Student awareness of the schemes

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 are based upon the annual evaluation questionnaires that I distributed to students offered support in 1995-6, 1996-7, and 1997-8. They summarise students’ responses to an open questions about what is the purpose of SI or Peer Support. Responses are not included from students offered SI in 1993-4 and

1995-6 because this question was not asked in the questionnaires that were distributed in these years. PS 1997-8 PS 1996-7 S 11995-6 Help from o th e r s tu d e n ts 19% 62% 27% Help on c o u rs e 5% 15% 10% Help on c o u r s e from o th e r s tu d e n ts 70% 10% 5% Didn’t know o r d id n ’t re sp o n d 6% 13% 58%

PS 1997-8 PS 1996-7 S 11995-6 Help from o th e r s tu d e n ts 23% 38% 14%

Help on c o u r s e 15% 7% 6%

Help on c o u rs e from o th e r s tu d e n ts 39% 5% 3% Didn’t know o r d id n ’t re sp o n d 23% 50% 77%

Table 4.4: Peer Support & SI Non- Users response to “What is Peer Support I SI?”

In order to allow for comparison the figures for 1996-7 and 1997-8, the two years under which Peer Support were offered, are based on the schemes which are attached to a particular course and where students attendance at the sessions was voluntary. In

1996-7, this made up 13 of the 18 schemes and in 1997-8,10 out of the 22 schemes.

The responses show that students’ knowledge and awareness of the support on offer has increased over the three years being examined. On the courses where students were asked to complete the questionnaires both Peer Support and SI can be seen as being made up of two elements. The first is that it is support that is provided by other students, the second is that it is support that is designed to support students in completing their course. Students’ awareness of one or both of these elements have increased over the years.

It could be argued that this is part of the process of the schemes becoming more embedded on courses over time. However, there are three reasons why this is probably not the case. First, both in 1996-7 and 1997-8, on over half of the courses this was the first year that any form of Peer Support had run. Second, the awareness of students increased as a percentage of those offered support, rather than as a raw figure. Third, the differences between the figures is very large. Whilst 13% of those who attended Peer Support in 1996-7, and 6% of those who attended Peer Support in

1997-8 appeared not to know what it was, the figure for those attending SI was 58%. Over half of those who attended SI did not seem to know what it was about! This may be due to an issue of language, in that students were clearer about what Peer Support meant than they were about the meaning of SI. This would still show that the Peer Support implementation strategy is more effective, as finding a language of support

that students understand is one of the major issues in raising awareness of the support that is on offer.

PS 1997-8 P S 1996-7 S 11995-6 1 did n o t know a b o u t it 31% 56% 22%

1 did n o t h av e tim e 31% 30% 71%

1 could n o t a tte n d a t th e tim e o f th e s e s s io n

39% 10% 6%

Table 4.5: Peer Support & SI Non-Users responses to “Why did you not attend?”

The figures in Table 4.5 are again drawn from the annual questionnaires distributed to those offered support on courses where the sessions were held outside the mainstream curriculum. The table highlights the three main reasons given for non-attendance at sessions offered under both SI and Peer Support. The figures show that there was a shift in the reasons that students gave for non-attendance at the support offered. Under SI, the main reason offered for students not attending was a lack of time. Under Peer Support, the reasons shifted. In 1996-7 the main reason was that students did not know about the support, and in 1997-8 it shifted again to students not being able to attend at the time of the session. These shifts again point to the success of the change in the implementation strategy. To give as a reason for non-attendance that you were not aware o f the opportunity for support, or you were unable to attend, suggests that you might have attended if you had known. To say that you did not have time suggests that the support was not valued. This suggests that Peer Support has more relevance to students, particularly when this is coupled with the increase in the numbers o f students attending Peer Support sessions. This shows that the change in the implementation strategy has been successful in increasing the relevance of the support offered.