c e 5.4 9.7 10.3 2.7 1.9 3.1 S tu d e n ts a tte n d in g > 1 s e s s io n s 28 50 64 20 30 42 R egular u s e r s (atten d in g > 3 s e s s io n s ) 19 36 32 9 13 4

Table 5.1: Take up of peer learning on ‘A’ Level Science 1993-1998

Table 5.1 shows how SI, and then PS, developed on ‘A’ level Science in terms of student take-up o f the support that was offered. The development of the scheme over time mirrors the increase in the student take-up of peer learning schemes across the college that I demonstrated in Section 4.6.3. In 1996-7, when the Peer Support approach to implementation replaced the SI approach, there was a huge increase in the take up of the sessions. In 1997-8, the increase was in the regular attender rate, which increased from 50% to 72%. In 1997-8, the PS provision was expanded to offer PS to second Y2s.

5.3.3 PS on ‘A ’ level Science 1997-8

Two PS schemes were set up on ‘A’ level Science in 1997-8. They were both strongly based on the SI model o f peer learning. The PS sessions took place outside the mainstream curriculum with the PSUs attendance at the sessions being voluntary. The role of the PSers was to facilitate discussion of the course material between the PSUs rather than lecturing to them. The PSUs’ role was therefore to take an active part in providing the material for the session, whilst the PSers were responsible for giving the discussion structure.

The link teacher on ‘A ’ level Science requested PS on Y1 in June 1997. He agreed to select seven students from the second year to act as PSers for the first years in September 1997 and to organise to timetable slot for them to run their weekly sessions. We agreed that I would train the PSers and organise their ongoing support.

The second scheme, PS for Y2, was set up in agreement with the link teacher but not at his request. This was the first time a PS scheme had been established for Y2s. The reason I considered the scheme fully developed was because th e PSer who ran the sessions had acted as an SI leader whilst a Y2 student in 1994-5. She had continued as an SI leader and PSer supporting the Y ls for the next two academic years. The PSer, who since 1996-7 had been studying medicine at Queen Mary and Westfield College, offered to run PS sessions for Y2s studying ‘A’ levels in Biology and Chemistry. She also agreed to run the ongoing support sessions for the PSers who were running sessions for the Y ls.

5.3.4 PS for Y1

I trained seven PSers in October 1997. The training lasted for three hours and I delivered the training with the PSer for the Y2s. The students were introduced to, and discussed, their role as PSers. They each ran a practice PS session and discussed how they would run their first sessions. They worked with their own models of how they would run their sessions; the idea was that we would develop these over time. We then planned their first session and agreed how they would market the sessions to the first years.

The PSers split into two groups. Five o f them teamed together to offer sessions on Chemistry, Biology, Pure Mathematics, and Statistics. Two o f them offered sessions on Physics, Pure and Applied Mathematics and Computing. Finally, we agreed they would meet the PSer for Y2s and I once a week for their ongoing support. In terms of student attendance PS on Chemistry, Biology, Statistics, and Pure Mathematics and Statistics was successful, whilst PS on Physics, Pure and Applied Mathematics and Computing was not.