Fostering Student Success Through Peer Supervision Models

Lauren Rose Bosselait, Associate Director, Learning Commons, University of Cincinnati

Christie Maier, Assistant Director, The Study, University of Kentucky

The use of peers to support student learning in higher education has been growing in popularity for more than a decade (Shook & Keup, 2012). More recently, the idea of leveraging student employment as a high-impact practice (HIP) has been on the rise. In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Kuh (2010) argues that “contrary to long-held beliefs, findings from the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement show that working is positively related to several dimensions of student engagement.” At the same time, many first-year support programs are under pressure to serve more students and make a larger impact on retention. Thus, departments that serve undergraduate students face the need to scale up service, albeit often with fewer or no additional resources.

The University of Cincinnati (UC) and the University of Kentucky (UK) each faced this challenge and were forced to adapt. By leveraging peer leadership and student employment, two emerging high-impact practices, UC and UK each built a cost-effective and sustainable peer-to-peer supervision model that has positively impacted first-year retention. We implemented key strategies in developing a model that allowed our respective departments to scale up with fewer resources.

1. Support on a Large Scale

Both UC and UK use peer education models in which undergraduate students supervise their peers. Peer leader coordinators (PLCs) provide peer-to-peer supervision for the peer leaders (PLs) who lead learning communities—zero-credit hour first-year seminars attached to 2-5 co-enrolled courses (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Organizational chart for peer education model at the University of Cincinnati.

At UK, the centralized peer tutoring program, known as The Study, provides free drop-in tutoring for more than 30 entry-level math, science, and business courses (Figure 2). In order to provide support and supervision on a large scale, The Study employs seven to eight student program coordinators (SPCs) as peer-to-peer supervisors for more than 130 tutors on staff. In both cases, peer supervisors must have worked for the department previously, maintained a 3.0 GPA, and demonstrated the ability to balance work with academics, as well as prior leadership experience.

Figure 2. Organizational chart for The Study, a peer tutoring program at the University of Kentucky.

2. Guiding Principles

Models at both institutions follow three essential principles that guide the roles and responsibilities of students working as peer supervisors:

• The students have a high level of passion, enthusiasm, and ownership regarding their work, making them valuable assets to a peer leadership program’s success.

• The position is trusted with a high level of responsibility and autonomy, accomplished through structured training and ongoing support.

• The position is designed as a HIP that has a trickle-down effect for first-year students.

The University of Cincinnati’s peer leaders lead learning communities, zero-credit hour first-year seminars attached to co-enrolled courses. Photo courtesy of the University of Cincinnati.

3. In-Depth Selection Process

Opportunities to serve as peer supervisors are advertised to student employees in each department. The selection process involves a comprehensive application that includes written materials (e.g., a statement of interest, cover letter, résumé) and an in-person, behavioral-based interview. Both UC and UK use a selection team who not only know the position well but can provide diverse perspectives to assist with interviews and hiring decisions. Before deciding whom to hire, the selection team reflects on group dynamics, recognizing that each candidate has strengths and areas for growth, with the aim of forming a balanced, well-rounded team.

4. Training

Training dates for new hires are established early, so the dates can be included in the application and candidates know upfront when they will need to be available. Both institutions design training sessions intentionally and strategically around team building, group activities, and social times, laying the groundwork for a strong team. A team of peer supervisors needs to be able to trust and rely on one another, as well as their direct supervisor. Training at both institutions also includes an overview of program basics (e.g., policies, procedures, professionalism), as well as theoretical and pedagogical approaches that inform them. Both programs have also benefited from building in time for personal development sessions (e.g., detailing SMART goals, boundary setting, and supervision/ leadership styles) and shadowing opportunities. Finally, both programs include structured self-reflection for peer supervisors throughout training.

5. Ongoing Support and Development

Being an excellent peer supervisor takes time and practice, making it essential that both programs provide continued support and ongoing personal and professional development. Because peer supervisors give so much of themselves to the program and the students they serve, both UK and UC want to reward them through personal and professional growth. This structure helps the peer supervisors feel valued and elevates the program’s credibility. PLCs and SPCs meet with their supervisors individually on a biweekly basis and in groups each week. The content of the individual meetings is similar: discussing personal well-being and accomplishments, issues with the position that warrant follow-up, and strategic questions about personal or professional development (e.g., goal setting, résumé review, CliftonStrengths for Students, True Colors, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator).

6. Targeted Feedback

The final key strategy for a successful peer-to-peer supervision program ensures that the peer supervisor receives targeted, timely, and specific feedback—all hallmarks of a HIP. At the University of Cincinnati, PLCs receive mid-semester feedback, framed as strengths and opportunities for growth, from three sources: (a) the students they supervise, (b) their colleagues (those holding the same position), and (c) their supervisor. They also receive a formal evaluation from their supervisor assessing 11 professional standards (e.g., problem-solving skills, communication skills, conflict-management skills, discretion) and statements from their supervisees and co-workers that reflect what those individuals have learned from them. The range of feedback helps peer supervisors realize the impact they have on others and the strengths they bring to a team, while aiding in their understanding of their leadership potential.

At UK, SPCs receive feedback during biweekly one-on-one meetings with their supervisor and a formal evaluation at the end of each semester. In the formal evaluation, they are evaluated on successful completion of their job responsibilities (e.g., supervising the tutoring floor, supervising a team, secondary responsibility) and nine leadership competencies (e.g., strategic planning, inclusivity, feedback). SPCs also complete a selfevaluation in the fall semester before their first performance evaluation. This feedback allows them to create a Personalized Development Plan for targeting specific areas to work on in the spring semester.

The centralized peer tutoring program at the University of Kentucky provides free drop-in tutoring for more than 30 entrylevel courses. Photo courtesy of the University of Kentucky.

Conclusion

Although the UK and UC peer-to-peer supervision roles have existed for more than a decade, the models were only recently augmented to reflect the essential elements of HIPs. Deliberately designing, implementing, and maintaining a peer-supervision program has made it possible for both institutions to scale up services while also positively impacting student retention. Both the learning community program at UC and the peer tutoring program at UK serve a large portion of first-year and transitional students. At UC, nearly 65% of the incoming baccalaureate class enrolls in a learning community; the second-year retention rate for those enrolled in learning communities was 87.4%, compared with 83.8% for those not enrolled.

During 2017-2018 at UK, The Study facilitated more than 28,000 tutoring sessions, a third of which included the first-year cohort. For that cohort, fall-to-fallretention rates for those accessing The Study are consistently 10% higher than those who did not. Ultimately, both institutions have realized positive, high-volume impact because of deliberately structured peer-to-peer supervision programs.

References

Kuh, G. D. (2010, November 21). Maybe experience really can be the best teacher. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/maybeexperience-really-can-be/125433

Shook, J., & Keup, J. (2012). The benefits of peer leader programs: An overview from the literature. In J. Keup & B. Barefoot (Eds.), New directions in high education: Peer leadership in higher education, 157, 5-16. https:// doi.org/10.1002/he.20002

Contact: Lauren Bosselait bosselln@ucmail.uc.edu

Related Articles in E-Source

Dial, M., & Stuart, S. (2018, April). Training first-year seminar peer leaders through extended orientation. 15(2), 8

Harper, M. S., & Allegretti, C. L. (2013, October). Expanding a peer-facilitation program beyond the fall term. 11(1), 16.

Steinberg, J. (2003, October). Peer mentor program integral to the first-year experience. 1(2), 5.

Return to Front PageCopyright © 2019 National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience® and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina