1. Working Title: Promoting Student Success through Peer-Led Learning
2. Rationale for the Topic/Demonstrated Need at UTRGV:
Academic support services are designed to help any student at any stage of their
academic career. These student services are typically funded, in part, through a portion of tuition
and fees. Tutoring centers have a long and established history in higher education. Traditionally,
a dedicated space is provided and students are able to receive tutoring in the course and/or for the
assignment in need of additional help on a walk-in or appointment basis. While this type of
traditional tutoring is an important and necessary service to provide, it is imperative that learning
centers of the 21st century adapt with the changing and varying learning modalities. Twenty-first
century learners are technologically savvy and appreciate collaborative and inquiry based
learning. Historically, institutional data have shown a significant need for academic support in
various high enrollment, high failure rate STEM core courses. For this proposal, the project will
rely heavily on the best practices of course-based learning assistance models, such as, Peer-Led
Team Learning (PLTL) and Supplemental Instruction (SI). However, due to the need to reach atrisk students who are not likely to seek learning support, the UTRGV Learning Center will adapt
these models in the following ways: (1) mandatory participation for all students in selected
first year STEM core courses (PLTL); and (2) semi-mandatory participation based on
performance within the course (Performance-Based SI-PBSI) for second year courses.
In accordance with UTRGV’s mission “to transform the Rio Grande Valley, the
Americas, and the world through an innovative and accessible educational environment that
promotes student success,” UTRGV’s Learning Center proposes to expand and implement
nationally recognized research-based best practices which include a variety of course-based
learning assistance programs into high enrollment, high failure rate STEM core courses
which can impede student persistence. These programs will not only address faculty, course, and
program needs but will positively impact the students’ academic success of STEM majors and
non-STEM majors. The proposed programs would target approximately 35,000 to 40,000
students over the course of five years, based on Fall 2015 & Spring 2016 enrollment data and
estimated student participation in the targeted STEM core courses, noted in table 1, below.
Table 1
Targeted Courses
*General Chemistry I (full-scale existing service)
*General Chemistry II (full-scale existing service)
College Algebra (currently being piloted in select
sections)
MATH 1414 (will be converted to MATH 1314)
Contemporary Math
Pre-calculus
Chemistry for Engineers
Materials (full-scale existing service)
Statics
Dynamics
TOTAL Number of Students
Total # of Sts.
(FA15-SP16)
1,925
960
2,999
Fall 2015
Pass Rates
64%
37%
57%
707
230
882
350
287
144
178
8,662
52%
46%
57%
57%
64%
66%
52%
1
Fall 2016
Pass Rates
68%
53%
53%
(58% in piloted sections)
62%
38%
64%
59%
64%
65%
63%
*Indication of “Full-scale existing services” are for interventions through the Learning Center.
The non-highlighted pass rates indicated above are without a known intervention, while
the highlighted pass rates include an intervention, either through the academic department or
through the Learning Center. Although the course pass rates noted above with existing services
(PLTL and PBSI) do not show a significant increase (with the exception of CHEM II), Fall 2016
was the first semester of implementation and additional data help build a strong justification for
additional improvements. Specifically, a pre and post measurement of self-efficacy in chemistry
revealed a 9% increase. Likewise, anecdotal student feedback collected through focus groups to
investigate student perception of PLTL and PBSI reveal positive trends across all three
disciplines (Chemistry, Math, and Engineering) that are reflected in table 2, below.
Table 2
Beginning of Semester
Inconvenient at first, saw it as a waste of time
I didn’t want to be here
At first nobody wanted to come
Complaints and confusion in the beginning, I didn’t
want to be here
End of Semester
it’s very helpful, really recommend it for next semester
now we meet extra with my study group
now we come early to study together
After the test, it changes-practice helps a lot
In addition to the anecdotal student feedback, preliminary data indicated a slight increase
in the number of A’s, B’s, and C’s in all of the PLTL and PBSI courses. Graph 1, noted below,
is representative of this trend.
Graph 1
The Fall 2016 data also revealed a relationship between the number of absences and final
grades in Chemistry. The students with a lower number of absences earned higher letter grades
than those with excessive absences, as noted in graph 2, below. Institutional data also reveal that
students earning an “F” are less likely to be retained. The data support the need for increased
participation beginning early in the semester, especially for at-risk students. The mandatory and
semi-mandatory participation requirements address this need and therefore should have a
positive impact on student learning, persistence, and retention.
2
Average Absences
Graph 2
12.00
10.34
10.00
8.00
6.65
6.00
4.00
4.54
3.80
2.27
2.00
0.00
A
B
C
D
F
3. Expected Outcomes/Impact on Student Learning or the Student Learning Environment:
The goal of this QEP proposal is to increase student success in traditionally high
enrollment, high failure rate STEM courses which potentially can positively impact persistence,
retention, and timely graduation. Related to this goal, expected student learning outcomes
include peer leaders and students participating in the targeted courses benefitting personally,
academically, and professionally. Personally, peer leaders and students may potentially develop
increased self-efficacy. There is a benefit from learning from peers who serve as role models and
often provide advice on how to be a successful college student as well as from the collaborative
learning that takes place in the various learning settings offered. Peer leaders and students
improve academically as they reinforce learning through continuous practice with course
content. Peer leaders and students develop professionally by practicing their oral communication,
team work, and problem solving skills. Participating in pedagogies of engagement as a
supplement to the course lecture will promote students’ higher-order thinking skills, help
students learn to reason through problems, build conceptual understanding through active
engagement with the material and with peers, and foster growth in teamwork and collaborative
problem-solving skills (Hockings, DeAngelis, and Frey, 2008; Gosser, Kampmeier, & VarmaNelson, 2010). In addition, the peer leaders further develop professionally through mentorship by
faculty, supervisors, and mentors.
The following goal will be assessed: Increase student success in traditionally high
enrollment, high failure rate STEM courses which potentially can positively impact persistence,
retention, and timely graduation.
The following Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) will be assessed:
1) Participants (peer leaders and students) will show an increase in self-efficacy scores.
2) Participants (peer leaders and students) will demonstrate increased content knowledge in the
targeted course.
3) Participants (peer leaders and students) will self-report an improvement in oral
communication, team work, and problem solving skills.
3
4. Strategies and Actions to Be Implemented:
Through the proposed QEP, The Learning Center will be enhancing and expanding the
Learning Center’s PLTL Chemistry and College Algebra program and the PBSI program. Table
3, below, describes the strategies and action steps that will be taken to meet the expected
outcomes over a course of five years.
Table 3
Strategy (Peerled Learning
Model)
Peer-led Team
Learning
(PLTL)
Performance
based
Supplemental
Instruction
(PBSI)
Action Steps
Targeted
Courses
Timeline
Targeted
students
Implement PLTL: Mandatory
participation in collaborative
learning with continual
application of knowledge
Students attend scheduled
sessions 2-2.5 hours per week.
PLTL sessions are facilitated
by peer leaders
Implementation include
recruiting eligible peer
leaders, hiring, scheduling,
training, oversight,
evaluation, etc. This pertains
to both PLTL and PBSI.
Implement PBSI: Students are
required to participate in a
specified number of SI
sessions between exams based
on the exam grade and as
determined by faculty
-ex. 5 SI leaders offer 3
sessions per week each = 15
sessions
General
Chemistry I &
II
Existing service
Students in first
year courses
College
Algebra
(currently being
piloted)
FA 2018 (All standalone courses)
Chemistry for
Engineers
FA 2018
Contemporary
Math
Pre-calculus
FA 2019
Materials
Existing service
Statics
FA 2020 (or when
current grant ends)
Dynamics
FA 2020
FA 2020
Students in
second year
courses
The course-based learning assistance programs illustrated above are collaborative in
nature and designed to scaffold students toward independent learning as they transition through
their academic career. Collaborative and inquiry based learning are crucial to STEM education
and STEM professions. Math and math-based science courses typically experience low pass rates
due to lack of pre-requisite knowledge and the need for continual math application practice. In
Year One (FA 2018), students (enrolled in 1000 level courses) will be required to attend
mandatory collaborative learning sessions in PLTL courses in Chemistry I & II, College
Algebra, and Chemistry for Engineering. In Year Two (FA 2019), PLTL in Contemporary Math
will be implemented. In Year Three (FA 2020) students (enrolled in 2000 level courses) will
participate in PBSI, which requires students to participate in a specified number of SI sessions
based on exam grades in Pre-calculus, Materials, Statics, and Dynamics. The overall impact of
the proposed QEP will contribute to UTRGV’s mission of transforming the Rio Grande Valley
by enhancing student success, persistence, and retention through innovative academic support
and institutional commitments.
4
5. Measures and Assessment:
To assess the SLOs, we will employ the following measurements and assessments: A) pre
and post student self-efficacy, B) course pass rates and grade distribution, C) survey and use of
AAC&U VALUE rubrics as well as focus group data. Table 4, seen below, identifies the
expected outcomes, the criteria for success, as well as the measurements used to determine
success. Additionally, we will report student persistence and retention (semester to semester and
year to year).
Table 4
Expected Outcomes
Strategy
Increase student success
in STEM gatekeeper
courses in terms of
persistence, retention,
and timely graduation.
Appropriate
Peer-led
Learning
model aligned
with discipline
and course
level
PLTL
PBSI
Participants (peer leaders
and students) will show
an increase in selfefficacy scores.
Participants (peer leaders
and students) will
demonstrate an increase
content knowledge in the
targeted course
Participants (peer leaders
and students) will selfreport improvement in
oral communication,
team work, and problem
solving skills.
90% of student feedback
will indicate an
improvement in these
three professional skill
areas.
PLTL
PBSI
PLTL
PBSI
Measurement/
Assessment
Cohort longitudinal
Timeframe
Pre and post selfefficacy inventory
assessment
After Exam 1 (pre)
After Exam 3 (post)
Learning Center
Staff and QEP
Assessment team
Self-reporting of
increased
knowledge, course
pass rates, grade
distribution within
the course
(institutional data),
and/or content
pre/post-tests (i.e.
ACS for Chem)
Pre and post survey
for peer leaders
using AAC&U
VALUE rubrics to
assess
End of semester
Learning Center
Staff
Focus groups for
students
Week 14
FA 2018-SP 2023
Person/s
Responsible
QEP Assessment
team
Weeks 2 (pre) and
13 (post)
Pre-semester
training in Fall (pre)
End of Spring (post)
Learning Center
Staff and QEP
Assessment Team
6. Resources:
The Learning Center will be able to provide the following in-kind contributions across the five
years, total.
 LC Leadership – oversight of implementation and internal evaluation by the Director &
Associate Directors
5


Program Coordinators – 2 FTE Program Coordinators will provide supervision and direct
oversight over the part-time student employees but office space will be needed.
Direct Wages – LC can contribute approximately $1,044,611 over the course of five
years but additional space will be needed.
*There is the possibility with the current budget that LC could contribute up to
$1,544,611 over the course of five years (see statement below budget Table 5 for further
explanation)
Table 5
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Subtotal/TOTAL
FTE
Program Specialist (PLTL)
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$150,000
Program Specialist (PBSI)
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$150,000
Faculty Stipends
3 Faculty Each for MATH,
CHEM, &ENG @ 500.00
each
Direct Wages (300-350
Student Employees)
Operations
Travel
TOTALS
$4,500
$129,000
*$29,000
$5,000
$5,000
$203,000
*$103,500
$4,500
$139,000
*$39,000
$5,000
$5,000
$209,000
*$109,000
$176,000
*$76,000
$5,000
$5,000
$246,000
*$146,000
$176,000
*$76,000
$5,000
$5,000
$246,000
*$146,000
$176,000
*$76,000
$5,000
$5,000
$246,000
*$146,000
$796,000
*$296,000
$25,000
$25,000
$1,150,500
*$650,500
*This reflects the $100,000 in-kind we could potentially contribute. The $100,000 institutional funds we would be utilizing for
this QEP are funds we could contribute based on funds not expended due to course enrollment fluctuating from year to year as
well as a reduction in tutoring with replacement through these services. This in-kind contribution to the QEP would only be
feasible with our current budget and could potentially decrease if we see decreases in our annual budget based on institutional
budget designation.
The Learning Center in collaboration with institutional administration, as well as the
Math, Chemistry, and Engineering departments propose a QEP that will impact approximately
35,000 to 40,000 students in high failure rate STEM courses over the course of five years. Based
on the approximate number of students impacted, the max annual cost per student is $41.68,
which translates to approximately $1.39 per student per session. Additionally, higher student
pass rates lead to lower repeater rates which save students tuition costs. Furthermore, the
institutional benefit of this QEP could result in increased revenue by improving student retention
rates in freshmen and sophomore core courses resulting in more tuition. The overall impact of
this QEP will contribute to UTRGV’s mission of transforming the Rio Grande Valley by
enhancing student success, persistence, retention, and graduation through innovative academic
support and institutional commitments made possible through this opportunity.
6