Meeting 13: April 27, 2026

Opener: 5 minutes

• What is one question you've hoped data could answer in your SI program?

  • Questions From Zoom Chat:

    • What areas should I focus our next training on?

    • Are new initiatives working?

    • Has SI been successful this semester?

    • Is our program effectively helping students learn (and pass their class)?

    • Beyond incentives like free food or extra credit, how can we entice more students to come to SI?

    • Why are students choosing to come or not come to SI?

    • How does SI and its strategies help students in the long run (past the course it is for)?

    • Why do students only attend one session and never come back?

    • What subject areas do I need tutors for?

    • What demographics use SI most and why?

    • What are the most effective times to host sessions?

    • How can we increase attendance?

Open Discussion: 

Key takeaways

• 1. • Student attendance patterns vary significantly by cohort, with second 8-week courses and spring semesters typically showing lower engagement than first 8-week and fall courses

     • Programs are shifting from raw numbers to percentage-based metrics to better account for declining enrollment trends

     • The post-COVID student demographic is changing, with current students having had more normalized middle school experiences compared to previous cohorts who were in high school during COVID

     • Faculty relationships require careful management, with some institutions removing SI from courses temporarily to demonstrate its value through DFW rate comparisons

     • AI study tools are emerging as potential competitors, though early data suggests they may complement rather than replace SI services when properly integrated

     • Marketing and naming conventions significantly impact student perception, with many programs moving away from "Supplemental Instruction" to more descriptive names like PACE (Peer Assisted Collaborative Education)

Discussed topics

• Katie initiated discussion on understanding single-session attendance patterns.

  1. • Chanté: Tracked tutoring attendance and sent targeted marketing to one-time attendees; main response was students came for help with one specific concept and felt they didn't need to return once that was addressed

     • Rachel: Pushes back against the idea of only coming when you need it; wants students to make SI a regular part of their schedule like a class

     • Victoria: Survey responses indicated students felt confident in content after one session and wanted lectures rather than practice problems

     • Candace: Questioned whether professors might be presenting SI as a lecture replacement despite efforts to clarify otherwise

     • Angie: One student said SI "just wasn't for me" and another didn't want to attend because it felt like going to another whole class

     • Chanté: Some institutions do mock SI sessions or brief demonstrations in class to show students what SI actually looks like

• Conclusion

  1. • Students often view SI as remedial support for specific struggles rather than ongoing learning support

     • Mindset shift needed to position SI as valuable for all students, not just those struggling

     • Faculty communication and framing of SI services impacts student perception significantly

     • Reporting failure and negative data transparently

     • Sara and others discussed how to handle and report unsuccessful semesters or disappointing data.

• Details

  1. • Sara: Reports everything the same way each semester but provides context; last spring had lower SI attendance but higher tutoring attendance, which made sense; acknowledges never knowing exactly what inspires students to attend

     • Angie: Reports data transparently as it is; benefits from working at an institution where administrators understand fluctuations and factors like in-person vs. online class enrollment

     • Taylor: Defines "failure" as extremely low attendance (more than 50% no-shows) and low SI leader evaluations; attendance issues happen more often than evaluation issues

• Conclusion

  1. • Transparency in reporting is valued and generally accepted by administrators

     • Providing context and explanations for data trends helps stakeholders understand fluctuations

     • External factors like enrollment patterns and course modalities significantly impact SI attendance

     • Data-informed program adjustments

     • Chanté asked how programs have adjusted based on data to make positive impacts.

• Details

  1. • Angie: Reviews data showing classes falling below 80% pass rates from other departments; works with associate dean to strategically choose which classes to support with SI

     • Stacie: Shifted from comparing raw semester-to-semester numbers to using percentages based on enrollment, as enrollment has declined significantly; this provides better apples-to-apples comparison

     • Laine: Also moved to percentage-based metrics rather than overall numbers due to enrollment changes; provides better indication of actual usage rates

     • Katie: Makes footnotes on reports for outliers like SI leaders dropping out mid-semester; struggles to explain why second 8-week courses have lower attendance than first 8-week with same leader and instructor

     • Taylor: Implementing Zoom sessions to accommodate students with scheduling conflicts, particularly those in clinical programs

     • William: Reviews grade distribution reports each semester to ensure SI leaders are in courses where students struggle; looks at average attendance per session to determine if room changes or additional leaders are needed

• Conclusion

  1. • Percentage-based metrics provide more accurate program assessment than raw numbers

     • Course timing and student cohorts significantly impact engagement levels

     • Flexibility in delivery methods (online/Zoom options) can address scheduling barriers

     • Cohort differences and post-COVID student populations

     • Chanté shared insights from a recent student meeting about generational shifts in student preparedness.

• Details

  1. • Chanté: Current students were in middle school during COVID and had more positive learning experiences compared to previous cohorts who were in high school; seeing better performance in math courses this semester compared to previous years because students came in with better background knowledge

     • Mary: Recognized this pattern through her oldest child's experience as a first-year college student who had a mostly normal high school experience

     • Katie: Works primarily with working adult students rather than traditional COVID-impacted students

• Conclusion

  1. • Student support needs are shifting as post-COVID cohorts enter college with different preparation levels

     • Programs may need to adjust support offerings as student demographics and needs evolve

     • Balancing synchronous and asynchronous support for online students

     • Katie discussed challenges of engaging non-traditional, online students in synchronous SI sessions.

• Details

  1. • Katie: Students in 100% online asynchronous classes struggle to attend synchronous SI sessions due to scheduling conflicts; surveys consistently show schedule conflicts as the main barrier

     • Katie: Records sessions and posts them in an SI community; some SI leaders use PlayPosit or WeVideo for interactive elements; plans to start tracking data on video rewatches in fall

     • Katie: Surveys show students are watching recorded sessions even when they can't attend live

• Conclusion

  1. • Recorded sessions provide valuable alternative for students who cannot attend synchronously

     • Tracking engagement with recorded content will help assess effectiveness of asynchronous options

     • Required vs. optional SI attendance

     • Rachel raised the question of faculty pressure to require SI as part of course grades.

• Details

  1. • Rachel: Faces pressure from faculty to require SI; faculty believe this would increase attendance and reduce their need to promote SI

     • Mary: Frames optional attendance as removing barriers to accessing services; requiring it through faculty involvement can cause students to shy away

     • Laine: Has required SI model where attendance counts for 5-10% of course grade; supports 6 classes with 22 leaders for one 1,500-student class; students must attend 10 of 13 sessions; has both upsides (consistent attendance, 15-18 students per session) and downsides (large leader teams needed, some faculty are too hands-on, students who don't need support still required to attend)

     • Laine: End-of-semester surveys show many students say they wouldn't have passed without required SI, though some feel they didn't need it

     • Mary: Asked about students who don't need support being required to attend all sessions; Laine confirmed most faculty require 10 of 13 sessions, though one allows students to attend only half for partial credit

• Conclusion

  1. • Required SI ensures consistent attendance but limits program capacity and flexibility

     • Optional SI maintains accessibility and removes barriers but requires more marketing effort

     • Both models have trade-offs depending on institutional context and goals

     • Competing services and program differentiation

     • Chanté asked how programs balance multiple academic support offerings and distinguish themselves.

• Details

  1. • Tori: Academic Success Center offers tutoring, SI, academic coaching, and writing assistance; other departments have their own tutoring centers where TAs hold office hours; distinguishes by emphasizing CRLA training and certification

     • Laine: Similar situation with other colleges offering their own tutoring; markets based on training quality; also notes other services get booked quickly, so SI serves as an alternative

     • Rachel: Chemistry department has workshops structured into classes that students sign up for with the course

     • Taylor: Only designated academic support on campus but students form their own study groups and say they "don't need SI"

     • Chanté: Emphasizes that SI leaders are trained while informal study groups are not; trained leaders hold students accountable to staying on topic

     • Katie: Invites students from existing study groups to become SI leaders

     • William: Renamed SI sessions before exams to "Raider Reviews" to make them more welcoming

• Conclusion

  1. • CRLA training and certification serve as key differentiators from informal support

     • Creative naming and marketing help make programs more approachable

     • Multiple support options can complement each other rather than compete

     • Renaming SI programs for better student engagement

     • Discussion emerged about moving away from "Supplemental Instruction" terminology.

• Details

  1. • Victoria: Students commented that the name "Supplemental Instruction" made them think it was another lecture; program is debating renaming to be more descriptive

     • Victoria: Staff brainstormed new names; chose PACE (Peer Assisted Collaborative Education) with most votes; SI leaders loved telling students to "keep PACE with your studying"

     • Participant: Shifted to offering sessions labeled as SI, Active Learning, and Group Tutoring; now calling all group learning offerings "Peer Assisted Learning (PAL)" sessions to reduce confusion and make it more inviting

     • William: Uses "Raider Reviews" for SI sessions right before exams to be more welcoming

• Conclusion

  1. • The term "Supplemental Instruction" can create misconceptions about session format

     • Descriptive, student-friendly names improve accessibility and attendance

     • Rebranding efforts should emphasize peer collaboration and active learning

     • Managing difficult faculty relationships

     • Chanté shared experiences with faculty who misuse SI leaders or create competing programs.

• Details

• Chanté: 

  1. • Some faculty try to treat SI leaders as TAs despite MOUs; has had to remove SI from classes and offer only tutoring temporarily; some faculty start their own side programs with discussion leaders who also grade

     • Escalated issues to provost to ensure beneficial partnerships; removed SI from a chemistry course for 3 semesters while faculty ran their own program; tracked DFW rates which increased without SI

     • Used DFW rate data to argue for returning SI to the course; presented data showing what happened when SI was removed and what could happen if brought back with clear expectations

     • Included higher-level administrators in conversations; relationship with faculty member improved significantly; faculty now provides direct referrals for SI leaders and tutors and respects boundaries

• Conclusion

  1. • Playing the "long game" by temporarily removing SI can demonstrate its value through data

     • DFW rate comparisons provide compelling evidence for SI effectiveness

     • Involving administrators helps establish and maintain appropriate boundaries with faculty

     • AI study tools and their impact on SI

     • Katie raised concerns about AI chatbots competing with SI services.

• Details

  1. • Katie: Asked if anyone has data on courses supported by both SI and AI study bots designed by faculty

     • Sara: Biochemistry professor created his own chatbot using course materials; purposefully collaborated to ensure it didn't take away from tutoring or SI; compared attendance data before and during pilot semesters; chatbot did not diminish SI attendance

     • Victoria: Engineering department creating an AI tutor; few students who used it said it wasn't helpful and preferred human tutoring; hoping it won't negatively impact tutoring usage when fully launched

     • Laura: Professor promoting "Study Buddies" AI tool; reminded stakeholders not to take away from community building and to avoid encouraging isolated study; everyone bought into maintaining community aspect

     • Laura: Hopeful that AI access might drive students to the center similar to how adding SI increased tutoring numbers

     • Chanté: Suggested faculty-specific AI tools could regularly encourage students to attend SI by providing session times and information

     • Laura: Wondered if SI leaders could oversee AI study materials as a way to introduce students to leaders and draw them to the center

• Conclusion

  1. • Programs experiencing various successes including accreditation, increased attendance, improved facilities, and stronger stakeholder support

     • Student leader development and skill-building recognized as significant program impact

     • Early data suggests AI tools can complement rather than replace SI when properly integrated

     • Maintaining the human and community elements of learning remains important

     • Faculty collaboration on AI implementation helps protect SI services

     • AI tools could potentially serve as marketing channels for SI if designed to direct students to human support

• Challenges

  1. • Engaging students who form their own study groups and feel they don't need SI

     • Balancing faculty expectations for required SI attendance with maintaining accessibility

     • Competing with department-specific support programs and AI study tools

     • Explaining cohort-to-cohort attendance variations, particularly between first and second 8-week courses

     • Getting sufficient survey response rates from students to understand attendance barriers

     • Managing faculty who want to use SI leaders as TAs or create competing programs

     • Navigating multiple academic support offerings that confuse students about what services are available

     • Addressing student perception that SI is remedial or only for struggling students

Updates & Closer: 5-8 minutes

• ICSI Updates:

  • ICSI Intel Changes: https://tr.ee/TIvPU4KSkv 

    • You can access the ICSI Intel via LinkedIn or through the SI-Net Listserv each Friday at 10:00 AM CT

  • Peer Leader Webinar Series

    • Free opportunity for professional development for SI Leaders and other peer educators, and their supervisors!

      • Sign up to attend: https://tr.ee/Op31yDZfqb 

  • 14th ICSI Conference: https://info.umkc.edu/si/2026-conference-information/

    • Late registration ends May 25, 2026

• Closer:

  • What is one moment from this year or semester that you are really proud of?

    • Katie Wayt: SI Leaders supporting each other when they  needed help

    • Tori Peterson: My director presented to the board of trustees about our services and they were very interested in SI and are getting invested in the program and its success. Fingers crossed this will lead to more resources, more publicity and more connections across campus.

    • Stacie Nowak: Thanks to renovations, being able to provide a beautiful new space for our students - three new SI classrooms.

    • Rachel Mace: We're submitting our SI re-accreditation materials tomorrow!🤞

    • Sara Keenan: Our program was granted SI Accreditation this semester!!

    • Angie Araya: I had consecutive semesters with regular attendance in our SI sessions for biology.

    • Elexis Shields: Our attendance for PAL has increased drastically this year! We have better data tracking to capture this and our faculty partners have been more involved!

    • Katie: SI leaders supporting each other when they needed help

    • Victoria: Director presented to board of trustees about services; trustees very interested in SI and getting invested; hoping for more resources, publicity, and connections

    • Chanté: Leaders realizing transferable skills gained from the role and how it shows up in internships and other jobs; graduating students stressed how the role impacted them and compared themselves favorably to peers without similar opportunities