1. Introduction
Studies across the world have shown that there are lots of reports on students’ underperformance in universities [
1,
2,
3,
4]. De La Rosby [
2] notes that about 75% of students leave universities without earning a degree after spending the first two full years of study. Similarly, Cornelius, V., et al. [
5] posits that in Australia, almost one out of five Australian students drop out of their studies towards the end of their first year. These reports on students’ underperformance have made many universities to think of interventions and many universities have implemented different supporting measures that have a high impact in terms of promoting positive student outcomes [
4,
6]. One of the programmes that seek to improve throughput rates and outcomes is the supplemental instruction (SI) programme. The SI programme was first introduced at the University of Missouri-Kansas City by Dr Dianne Martin in 1973. This voluntary programme has a non-remedial approach to learning that supports students on high-risk modules. Its purpose is to increase retention, improve student grades and student graduation rates [
7].
The SI programme is one of the interventions that appreciates intrinsically directed learning, as well as the unique experiences, backgrounds, and learning styles of each student. It incorporates academic literacies at higher education institutions to enable or build a student that succeeds both academically and whose psycho-social well-being is well taken care of [
8,
9]. The SI programme emphasises the development of study skills, the acquisition of academic literacies, and the fostering of social acculturation at universities [
10]. It is premised on peer learning [
11], in an informal setting and accentuates peer collaboration [
12,
13]. Studies on the SI programme show that students learn better when they interact with their peers. Peer learning enables students of any institution to interact with their peers to the same level that is less intimidating and authoritative [
14,
15]. Furthermore, peer facilitation aims at improving students’ academic performance by engaging them in strategies of deciphering and exposing concepts [
16]. The supplemental instruction (SI) programme implies that there should be an interaction between a less competent person and a more competent person as to encourage the less competent person to be independent and perform better in the future [
17]. In this context, it is assumed that students would learn more than the content in class and develop study skills and independence. It is unlike traditional methods, where learning is a chore and offers little or no motivation for students to participate or interact.
Supplemental instruction is a programme developed by Dianne Martin in 1973 in the United States of America at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. It is student-centred, encourages students’ interaction, collaboration, sharing, and exchange of ideas amongst students. However, this programme is attended voluntarily, which could pose a challenge for coordinators or SI leaders [
18]. The programme affords the students an opportunity to discuss and process course information through scheduled out-of-class and peer-led sessions. In the case of the targeted university where this study was conducted, SI targets modules that had less than 50% pass rate in the last three years were found. At-risk courses such as Philosophy 1, Physics, Mathematics, Taxation, and Accounting 1 are some of the examples of these traditionally at-risk modules. In SI sessions, students are encouraged to be interactive and participative through the effective use of SI strategies such as group work, pair–share, and other study skills [
19,
20]. The benefit of attending these sessions is that students get to learn more than the course content, including study skills and other relevant skills that make a well-rounded student. This study sought to gain a deeper understanding from the vantage point of the beneficiaries, students’ outcomes associated with first-year students’ involvement with supplemental instruction, and the factors that explain and/or give rise to the realisation of student outcomes through the SI programme.
2. Literature Review
There have been several studies conducted on the effects and impact of SI sessions at universities. For example, Bowles, et al. [
13] and Vorozhbit [
16] reported that the effects of the use of SI have had a noteworthy influence on students’ academic successes. Furthermore, the attendance to SI sessions has also increased students’ confidence levels as they interacted with their peers [
21]. With respect to attendance as a variable, it is found that students need to attend more than one SI session to see improvements in their academic performance and to improve on their study skills [
14,
22]). Dawson, et al. [
23], added that the effectiveness of attending SI sessions increased average marks, a percentage increase of students’ throughputs and pass rates, as well as an increase in retention in courses supported by SI.
Buchanan, et al. [
12] explain that student retention is most paramount in higher education, and that is why institutions have initiated PASS. Furthermore, Manduna [
22] supported the above statement by stipulating that the SI also contributed to the improvement in the performance of assessment tasks, which are improvements beyond the course content, implying that SI has an impact on enabling the development of academic skills, the student’s general wellbeing, and enhancing social relationships.
The benefits of attending SI sessions are that students get to be independent learners [
18] and get to be interactive and collaborative [
24]. Latino and Unite [
25] suggest that SI targets courses that have high rates of failure, high drop-out rates, and withdrawals from already-admitted students. SI is also considered as a sensible investment for ensuring student retention and success [
26]. These are some of the benefits of implementing the SI programme. Although there are several benefits of SI, Ribera, et al. [
21] proposed that whilst there is “positive relationship between SI and student achievement and retention, little is known about how SI relates to other forms of effective educational practices”. This has presented a gap for this study to be conducted, especially in an HDU.
Besides, the impact of SI on students’ outcomes in higher education cannot be overemphasized. Several studies have been conducted to measure the impact and significance of the connection between SI and students’ outcomes [
13,
27,
28], and [
29]. Bowles, et al. [
13] empirically proved through a statistical technique that the attendance of the supplemental instruction programme in first-year level courses increases the chances of timeous completion of studies by 11%. This is visible in the improvement in students’ academic performance recorded in their course grade and retention. Similarly, Shannon, et al. [
30] contend that the effects of SI on students’ outcomes centre on extended learning time which brings about learning opportunities, academic abilities, and stimulates a sense of belonging among students. Students can engage in diverse programmes which help boost their academic performance.
Arendale [
31] argues that many key elements of SI distinguish it from other kinds of academic support for students. This is because of the way SI is structured and organized in universities. The SI programme is attached to specific modules known to be difficult for students. Trained SI leaders are attached to specific courses and those SI leaders facilitate the group discussion or tasks and monitor the group through appropriate learning strategies that the students can adopt on their own [
32]. The SI leaders are supervised and monitored by a trained professional member of staff. This is to ensure that the purpose of learning support that is meant to be given to the students by SI leaders is achieved. Arendale [
31] notes that although the SI programme is for students, they are voluntary to attend for any student who needs academic support. The essence of the programme is to render academic learning support for students who need assistance in any courses or cannot cope with some courses on their own. The willingness of the students to ask for help matters, since the SI programme is voluntary and not compulsory; hence, students are expected to embrace the academic support that is offered by the SI leaders through the SI programme.
Similarly, Johnson [
33] notes that the SI programme is structured in universities in such a way that academic assistance is provided by SI leaders through collaborative learning approaches. This is because the programme is targeted to assist and render support to students who need support in difficult courses. Arendale [
18] posits that the SI programme offers support to students who are having challenges in “historically difficult courses. The courses are referred to as historically difficult courses because more than 30% of students scored D, F, or W as their final grades in those courses. Hence, those courses are difficult for some students, and, as such, they need support to help them to improve their performance in those courses. Johnson [
33] argues that the fundamental idea of the SI programme is that the programme focuses on difficult courses or high-risk courses instead of high-risk students. This is vital because many students find some courses challenging. This helps to create the consciousness of encouraging students to embrace the advantage of useful assistance provided for them in the SI programme.
3. Problem Statement
Several studies (e.g., [
12,
13,
14,
17,
21,
24]) have focused on experiences of students and how the SI model is designed. However, a survey of literature on the supplemental instruction programme suggests a paucity of scholarship on the effects of SI on students’ outcomes in a South African context, within an HDU context. Nyoni [
34] defined the term HDU as the several universities, mostly in rural areas, in South Africa that were developed during the apartheid regime to admit Black people or non-White people. This was designed to prohibit racial integration at schools between Black people and White people [
35] and thus still needs more development. A study by [
36] focused on the effects of SI on nursing students. However, this study’s focus on a particular discipline is narrow and does not provide findings that could be generalised to all the other disciplines. [
15] investigated how the SI programme is experienced by students and revealed the regression tendency to “emulate practices of lectures and tutors” by supplemental instruction leaders. Furthermore, most identified studies have been offering an international lens on understanding the implementation of SI ([
18,
21,
26,
37], and [
14]. This presented itself as a gap for future research, which is why the focus of this study is to measure the influence of some aspects of the programme on selected students’ outcomes within a South African context, especially within a rural university. The following research questions framed and focused the study.
On which student outcomes has the SI programme claimed to be successful by students in a historically disadvantaged university?
Which supplementary instruction (SI) programme aspects significantly influence students’ outcomes in a historically disadvantaged university?
What is the confluence of supplementary instruction (SI) programme aspects on selected students’ outcomes in a historically disadvantaged university?
4. Purpose of This Study
There have been several studies on the implementation of the SI programme. However, less work has been performed to determine the success of the SI model in terms of influencing students’ outcomes in a historical disadvantaged university (HDU). Thus, the purpose of this study is to determine the aspects of the SI programme, an international programme, that have a bearing on the achievement of students’ outcomes in a rural-based institution.
This study contributes to the body of knowledge about the variables that influence the success of an SI programme as well as the combined influence of these variables on selected students’ outcomes. The findings of this study have a beneficial value for the SI coordinators, especially in the implementation process of the SI programme. This study, therefore, sought to shed light on the aspects that influence the SI programme in the realisation of students’ outcomes. This study seeks to offer SI programme managers knowledge and insight on the factors that constitute to a successful SI programme, and the areas where these successes are claimed by most students. For methodological purposes, the instrument devised for the data collection offers insights on the variables that influence students’ outcomes. In addition, it forms the basis upon which a more standardised tool could be devised and developed. It further suggests an SI implementation framework for a rural-based disadvantaged university.
8. Discussion
From the findings, it would seem that the facilitation methods of the SI leaders, peer collaboration and transactional learning, follow-ups on and tracking of students’ progress, lecturers’ attitude towards SI, and monitoring of SI, are significantly influencing most of the students’ outcome variables. These successful aspects of the SI programme need to be consolidated. Aspects that showed little influence, such as the focus of SI programme, scheduling of SI sessions, and the SI leader–student relationship, need further probing so that these aspects are improved and further developed to be able to have a more significant effect on the SI programme. Previous studies on the impact of SI confirm that the SI programme has played a significant role in student development over the years [
13,
22]. For example, reference [
21] maintained that SI has a positive effect on students’ academic and social relations. Williamson and Goldsmith [
10] support the findings in suggesting that students must improve on more than academic work to succeed in higher education, thus building an all-rounded student. Many scholars such as [
16,
17,
20,
24,
26] have also corroborated the findings that SI has several effects and impacts on students who attend SI sessions. However, very few studies have investigated other students’ outcomes. It is also significant that this study has investigated other students’ outcomes such as a sense of community and belonging, as well as assimilation into the culture and ethos of a university. This study showed significant benefits on these outcomes, although with less significance on the degree of change or improvement. Moreover, this study made use of SI impacts on how students take part in engagements at a university, whether it is to understand the culture of the university or being engaged as part of the university community [
24]. The findings on the explanatory variables suggest that SI facilitation methods, peer collaboration, and transactional modes of learning in SI sessions explain most of the students’ outcomes. The methods of the SI programme, coupled with follow-ups, monitoring, and keeping track of participants, as well as lecturers’ attitude towards SI explain the success or otherwise failure of the SI programme. However, literature has paid limited attention in these regards. The three factors that were not linked to any of the students’ outcomes were as follows: (1) engagement, sharing, and exchange of ideas in supplemental instruction (SI) sessions, (2) encouragement to attend SI sessions by classmates, and (3) accommodation of individual learning needs in SI sessions. These three factors need to be improved and further investigated as potential intervention areas for further development of the SI programme framework and model.