UniPASS Report Semester 1 2012 - Unilife - Curtin University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

UniPASS Semester 1 2012 Report Introduction UniPASS was a peer learning program selected to strategically meet Curtin University’s student support and equity requirements under the Bradley Review (Review of Australian Higher Education (Executive Summary), 2008) (Student Equity Strategy 2010-2013, 2009). UniPASS was successfully piloted with one unit in semester 1 2011 then three units in semester two 2011. This report covers the expansion of UniPASS in semester 1 2012 from three to 14 units. The expansion of the program to this level provided some challenges, namely: gaining sufficient attendance; obtaining support and building relationships with all faculties; recruiting, training and supervising 34 student facilitators; gathering appropriate reporting data; meeting HEPPP targets; commencing an online pilot for UniPASS. UniPASS is a nationally accredited peer learning programme (PASS- Guidelines for Best Practice, 2010) where weekly group study sessions are run by senior students. UniPASS has multiple benefits for learners. Apart from improving academic performance, study skills and social integration, its follow-on benefits are to improve student transition and retention. Also, due to its HEPPP (Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program) funding arrangements the programme works to improve retention of low SES, regional, remote and Indigenous students (Student Equity Strategy 2010-2013, 2009). At its core, UniPASS uses peer to peer relationships in a collaborative learning environment to meet the above aims. The sessions provide a place where a trained senior student creates a non-hierarchical, non-threatening learning environment. The senior students are trained in facilitation techniques and do not re-teach content; instead they strive to enable students to become active, independent learners. UniPASS targets units that have a history of difficulty for students and not by targeting at-risk students directly. This enables UniPASS to be inclusive and voluntary, avoiding any remedial stigma so that students at varying levels of achievement can integrate and aspire to improve (PASS- Guidelines for Best Practice, 2010) (PASS – Accredited Supervisor Manual, 2012). The UniPASS model has been adapted from Supplemental Instruction (SI), which was initially created by the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) in 1973 as a way of improving academic performance of medical students, and its Australian counterpart (PASS: Peer Assisted Study Sessions) from the University of Wollongong (UOW). This model has a strong history of research and evidence to support the positive effects on student learning (PASS – Accredited Supervisor Manual, 2012). Raphael Pereira September 2012 UniLife – START – UniPASS 5
UniPASS Results Overview UniPASS Semester 1 2012 Report Figure 1: UniPASS Results Summary Table Semester 1 2012 (actual unit identity available from supervisor) Unit UniPASS Average Increase UniPASS Regular Attendee Fail Rate Non- Attendees Fail Rate Difference in fail rate Regular Attendees who would have failed Percentage of Regular attendees who would have failed UniPASS Regular Attendees Total UniPASS Attendees Total Enrolled Student Cohort Regular Attendees as Percentage of Total Enrolments 2 nd Year Accounting Unit 2 nd Year Architecture Unit 1 st Year Biology Unit 1 st Year Chemistry A 1 st Year Chemistry B 1 st Year Humanities Unit 1 st Year Geology Unit 1 st Year Human Biology Unit 1 st Year Anatomy Unit 1 st Year Mathematics Unit 1 st Year Programming Unit 1 st Year Pharmacy Unit 1 st Year Physics Unit 18.03% 14.29% 42.49% 28.21% 2 28.57% 7 25 335 2.10% 2.67% 0.00% 17.78% 17.78% 3 60.00% 5 19 107 4.67% 12.50% 14.29% 30.67% 16.38% 1 7.14% 14 35 179 7.80% 12.51% 0.00% 27.92% 27.92% 1 16.67% 6 21 259 2.32% 18.51% 0.00% 26.40% 26.40% 0 0.00% 16 52 284 5.63% 16.11% 25.00% 36.14% 11.14% 0 0.00% 4 18 100 4.00% 13.66% 0.00% 30.00% 30.00% 4 44.44% 9 28 152 5.92% 8.07% 3.64% 10.15% 6.51% 16 14.69% 110 263 1727 6.31% 9.50% 0.00% 13.99% 13.99% 3 21.43% 14 36 176 7.96% 9.87% 10.00% 28.78% 18.78% 4 40.00% 10 55 322 3.11% 15.47% 28.57% 47.45% 18.87% 1 7.14% 14 35 168 8.33% 4.19% 13.04% 21.33% 8.29% 11 47.83% 23 37 111 20.72% 13.60% 0.00% 25.81% 25.81% 1 33.33% 3 13 130 2.31% 2 nd Year Business IT Unit 9.52% 38.10% 44.44% 6.35% 6 28.57% 21 40 100 21.00% UniPASS Program 11.73% 10.49% 28.81% 18.32% 53 24.99% 256 677 5062 7.04% Average/Totals Notes on the table: • This data is descriptive and for indicative purposes only. • Regular Attendees: students who have attended 5 sessions or more. • UniPASS Average Increase: the average mark achieved by regular attendees compared to the unit average less UniPASS regular attendees Eg. UniPASS regular attendees average = 60%; Unit Average = 50%; so the UniPASS difference = 10%. • Regular Attendees who would have failed: Are regular UniPASS attendees who between 50 – 61% so, assuming the UniPASS average increase in grades of 12%, would have possibly failed without UniPASS. • Percentage of Regular Attendees Who Would Have Failed: this indicates the proportion of at-risk students who were regular attendees which can account for a lower UniPASS average increase. Raphael Pereira September 2012 UniLife – START – UniPASS 6
Page 1 and 2: UniPASS Report Semester 1 2012 “T
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgements UniPASS Semester 1
Page 5: UniPASS Semester 1 2012 Report Summ
Page 9 and 10: UniPASS Semester 1 2012 Report Bene
Page 11 and 12: Feedback from Regular Attendees Fig
Page 13 and 14: Feedback from Non-Attendees UniPASS
Page 15 and 16: Feedback from Non-Attendees (contin
Page 17 and 18: Feedback from Non-Attendees (contin
Page 19 and 20: UniPASS Semester 1 2012 Report Grad
Page 21 and 22: HEPPP Targets (continued) UniPASS S
Page 23 and 24: UniPASS Semester 1 2012 Report Tert
Page 25 and 26: Conclusions and Recommendations Uni

UniPASS Report Semester 1 2012 - Unilife - Curtin University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?