Last changed
10 Oct 2004 ............... Length about 2,000 words (14,000 bytes).
(This document started on 24 Aug 2003.)
This is a WWW document maintained by Steve Draper, installed at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/localed/pallit1.html.
You may copy it. How to refer to it.
Web site logical path:
[www.psy.gla.ac.uk]
[~steve]
[localed]
[PAL]
[this page]
PAL short literature review
by
Stephen W. Draper, Department of Psychology, University of Glasgow.
This is a small and partial review of papers easily available on the web
in August 2003 about PAL in the UK. It was mainly aimed at a set of practical
issues that had emerged, asking what the literature said about them.
Papers available on the web offer useful perspectives on PAL. Two
useful starting points are the collected pointers at [1] and [2].
PAL was introduced (it is said) in 1973 in the USA at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City, which is still using it. By now nearly 60% of
research-oriented universities like Glasgow in the USA offer it to at least
some undergraduates
(
http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/Survey/Curricular/c12.pdf).
It entered the UK in 1990 at Kingston university, and at least 12 UK
universities other than Glasgow have introduced it so far.
There are some results reporting objectively measured
benefits. The chemistry department at University of Manchester
introduced PAL in 1995. Their failure rate on the first year course has
dropped from 20% to 10%. Analysing their
1997-8 results showed that mean exam results rose with degree of attendance at
PAL (47% for non-attenders, 52% for occasionals, 61% for those attending 6 or
more of the 14 sessions); and that this association was independent of the
students' inherent ability as measured by entry point scores [3]. Similar
marked effects on exam scores are reported for 1998 at the University of
Queensland [4], and at Kingston [5] in the computer science area.
It is clear from the literature that attendance is low, and
often very low in the early years. In Chemistry at Manchester [3], average
attendance at a given session / week was 14% in the first year of
introduction, 33% the next year, then 44% and 48% in the fifth year. At UCL
(University College London) in the first year of introduction in 5
departments, average attendance can be estimated from [6] to have varied
between 1% and 27%. Low takeup is also mentioned at Bournemouth [10] and
Kingston [11] which discusses it at some length.
Another less useful but more common way of reporting attendance is in terms of
the percentage of students attending at least one session. At Manchester in
1997-8 that would be 79% [3]. At Kingston [5] on their BCS (computing science)
course, it was in successive years 39%, 68%, and 84%. At UCL in maths in the
first year it was 35%. At UCL in the first year of introduction in 5
departments, it ranged from 11% to 45% across four departments [6]. A fifth
department achieved 82% but this was due to it being marketed (by students) as
a mystery product: only 34% came to more than two sessions. Similar figures
are reported in the USA.
Attendance does not always increase year by year as "word of mouth" spreads.
The figures at Kingston [5] grew strongly in computing science, but fell on
some other courses.
Practices for group size vary a lot. Queensland uses 2
facilitators and 25 (max -- probably much less on most occasions) students per
group [4]. UCL uses 2 facilitators and perhaps 30 but more usually 5 students
per group [6]. Manchester uses 2 facilitators and 5-8 students per group [3].
Paying for facilitators:
According to [9] the USA model is to pay them but also to require them to
attend several first year lectures per week as part of their preparation,
where it is a tutoring model rather than a peer discussion one. In the UK,
practice is mixed between paying and not paying (i.e. volunteer model).
From the papers referred to here, we can say that Queensland does pay, but
UCL and Manchester do not pay their student facilitators.
According to the conference notes for "the 9th annual supplemental instruction
conference" for UK PAL sites held in 2002 in Winchester:
- 2 sites said they paid (UNL, Sussex)
- 4 sites said they did not pay (Surrey IAD, Manchester, Glamorgan, Leicester)
- 3 sites did not say (Bournemouth, LGU, CONEL).
Supplementing this with personal communications to Scott Sherry (who attended),
and papers on the web we have:
- 5 sites say they pay (UNL, Sussex, Bournemouth, Kingston, CONEL)
- 5 sites say they do not pay (UCL, Surrey IAD, Manchester, Glamorgan, Leicester)
- 1 site we still do not know (LGU).
N.B. CONEL is an FE college.
UNL and LGU are now merged as London Metropolitan University.
The contributions of department versus outside units in
organising PAL varies a lot, though this is not discussed in detail in the
literature. At Sussex, PAL is run by an independent unit [7]. At Manchester,
they use a trainer from outside the university, otherwise the organisation is
all done within the department. At UCL, a central unit promoted it and
organised it, but the mixed results in different departments seems to be
associated with variable departmental input and enthusiasm. At Kingston it
seems to be centrally promoted.
One of the challenges any educational innovation faces is whether it
will outlast the original innovator and transfer to other teachers. I haven't
yet found any cases of a university introducing it then later abandoning it:
people seem to think it worth keeping on long after it ceases to be novel.
However I haven't positively phoned round, except to Manchester, to check that
this is not a false impression: asking a) if PAL is still being practised, b)
whether the departmental contact in charge has changed and still retained it.
But so far it looks as if PAL passes this test.
At the other end of the scale, it doesn't seem to be so overwhelmingly
beneficial that departments and universities feel they must adopt it. It
depends on your theory of institutional change in universities whether you see
this as evidence that PAL brings only a small advantage, or that academics
resist all change fiercely (they haven't however blocked rather rapid adoption
of the WWW, or data projectors). One might estimate from these broad
indications that PAL has a definite net benefit because few if any have
abandoned it once established (unlike many innovations, entropy is not strong
enough to kill it), but only a small one since it doesn't seem to spread
rapidly without special promotors being active.
In doing this literature review I am finding many of the lessons we
learned at Glasgow in 2002-3 in fact described in the literature, but it is
easier to recognise them with hindsight that it was to pull them out earlier
and adopt them as policy in advance. For instance UCL [6] reports having
trouble getting facilitators to report attendance regularly and accurately, but
the solution is to establish this as a required routine in the very first
training session: we would have to have recognised this in August 2002. Most
of the UK introductions have involved Jenni Wallace, who introduced PAL at
Kingston, and who in turn visited PAL's ancestral home in Kansas: despite the
publications, this is still in part an orally transmitted body of skill.
Furthermore there are big differences in practice (and so not a simple
published recipe) for aspects as basic as what are the activities or agenda
used in each PAL session.
- Selecting facilitators: not all volunteers are good.
[3] select for enthusiasm not academic ability.
- 2 parts to training: interpersonal, and dept-details.
[3] need two not one training session types: one for how to be a facilitator,
one about how this fits into this course and department.
- Training as a facilitator (can combine departments in one session).
Manchester [3] uses a one day (Saturday) workshop. UCL [6] has a two day
experiential training. Queensland [4] half a day. The key point is that
facilitating is not teaching by telling, and this requires some practice. [4]
gives some more specific content headlines, including planning the first PAL
session during training.
- Reluctance to report attendance: at UCL [6], mentioned as incomplete
at Kingston [5].
- Supervision sessions as well as PAL sessions weekly: According to
[9] this is standard in the USA. At UCL [6], apparently not at Manchester.
They often failed to attend at UCL. Required at Kingston [11], which discusses
how to do these sessions in detail.
- Having an agenda or lesson plan for each session.
At Manchester [3]: based on that week's tutorial worksheet (marked at following
tutorial), plus general advice on study skills. At UMIST [3]: based on
problems and learning objectives in the course handbook. [8] lists things to
do in PAL sessions.
- Advertising. [3] says problem is (at first) the need to change the
culture. [11] suggests getting the tutors (not just a lecturer) to promote and
regularly recommend students to attend PAL.
[0] Tinto,V. (1975) "Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of
Recent Research" Review of Educational Research vol.45, pp.89-125.
[1]
National PAL site, hosted at Bournemouth
[2]
Papers on PAL at UCL
[3] Coe,E.M., McDougall,A.O. and McKeown,N.B. (1999)
"Is Peer Assisted Learning of benefit to undergraduate chemists?"
University Chemical Education
Vol.3, No.2 pp.72-75 [WWW document]. URL
http://www.rsc.org/pdf/uchemed/papers/1999/32_coe.pdf
(visited 2004, Oct 10).
[4]
Julia Playford , Valda Miller & Barbara Kelly (1999)
Peer assessed Study Program (PASS)
[5]
Bidgood, P. (1994)
"The success of Supplemental Instruction: The Statistical evidence"
Helping students to learn from each other: Supplemental Instruction
(pp. 71-79). Birmingham, England: Staff and Educational Development
Association
[6]
Maureen Donelan (?) Introducing Supplemental Instruction (S.I) at
University College London (UCL): A Case Study
[7]
University of Sussex, CASA: a conference and project management service based
in the School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences at the University of Sussex.
[8]
PAL project, Bournemouth University (?)
Activities and Tools for PAL Sessions
[9]
Maureen Donelan (UCL) & Peter Kay (UCLAN) (?)
Supplemental Instruction: Students Helping Students' Learning at
University College London (UCL) and University of Central Lancashire
(UCLAN)
[10]
Evaluation of Year One and PAL Leader Perspective and Experience of
PeerAssisted Learning at Bournemouth University
[10.2]
Implementation of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) at Bournemouth University
PAL Project evaluation of progress up to 15/11/02
[11]
King, P. (1994). "Supervision of Supplemental Instruction leaders:
A practical guide" In C. Rust, & J. Wallace (Eds.), Helping
students to learn from each other: Supplemental Instruction
(pp. 37-39). Birmingham, England: Staff and Educational Development
Association
Web site logical path:
[www.psy.gla.ac.uk]
[~steve]
[localed]
[PAL]
[this page]
[Top of this page]