THE PEER-LED TEAM LEARNING INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INAUGURAL CONFERENCE
MAY 17-19, 2012
NEW YORK CITY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY OF
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
BROOKLYN, NY 11201-2983
Achieving Student Success Using Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL)
Ann Darnell, James Becvar, Benjamin Flores, Helmut Knaust, Jorge Lopez,
and Josefina Tinajero
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a five year implementation of peer-led team learning at the
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) in five freshmen and sophomore chemistry, physics, and
mathematics courses. The intervention was designed to improve retention and success of these
students in their undergraduate program. The imperative for this work, to fulfill the University of
Texas at El Paso’s mission of “access and excellence,” provided a new option to the traditional largelecture course of yesteryear. Students indicated they learned more in their small group workshops
than by any other modality offered.
Introduction
The Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL) (Gosser and Roth, 1998; Gosser, et al. 2001; Cracolice
and Deming, 2001) workshop model engages teams of students in peer-assisted learning (Fuchs, et al,
1997) of the sciences, mathematics, and other undergraduate disciplines guided by an undergraduate
peer leader. It provides an active learning experience with a leadership role for undergraduate
students, and engages faculty in a creative new dimension of instruction. At UTEP, faculty members
relinquish one hour of large class lecture in exchange for a two-hour, small group (12-16) peer-led
workshop (Becvar, 2004; Becvar, et al, 2008).
Figure 1: The ‘Plus Two’ Peer-Led Team Learning Workshop Model
Why PLTL?
Students report they are more willing to ask a peer leader a question and are less intimidated in
small group workshops where they are actively engaged. Our peer leaders:
 Take ‘ownership’ in their workshops
 Willingly help one another
 Show leadership
 Exemplify teamwork
 Exude confidence
 Desire to see the students in their workshops do well
 Graduate
 Go on to graduate school
 Drive the creation of a new model in STEM education
When asked where and how they learn the most about specific course content, students
repeatedly indicated that they learned most in workshop (Figure 2).
Chemistry 1306 (Second Semester General) Survey Results (n=145)
T hink ing a bo ut wha t
yo u k no w t o da y a bo ut
dipo le - dipo le
int e ra c t io ns , whe re did
yo u le a rn t he m o s t ?
1%
10% 3% 8%
0%
78%
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut t he
us e o f a pha s e dia gra m ,
whe re did yo u le a rn t he
mo st?
13%
2%
1%
4%
1%
20%
15%
Before
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut t he
m e a ning o f f irs t - o rde r
k ine t ic s , whe re did yo u
le a rn t he m o s t ?
12%
Before
Before
3%
Lect ure
Lect ure
Workshop
Workshop
Workshop
Lab
Lab
Lab
Alone
Alone
63%
ALEKS
Lecture
1%
Alone
ALEKS
ALEKS
65%
Organic Chemistry 2324 (Non-Majors First Semester Organic) (n=97)
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut
s t e re o c he m is t ry, whe re
did yo u le a rn t he m o s t ?
15%
3%
17%
1%
T hink ing a bo ut wha t
yo u k no w t o da y a bo ut
t he us e o f c urv e d
a rro ws t o s ho w t he
m o v e m e nt o f e le c t ro n
pa irs , whe re ?
1%
before
17%
14%
before
3%
23%
1%
before
lect ure
lect ure
lecture
workshop
workshop
workshop
lab
lab
lab
alone
64%
7%2%
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut t he us e
o f N e wm a n pro je c t io ns ,
whe re did yo u le a rn t he
mo st?
73%
alone
alone
59%
Organic Chemistry 2321 (Majors First Semester Organic) (n=52)
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut
s t e re o c he m is t ry, whe re
did yo u le a rn t he m o s t ?
9%
Before
2%
Lect ure
0%
25%
32%
7% 7%
6%
Before
Lecture
Lect ure
Workshop
Workshop
42%
48%
Lab
Alone
26%
0%
Before
26%
Lab
2%
2%
Workshop
2%
6%
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut t he us e
o f N e wm a n pro je c t io ns ,
whe re did yo u le a rn t he
mo st?
T hink ing a bo ut wha t
yo u k no w t o da y a bo ut
t he us e o f c urv e d
a rro ws t o s ho w t he
m o v e m e nt o f e le c t ro n
pa irs , whe re did yo u
le a rn t he m o s t ?
Online Homework
Lab
Alone
58% Alone
Online Homework
Online Homework
Organic Chemistry 2325 (Non-Majors Second Semester Organic) (n=35)
I wo uld pre f e r
m a nda t o ry P e e r- Le d
Wo rk s ho ps lik e t he re
we re in 1s t s e m e s t e r
o rga nic :
P e e r- Le d Wo rk s ho ps
wo uld ha v e he lpe d m e
do s ignif ic a nt ly be t t e r in
t his 2 3 2 5 c o urs e :
A s s um ing P e e r- Le d
Wo rk s ho ps we re a v a ila ble
o nly o n a s t ric t ly
v o lunt a ry ba s is , I wo uld
re gula rly a t t e nd:
0%
11%
0%
0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
19%
6% 6%
Strongly Agree
9%
3%
Strongly Agree
6%
Agree
Agree
26%
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
70%
23%
Disagree
56%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
65%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Physics 2420 (First Semester General Physics) (n=106)
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut
pro je c t ile m o t io n, whe re
did yo u le a rn t he m o s t ?
6% 3%
13%
T hink ing a bo ut wha t
yo u k no w t o da y a bo ut
N e wt o n's S e c o nd La w
( F =m a ) , whe re did yo u
le a rn t he m o s t ?
3% 8%
9%
4%
5%
7%
13%
before
before
lect ure
17%
workshop
lab
69%
alone
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut t he
c o ns e rv a t io n o f
m e c ha nic a l e ne rgy, whe re
did yo u le a rn t he m o s t ?
before
lect ure
lecture
workshop
workshop
lab
59%
13%
alone
lab
71%
alone
Physics 2421 (Second Semester General Physics) (n=63)
T hink ing a bo ut wha t
yo u k no w t o da y o f
e le c t ric po t e nt ia l,
whe re did yo u le a rn t he
mo st?
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y o f C o ulo m b's
La w, whe re did yo u le a rn
t he m o s t ?
8%
2%
21%
30%
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y o f
C a pa c it a nc e , whe re did yo u
le a rn t he m o s t ?
29%
before
lecture
3%
workshop
10%
before
lect ure
2%
workshop
lab
44%
14%
22%
16%
lecture
16%
workshop
lab
45%
alone
before
lab
alone
38%
alone
Pre-Calculus (n=406)
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut
lo ga rit hm ic f unc t io ns ,
whe re did yo u le a rn t he
mo st?
8%
22%
15%
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut ho w
t o s o lv e a n e xpo ne nt ia l
e qua t io n, whe re did yo u
le a rn t he m o s t ?
7%
before
4%
13%
16%
18%
lect ure
workshop
30%
25%
32%
homework
alone
16%
before
before
lect ure
lecture
workshop
homework
30%
T hink ing a bo ut wha t yo u
k no w t o da y a bo ut ra t io na l
f unc t io ns , whe re did yo u
le a rn t he m o s t ?
alone
31%
33%
workshop
homework
alone
Figure 2: Undergraduate Student Pedagogy Perception
The STEP program has trained over 200 peer leaders who are also successful as students.
The vast majority of undergraduates in the program complete their degrees (some have earned
exceptional honors such as being recognized as Top Ten Seniors); many have gone on to pursue
graduate or professional school (Figure 3). Peer leaders are paid hourly, are required to maintain at
least a 3.0 grade point average, and have earned an A or B in the course that they are overseeing.
With experience, these peer leaders become far more comfortable interacting with faculty members
and speaking in meetings with faculty and administrators. Peer leaders frequently go on to an
undergraduate research experience or other competitive opportunity as a result of their training as a
peer leader.
Overall Retention
Student retention in the five courses with peer-led workshops has fluctuated modestly over
the past five years (Figure 4). Students who graduated (most prevalent in Organic Chemistry and the
second Physics course) are not included in the retention numbers. The overall goal of the NSFfunded STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP) is to double STEM six-year graduation rates at
UTEP. In analyzing UTEP’s 21st century
UTEP Peer Leaders (n=202)
3%
Enrolled Bachelor's
1%
Enrolled Masters/PhD
29%
MD/DDS
42%
Earned BS and MS
Earned BS
Transferred
7%
6%
Stopped Out
12%
Figure 3: STEP Peer Leader Degree Completion
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Pre-Calculus
74.2%
74.4%
73.2%
70.9%
74.9%
72.2%
71.7%
75.0%
75.0%
74.4%
72.9%
Retention in PLTL Courses
Phys 2420 Phys 2421
Gen Chem 2
84.1%
82.3%
79.2%
85.6%
84.2%
79.1%
88.6%
91.1%
79.3%
84.4%
87.9%
79.1%
84.9%
84.3%
82.1%
86.9%
85.2%
80.6%
80.8%
86.9%
84.6%
84.0%
85.0%
83.4%
89.1%
87.4%
83.0%
83.9%
86.8%
87.1%
83.7%
81.1%
84.2%
OrganicChem
74.2%
71.9%
74.6%
80.0%
80.6%
79.5%
82.6%
80.4%
83.1%
88.9%
83.0%
Based on long semesters (no summers)
No graduation numbers included in retention
Honors section not included in Gen Chem 2
Physics majors not included in Phys
Figure 4: One Year Student Retention Rates
student population, it becomes clear that our predominately Hispanic (approximately 80%), majority
low-income and first-in-their-family-to-complete-college student body do not follow the prescribed
path of traditional college students. UTEP students commute to campus and most have family and
work responsibilities that they are expected to fulfill in addition to their education commitments. We
find:
 Only 50-60% of UTEP STEM B.S. degrees are awarded to students who begin in the fall in
STEM and earn a degree within six years
 25-33% of our STEM degrees are awarded to students who initially begin in non-STEM
majors




20-25% of our degrees are awarded to students who take more than six calendar years (stopouts who return)
Approximately 20% of our B.S. degrees are awarded to students who begin in the spring or
summer, thus are not tracked in our cohorts
We are increasing the percentage of students beginning in the fall in STEM and earn a
STEM degree within six years
Our STEP goal, which we are well on our way of reaching, is to increase the STEM
graduation rate to 50% by 2015 (Figure 5).
STEM Degrees Awarded
700
600
478
500
200
422
339
280
186
293
40
340
290
298
208
196
45
56
238
235
48
64
100
0
592
532
433
400
300
544
501
84
328
93
445
572
615
448
476
75
79
395
353
83
69
84
74
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
International
Total
URM
Figure 5: STEM Undergraduate Degrees
Remaining Challenge
Our primary remaining challenge is to develop similar leadership, presentation skills, and
content knowledge gains in our students in course as those displayed by our peer leaders. It is
thought that by modifying the workshops and making the student teams more responsible for
leading the weekly workshop sessions (while peer leaders oversee these teams) that the better
professional skill building and greater academic success experienced by the peer leaders also would
be experienced by the students themselves.
References
Becvar, J.E. (2012). Two plus two equals more: Modifying the Chemistry curriculum at UTEP. PeerLed Team Learning: Implementation. Online at http://www.pltlis.org. Originally published in
Progressions: The Peer-Led Team Learning Project Newsletter, Volume 5, Number 4, Summer
2004.
Becvar, J. E., Dreyfuss, A. E., Flores, B. C., and Dickson, W. E. (2008). ‘Plus Two’: Peer-led team
learning improves student success, retention, and timely graduation, 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers
in Education Conference, T4D, 15 – 18.
Cracolice, Mark S., and Deming, J. C. (2001). Peer-led team learning. Science Teacher, 68, 1, 20 – 24.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies:
Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174206.
Gosser, D. K., and Roth, V. (1998). The workshop chemistry project: Peer-led team-learning, Journal
of Chemical Education, 75, 2, 185 – 187.
Gosser, D. K., Cracolice, M. S., Kampmeier, J. A., Roth, V., Strozak, V. S., & Varma-Nelson, P.
(2001). Peer-Led Team Learning: A guidebook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cite this paper as: Darnell, A., Becvar, J., Flores, B., Knaust, H., Lopez, J. & Tinajero, J. (2013).
Achieving student success using Peer-Led Team Learning (PLTL). Conference Proceedings of the Peer-Led
Team Learning International Society, May 17-19, 2012, New York City College of Technology of the City
University of New York, www.pltlis.org; ISSN 2329-2113.