Finding the Human Touch: The Impact of Supplemental Instruction (SI) in the Various Educational Modalities

Oksana Sivkovich Fagin, Social Science Human Services & Criminal Justice

I believe I am not alone feeling dizzy in the hurricane of changes that have swept through higher education since the pandemic. Like many of my colleagues, over the past few years, I’ve had to quickly adapt to various teaching methods. From traditional in-person classes to online synchronous and asynchronous courses, and hybrids in between, it’s been quite the ride. The sudden shift required us to quickly learn new strategies and teaching methods, accepting this new normal. It’s evident to me that higher education won’t be the same again, and we’re likely to continue teaching in these diverse modalities for the foreseeable future.

In this article, I want to share my personal experiences and perspectives on one useful strategy I’ve used: the Supplemental Instruction (SI) program.

Supplemental Instruction, or SI, is a program designed to help students succeed academically. It involves student SI leaders who have excelled in a particular course engaging with their peers in an informal, peer-to-peer setting. These sessions (in-person meetings or online interactions) are run by the SI leaders outside regular class hours and are tailored to students’ specific needs.

Established back in 1973, the SI program has consistently shown significant improvements in three key areas:

1. Increased retention rates in historically challenging courses.
2. Improved grades for students in historically difficult courses.
3. Higher graduation rates.

Particularly at BMCC, students attending SI meetings were significantly more likely to pass the course compared to the students who did not attend the SI meetings:

Data provided by BMCC Office for Institutional Effectiveness and Analytics

I’ve been participating in the SI program for the past two years as faculty and serving as the SI liaison for the social sciences department at BMCC. I have had SI leaders in various course formats, including in-person, synchronous online, and hybrid express courses.

Recently, I decided to experiment with introducing the SI program into an online asynchronous course. I was initially uncertain about how it would work. Typically, SI leaders conduct weekly live (in-person or online) sessions with students. In in-person and synchronous online courses, there’s already established live interaction during classes, and SI leaders enhance that interaction. They attend classes, and students quickly realize how useful SI leaders could be to their course success.

Online asynchronous courses are different in that matter. There are no live classes with lectures, and students do the learning independently. This modality remains very popular, especially in community colleges. It offers students flexibility in managing their time, helping them balance work, school, and life. However, these courses demand a high degree of responsibility and time-management skills, which can be challenging for new college students. It takes maturity and discipline to keep up with readings and assignments in an asynchronous class.

Adding an SI leader to the asynchronous course turned out to be a great success. After a few months, it was evident how much my asynchronous students benefited from interacting with their SI leader. One of the main drawbacks of asynchronous class modality is the absence of live interaction.

While my colleagues and I usually rely on discussion board posts, announcements, and emails to communicate with students and provide feedback, asynchronous classes still miss the human touch. The SI leader filled this gap by offering regular interaction and instant feedback. This was particularly valuable for first-time college students and those needing extra support and guidance through the material.

The result of my experiment was significantly better class engagement and punctual assignment submissions compared to previous semesters. It became clear that having SI leaders in asynchronous classes was a winning strategy. The impact on student outcomes was undeniable.

For instance, one of my SI leaders, Emily Drucker, a psychology major with a passion for neuropsychology, brought a unique perspective and dedication to class. Despite initial uncertainties, Emily quickly oriented herself in the role, supporting her peers. She provided feedback on papers, clarified complex concepts, and advocated for students’ needs.

Emily’s impact reached beyond academic support. She shared with me stories about her interactions with students, both in-person and online. One moment particularly illustrates the essence of Emily’s influence: a student, whom she had only interacted with virtually, approached her on campus with gratitude for her guidance and support during Zoom sessions. Emily said in that moment she felt extremely proud of her role as an SI leader in creating an atmosphere of connection and support for students.

Emily’s personal academic journey is as inspiring as her dedication to supporting her peers through the SI program. She wrote about herself:

“After 15 years as a professional pastry chef in fine dining restaurants, after Covid, I reevaluated my relationship with my work and decided to go back to school to pursue neuropsychology. The STEM Psychology track at BMCC ended up being a great fit, equipping me with a strong focus on biology and chemistry. I’m currently part of the 2024 cohort of the BP Endure program at Hunter College, which is an NIH-sponsored fellowship supporting undergraduate students pursuing neuroscience. This summer, I’ll be interning in the lab of Dr. James Booth at Vanderbilt University, which focuses on developmental neuroscience. Starting in the fall, I’ll be working at Dr. Chiye Aoki’s lab at NYU, which studies therapeutic uses of ketamine, as well as the neural basis of individuality.”

This positive experience with SI in an online asynchronous course leads me to advocate for broader use of this resource. Since artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly integrated into college education, I believe it’s crucial not to overlook the significance of human interaction. While AI can provide valuable tools and insights, it should complement, not replace, the human aspect of education. The SI program embodies a human-centered approach that can bridge the gap in online education, providing the necessary elements of interaction and support that students need to succeed.

As the higher education continue changing, we should consider the challenges and opportunities presented by diverse teaching methods. The SI program is one example of how a well-designed peer support system can enhance the educational experience for students in different course structures. Its track record in improving retention, grades, and graduation rates is hard to ignore. In the years ahead, we should continue exploring strategies to reinforce the human connection in education.

More From This Issue