Abstract:

International higher education institutions are increasingly using peer-assisted learning (PAL) to aid newly enrolling students in their transition in order to improve first-year student retention rates. Researchers repeatedly report that institutional integration of students is an important factor to predict student success and that the peer network and peer support is a critical component for a successful first-year experience at university. The present study examines and compares the effectiveness of four different well-known PAL interventions. A quasi-experimental numerical design was adopted to determine if participation in the four PAL interventions had a significant and positive relationship with social integration, hardiness commitment attitude and student persistence. The four programs are Peer Mentoring (PM), Peer Tutoring (PT), Peer-Led Team learning (PLTL), and Peer-Led Group Coaching (PLGC). All were faculty-wide voluntary-enrollment programs, except the latter one: a discipline-specific community building PAL approach in which attendance is expected. All PAL interventions were designed and developed with the use of Appreciative Inquiry. Data analysis was based on self-conducted survey assignments of 446 first-year students enrolled in the faculty of Psychology and Educational Science at an Urban Flemish University in the capital of Belgium, Brussels. The Revised Academic Hardiness Scale (RAHS) was adopted to assess academic commitment attitude and the Social Adjustment subscale of the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ) was used to assess social integration. Result demonstrated that students who participate in PLGC or students, who participate in PM, show a higher level of Motivation to stay than non-participants. An independent T-test showed that PM is the strongest intervention that can enhance persistence and significantly promote students’ motivation to stay at university (t=-2.702, df=193.039, p<0.000; d=0.389). PM and PLGC are both effective tools for enhancing students’ social adjustment (PM: t=-3.162, df=425, p<0.000; PLGC: t=-3.796, df=425, p<0.000) and social involvement (PM: t=-2.663, df=425, p<0.000; PLGC: t=-2.734, df=425, p<0.000). PT and PLGC are both effective tools for enhancing significantly students’ academic involvement (PT: t=-2.090, df=425, p<0.000; PLGC: t=-2.741, df =425, p<0.000). However, PLGC participation effects were superior to the effects of PM in terms of social integration (SA: d=0.368; SE: d=0.265) and superior to the effects of PT in terms of academic engagement (PT: t=-2.090, df=425, p<0.000; d=0.203; PLGC: t=-2.741, df =425, p<0.000). PLTL does not show significant differences for any of the outcome variables. Clearly, PLGC program in which attendance is expected has an inclusive power and promote diversity that is worthy of future research and investment within the higher education sector.

Keywords:

Social Support, Student adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ), Revised academic hardiness scale (RAHS), Adaptation, Involvement, Engagement, Intention to l