Perspective Transformation in the Supplemental Instruction (SI) Leader

Abstract

This qualitative case study explores how former Supplemental Instruction (SI) leaders experienced perspective transformation as a result of serving in a peer leadership role at a 4-year, private university through a blended theoretical framework based on the principles set forth by Mezirow and Nohl. Through their participation in interviews and graphic elicitations, former SI leaders offered valuable insights concerning the transformative nature of student leadership and its impact on the emerging sense of self in social and learning contexts. This study also assists in filling the void in research on how undergraduate students benefit by serving in a leadership role within a peer-facilitated academic assistance program in higher education.

Keywords

critical reflection personal transformation transformative learning

Higher education research throughout the decades has shown that extracurricular learning that extends beyond the confines of the college classroom walls is most significant for how students learn, mature, develop, and change (Kuh, 1993; Moffatt, 1989; Wilson, 1966). In-class academic experiences constitute only a fraction of the learning that occurs during a student’s undergraduate career; cocurricular experiences provide powerful learning opportunities for leadership development that supplement students’ formal classroom experiences (Astin & Astin, 2000; Kuh, 1993). When colleges and universities provide intentional, high-impact, and immersive leadership opportunities for the students, they are fostering learning experiences that are transformative rather than transactional in nature (Jacoby, 2009; Stripling, 2016). Out-of-the-classroom experiences, such as serving in a student leadership role, can lead to the actualization of transformative learning opportunities, which may materialize in a heightened development of skills that are transferable to future academic and professional aspirations.

Supplemental Instruction (SI) provides an outlet through which undergraduate students can serve in a leadership role within a collaborative learning environment (Flanagan & Levine, 2010). The SI program targets traditionally difficult academic subjects—those that have a high rate of D or F grades and withdrawals—and provides regularly scheduled, out-of-class study sessions facilitated by SI leaders. As a nontraditional academic assistance program, SI does not identify high-risk students but rather identifies historically difficult classes, thereby avoiding a remedial stigma. While all students may not take advantage of the voluntary service, it attracts an equal proportion of students from differing ability groups.

While the majority of research on peer-facilitated academic assistance programs, such as SI, examines positive effects on participants, few studies set out to examine the additional impact the program has on student leaders (Lockie & Van Lanen, 2008; Malm, Bryngfors, & Morner, 2012; Skalicky & Caney, 2010; Stout & McDaniel, 2006). The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore how former SI leaders experienced perspective transformation as a result of working in an SI program in higher education.

Literature Review

Peer Leadership

The determination of the college years as a critical period for students’ growth has led institutions of higher education to extend learning outside the classroom in an effort to enrich the overall college experience (Logue, Hutchens, & Hector, 2005). This type of experiential learning is referred to by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU, 2011) as “integrative and applied learning” and has been named one of the four essential learning outcomes of higher education for the 21st century (p. 7). One specific area of renewed focus has been on increasing peer leadership opportunities for students.

Broadly, peer leadership is defined as “students who have been selected and trained to offer educational services to their peers [that] are intentionally designed to assist in the adjustment, satisfaction, and persistence of students toward the attainment of their educational goals” (Ender & Kay, 2001, p. 1). Peer leadership positions come in the form of an academic tutor, peer mentor, orientation leader, resident assistant, or a leader of student club or organization. The common goal of peer leadership is to empower students to provide a positive example for their peers as well as to serve as an intermediary between students and professional staff. This peer-to-peer relationship fosters a deeper sense of community engagement and social integration on campus for both student leaders and their peers (Shook & Keup, 2012).

Studies in the field of peer-led academic support programs explore student leadership as a component of integrative and applied learning, specifically in regard to Astin’s (1985) involvement theory (Logue et al., 2005; Shook & Keup, 2012). Peer-facilitated learning has deep roots in higher education as a means for promoting student learning; collective sense-making and problem-solving among peers foster a sense of belongingness for students and promotes the social and cultural constructivist nature of learning itself. The role of the student leader in any type of peer-led academic assistance program is that of a facilitator, assisting learners in the processing, comprehension, and construction of their own knowledge, with the ultimate goal of mutually transforming both their students and themselves into independent learners (Ning & Downing, 2010).

While research has proven a positive correlation between peer leadership opportunities and student development during these critical college years, few studies account for the personal experiences of the student leader in terms of perspective transformation and critical self-reflection (Astin, 1985; Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster, & Burkhardt, 2001). Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster, and Burkhardt (2001) explored the effects of peer leadership training on the personal growth of college students, which included more developed conflict resolution skills as well as an increased commitment to civic responsibility. Such leadership opportunities also provide students the ability to develop, apply, and transfer skills related to self-direction, communication, teamwork, and critical thinking (AACU, 2011). According to Rhodes (2010), however, peer leadership experiences extend beyond the surface of merely developing desirable skills among leaders; such experiences can also provide students an opportunity to integrate these skills in a way that can transform college learners into real-world problem solvers.

Transformative Learning in Higher Education

Peer leadership experiences, such as serving as an SI leader, reflect key components of transformative learning, including a focus on critical thinking and reflection (Sloan, Davila, & Malbon, 2013). Previous research on transformative learning in higher education highlights the significance that establishing peer relationships has on fostering transformative experiences for students (Langan, Sheese, & Davidson, 2009; Mandell & Herman, 2009; Taylor, 2009). For example, Taylor (1997) notes that building trusting and authentic relationships helps learners develop the confidence needed to establish a foundation for transformative learning to occur:

Transformative learning is not about promoting and striving for individual autonomy, but about building connections and community…. Without the medium of relationships, critical reflection is impotent and hollow, lacking the genuine discourse necessary for thoughtful and in-depth reflection. (p. 43)

Similarly, the context of collaborative learning provides students opportunities to share experiences and goals and develop mutually enhancing relationships, which results in students taking responsibility for their own learning and reversing the student–teacher dynamic (Langan et al., 2009; Mandell & Herman, 2009). Peer facilitators have the unique ability to connect with fellow undergraduate students on their level and relate difficult, abstract concepts in a more concrete and easily understood manner, ultimately serving as “a bridge between course ‘experts’ with extensive content knowledge and the lived experience of the student body” (Sloan et al., 2013, p. 86).

Critical reflection is inherent in the mentoring that occurs within nontraditional academic assistance programs, like SI, in that “the mentor-student relationship could not exist unless teachers remind themselves that their role is not so much to profess as to facilitate” (Mandell & Herman, 2009, p. 79). In these leadership roles, students are required to make a cognitive shift from student to facilitator and to critically reflect on that personal transformation, which is the essence of transformative learning (King, 2009).

Theoretical Framework

Mezirow’s (1997) transformative learning theory, in combination with Nohl’s (2015) practice-based approach to transformative learning, serves as the theoretical framework for this study, which seeks to understand how undergraduate student leaders develop subjective meanings of their transformative experiences within the context of peer leadership and how such constructed meanings can be interpreted (Creswell, 2014).

Transformative learning theory

Based on the principles of Kuhn (1962), Freire (1970), and Habermas (1984), Mezirow’s (1990a) transformative learning theory defines transformative learning as “the process of learning through critical self-reflection,” which allows “a more inclusive, discriminating, and integrative understanding of one’s own experience” (p. xvi). For Mezirow (1990a), learning becomes synonymous with meaning when an individual uses an interpretation of his or her own experience to guide decision-making. Mezirow (1990a) differentiates between two types of meaning-making: meaning schemes and meaning perspectives. Meaning schemes refer to “related expectations governing ‘if-then,’ ‘cause-effect,’ and category relationships as well as event sequences” (p. 1); in other words, meaning schemes are implicit rules for interpreting meaning based on expectations from previous experiences (e.g., turning a knob will open a door). Conversely, meaning perspectives are higher order interpretations based on predictions and not expectations.

Meaning perspectives, according to Mezirow (1990a), “refer to the structure of assumptions within which new experience is assimilated and transformed by one’s past experience during the process of interpretation” (n.p.). Such perspectives provide principles for interpretation that contribute to an individual’s frame of reference, which is defined by Mezirow (1997) as a “structure of assumptions through which we understand our experiences”; thus, frames of reference “selectively shape and delimit expectations, perceptions, cognition, and feelings” (p. 5). Transformative learning, then, is the process of altering an individual’s frame of reference (Mezirow, 1997). The foundation of this theory involves the learner transforming his or her own frames of reference through critical reflection, specifically in regard to problem-solving and becoming critically aware of his or her encounters with the world, others, and themselves (Mezirow, 1990b, 1997).

Mezirow’s (1997) original model of perspective transformation had 10 stages: (1) a disorienting dilemma, an experience, or a situation which throws the learner off balance from his or her usual perspective or view; (2) self-examination; (3) a critical assessment of assumptions; (4) recognition that one’s process of transformation is a shared experience; (5) exploration of options for new roles or actions; (6) planning a course of action; (7) acquisition of knowledge or skills for implanting the action plan; (8) provisional trying of new roles; (9) building competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships; and (10) a reintegration into one’s life on the basis of one’s new perspective (pp. 168–169). These 10 stages reflect the full cycle of perspective transformation, which includes learners’ reflection, change, and action (King, 2009).

A practice-based approach to transformative learning

Mezirow intentionally did not establish definitive constructs or parameters regarding what transformative learning is in order to ensure that the theory could be applied more broadly to a variety of contexts; as a result, transformative learning theory remains in transition nearly 40 years after its initial development (Quinn & Sinclair, 2016). Thus, according to Hoggan (2016), “if transformative learning is used to refer to everything, then it means nothing” (p. 60). Mezirow’s work on perspective transformation did, however, provide explicit description of the phenomenon of transformative learning through his delineation of concepts and process through which scholars were subsequently able to apply it within a variety of disciplines. More recent studies of transformative learning theory (Taylor, 1997, 2007) differentiate Mezirow’s phase model from alternative models that refer to the more general phenomenon of change (Hoggan, 2016; Nohl, 2015). One such alternative proposed by Nohl (2015) offers a more general phase model in an effort to transcend contexts in regard to the study of transformative learning.

Building off Mezirow’s (1978) original 10-phase model, Nohl (2015) suggests a five-phase, practice-based approach to the transformation process: (1) the nondetermining start, when novelty, neither anticipated nor planned, breaks into life; (2) the phase of experimental and undirected inquiry, when actors explore the novel practices without knowing the ultimate goal of their learning efforts; (3) the phase of social testing and mirroring, when actors expose their practices to others and have the opportunity to reflect on them in light of others’ collective reactions; (4) the phase of shifting relevance, when the newly introduced practice turns into a focused experience; and (5) the phase of social consolidation and reinterpretation of biography, when actors find social relations that stabilize their new practices and perceive their biography through a new outlook.

According to Nohl’s (2015) practice-based model of transformative learning, the initiating occurrence of a disorienting dilemma is not required for transformation to take place within the learner; transformative learning, when viewed in this light, “may begin incidentally, and sometimes even casually, when a new practice is added to old habits” (p. 45). The scope of transformative learning theory has increased as a result of this practice-based model, which allows the application of the theory to span a multitude of contexts. Given the ever-changing landscape of transformative learning as an educational learning theory, both Mezirow’s (1978) transformative learning theory and Nohl’s (2015) practice-based model of transformative learning served as the theoretical foundation for the current study.

Blended framework to assess how students experience transformative learning

The present study combines Stages 2, 4, and 9 of Mezirow’s (1997) model with Phases 1, 3, and 5 of Nohl’s (2015) approach into a six-stage, blended model to assess how students experience transformative learning as outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

A six-stage, blended model to assess how students experience transformative learning combining elements of Mezirow’s (1997) model of perspective transformation and Nohl’s (2015) practice-based approach to transformative learning.

Method

Most studies of transformative learning have used qualitative research methods in an effort to effectively align with the inherent exploratory nature of transformative learning itself, as the construct of transformative learning is also unique and personal to each individual (Merriam & Kim, 2012). For the purpose of the present research, a particularistic case study methodology was chosen to examine how former student leaders experienced transformative learning through perspective transformation within their peer leadership roles as a result of working in an SI program at a 4-year, private university in the Mid-Atlantic (Merriam, 2007). Since “a hallmark of case study research is the use of multiple data sources,” data collection methods chosen for the current study included both semistructured interviewing and graphic elicitation (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 554). The study was guided by the following research question:

Research Question: In what ways has serving in a student leadership role at a private, 4-year university transformed former SI leaders’ emerging sense of self within learning and social environments?

Context

The university that serves as the context for this study is a private comprehensive, coeducational institution that offers nearly 60 undergraduate and graduate degree programs to approximately 6,000 students, located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The SI program began as a pilot in fall 2010 to fill a void in academic support services provided by the university to better support historically difficult introductory courses with a DFW rate (percentage of students who received a D, F, or Withdraw grade for the course) of at least 20%. At the time of data collection, the SI program supported over 60 course sections across multiple disciplines including biology, chemistry, physics, and accounting, with a staff of 30 SI leaders.

Participants

An SI leader is defined as an undergraduate student (sophomore level or higher) who has successfully completed the SI-participating course with a B grade or better, has a 3.2 or higher cumulative grade point average, has been recommended by a faculty member, sits in course lectures with current students, and facilitates collaborative review sessions outside the classroom 3 times per week for all students enrolled in the targeted course. For the purpose of the current study, the unit of analysis was a group of former SI leaders. Since SI leaders facilitate sessions across a variety of disciplines, participants were selected through purposeful maximum variation sampling in an effort to capture the heterogeneity of the SI leader population and to ensure that participant responses satisfactorily represented the range of SI leaders employed by the program (Patton, 2002). Twenty-two of the 31 former SI leaders who were solicited for the study expressed their willingness to participate (see Appendix A).

Data Collection

Data collection methods chosen for the current study included both individual interviewing and graphic elicitation. The rationale for interviewing participants in the current study is that the SI leaders’ transformative learning experiences cannot be directly observed. Interviews are often used for evaluating transformative learning because they “focus on the learner’s story of a particular experience to gain insight into the processes or outcomes of the learning” (Cranton & Hoggan, 2012, p. 524). For these reasons, a semistructured, open-ended interview design was employed to allow the former SI leader participants to share as much information as they liked and to fully express their experiences, given the nature of the open-ended questions. In addition, this design allowed for follow-up, probing questions when additional information was desired (Creswell, 2007; Turner, 2010).

At the conclusion of each interview, participants were provided with a graphic elicitation instrument in the form of a participatory diagram and were asked to depict, whether through words or a visual representation, how they conceptualized their leadership role. The inclusion of graphic elicitation in the form of participatory diagramming allowed the respondents an additional opportunity to interpret their own experiences while serving as SI leaders during their undergraduate study. Research has shown that drawing allows research participants to become more aware of their own thoughts, opinions, and emotions and, therefore, also provides them a better medium through which they can process their experience (Bagnoli, 2009; Copeland & Agosto, 2012; Crilly, Blackwell, & Clarkson, 2006; Umoquit et al., 2008).

Graphic elicitations are particularly useful when implemented as complementary to another data collection approach, such as interviewing (Copeland & Agosto, 2012). According to Bagnoli (2009), “Focusing on the visual level allows people to go beyond a verbal mode of thinking, and this may help include wider dimensions of experience, which one would perhaps neglect otherwise” (pp. 565–566). For the purpose of this study, graphic elicitation was employed after the participants’ interviews as to not provide an immediate basis for discussion or to potentially influence participants’ responses at the outset of the interview (Crilly et al., 2006). Given the abstract nature of the transformative learning experience of the SI leader, graphic elicitations assisted in further defining the participants’ perceptions of their role.

Data Analysis

This study employed single-case data analysis that was both inductive and deductive. The analysis of collected data was continuous as data collection and analysis occur simultaneously in qualitative research. During the first cycle of data analysis, the researchers used a combination of process coding and in vivo coding to summarize basic topics of passages as well as to reference particular phrases that came up repeatedly throughout the participants’ responses in an effort to create a preliminary categorized inventory of the data’s contents (Saldaña, 2016). Through a second cycle of data analysis, the researchers implemented pattern coding, which is “explanatory or inferential” and seeks to “identify an emergent theme” among data (Saldaña, 2016, p. 236). In addition, during this second phase, the researchers analyzed the participants’ graphic elicitation diagrams for triangulation purposes to determine if any consistent themes were present across the multiple forms of data retrieved for the study.

Findings

Throughout their interview responses and graphic elicitations, former SI leaders who participated in this study expressed the various ways in which they experienced personal growth and perspective transformation in regard to their emerging sense of self in both learning and social environments as a result of serving in a peer leadership role in higher education during their undergraduate years. Participants communicated that working in an SI program provided them the ability to develop meaningful relationships with faculty, students, and peer SI leaders, which, in turn, fostered a greater sense of campus engagement and interest in other student leadership positions. Former SI leaders also expressed increased levels of confidence as they learned to navigate their student–facilitator roles.

Connecting With Others

In analyzing the interview and graphic elicitation data, the relationship-building opportunities inherent to the SI leader’s role became apparent. Participants voiced great value in having had the unique role of serving as a liaison between faculty and students, thus forging bonds with a larger network of faculty members. While some participants, like Emily, noted that they would have “never gotten as close” to a familiar faculty member had they not worked with him or her, other former SI leaders had the ability to connect with faculty members with whom they may not have otherwise had the chance to if it were not for their mutual participation in the SI program.

Within their interview responses and graphic elicitation diagrams, former SI leaders expressed the value of developing new relationships with students who attended SI sessions, which deepened their connection to other students on campus with whom they may not have met in any other capacity. It was commonly stated by participants that their facilitator role also allowed them to build rapport quickly with the current students in the course. Participants further communicated that the student–SI leader relationship extended even beyond the scope of the SI-participating course. According to participant Emily, “[students] ask you about other classes that weren’t even involved in SI. They need help in other things, and you become their friend. It’s just amazing, just an amazing experience.”

Participants also expressed how the SI program provided them with both an outlet and a medium through which they connected to students who needed their help, thus satisfying a personal desire to help others as well as fostering a passion for civic engagement. Many former SI leaders noted that they “really enjoyed the opportunity to give back” and that the students “really did respect you for helping them so much.” In addition to helping students, former SI leaders also reflected on the reciprocity they received in return, specifically concerning the expansion of their social networks. As participant Allison stated, “While I was helping them, they were helping me just as much.”

Further, the diversity of SI participants provided former SI leaders an opportunity to “step outside their comfort zones” and interact with a greater intersection of students. One participant Sarah expressed that “because of SI, I can now pretty much strike up a conversation or talk to people who are dissimilar to me, just because we had all kinds of people coming to SI with different backgrounds.” Participants also noted that some of their students would eventually end up being their classmates in upper level courses. As participant Kelly expressed, “I branched out in terms of friends, too, because…some of my students ended up being in my classes, so it was coming full circle.” Additionally, participants expressed pride in developing SI students into future SI leaders themselves.

Former SI leaders also illustrated the bond that naturally formed among peer SI leaders due to their common involvement with helping others through a nontraditional academic assistance program that fosters a greater campus connection and student experience. Some participants responded that they were recruited to the position by friends who served in the role and had positive experiences. For example, Simon mentioned, “I have a lot of friends who were also SI leaders, and they all had positive experiences, so I wanted to be part of that.” Other participants conveyed that they met their core group of friends during new SI leader training. For example, Kelly stated, “I branched out in terms of friends, too, because I saw some of the SI leaders in my classes, and we got along really nicely.” Former SI leaders commonly responded that their friendships with peer SI leaders continued throughout their undergraduate years and even after graduation.

Overall, former SI leaders illustrated that the relationships they developed with faculty, students, and peers contributed to their engagement and involvement on campus during their undergraduate years, as they formed a larger social network and a greater sense of belonging to the institution (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

A sample of one participant’s completed graphic elicitation as part of the data collection conducted for the current study.

Engagement on Campus

Participants responded that the relationship development they encountered as a result of working in the SI program positively impacted their levels of institutional engagement by opening doors to other opportunities and providing them with a sense of belonging on campus. Former SI leaders identified their involvement with the SI program as “the turning point in getting super involved” and building their confidence to pursue additional student leadership positions. For example, participant Lily became more involved on campus after becoming an SI leader: “I was also involved with the admission department the same 2 years, and I was also involved with undergraduate research.” Similarly, after participant Theresa became an SI leader, she “became a student mentor, a student alumni liaison, and started a mentoring program in the psychology department.”

For participants like Allison and Molly, who were commuter students and would otherwise just attend classes and go home, working as an SI leader required them to spend more time on campus. Allison noted,

…it wasn’t as easy for me to get involved, so I wasn’t as involved in extracurricular activities or sports or things like that because I came to class, I just drove to campus for classes, and then I had work at home, so I wasn’t here as much, and I definitely spent more time once I became a [SI] leader.

Similarly, former SI leaders who transferred from another institution during their undergraduate years, like Kandice, commented that through their SI leader role, they were not only able to help students but, in the process, also found a community to meet other people and transition to their new environment. For participants who were resident students, serving as an SI leader, “enhanced” their overall on-campus experience.

Further, participants, like Siena, specifically noted that an SI provided them with a physical space on campus that served as “a home away from home,” which was pivotal to their on-campus engagement and connection with the institution. Similarly, participants, like Emily, who were student athletes in high school but did not continue their sport in college conveyed that working in the SI program filled a void by allowing them the opportunity to belong to a different type of team:

…through this program, I feel like I became…part of something, and I was missing that because I used to be part of an athletic team, and then I wasn’t anymore, so to be part of a different kind of team was something that I needed.

Throughout their interview responses and graphic elicitations, participants expressed that, through these shared experiences, they were able to connect on a different level and eventually find their niche in serving as an SI leader during their undergraduate years.

Internal Changes

Former SI leaders expressed that, after finding their niche, they underwent numerous internal changes while navigating their new student-facilitator role that contributed to a perspective shift in how they viewed themselves. One particular constituent of internal change that was cited frequently throughout the participants’ interview responses and within their graphic elicitation diagrams concerned building confidence. Former SI leaders noted several aspects of the student leadership role that contributed to increasing their confidence including their understanding of challenging content material, their ability to balance work and school, the recommendation of their respective faculty members, and their competence in communicating with a diverse group of individuals.

Participants responded that having to facilitate review sessions for a complex, foundational course developed their academic confidence in their ability to handle advanced content material in their own upper level courses. Theresa expressed, “I just like the confidence of feeling like I could teach other people such a complex course.” Further, participants, like Sarah, reflected on the time commitment required for the SI leader position and how their ability to effectively balance their time between work and school gave them the confidence to pursue additional employment opportunities during their undergraduate years and beyond—“the confidence to work even while studying.”

Within the graphic elicitation diagrams, former SI leaders illustrated the overarching, internal transformation that took place by serving in this peer leadership role as “finding yourself.” When asked to reflect on how they have subsequently changed since their undergraduate years, participants identified taking on the SI leader position as a turning point in becoming less introverted, less timid, and more outgoing. According to participant Victor, “you go from being a little bit more introverted before getting involved with teaching students and helping them relearn things.” Similarly, participant Sandy responded, “I’m not a very outgoing person, so I kind of need to be thrust into situations so I can meet new people,” and SI provided her with that environment. Additionally, participants commonly expressed that the SI leader experience resulted in them becoming “more open,” “more vocal in class,” and “more brave in going out for different experiences,” as they navigated through their undergraduate years and into their postgraduation lives as well.

Interpretation of Role

Throughout their interview responses, former SI leaders also revealed that they experienced a perspective shift in how they interacted with the world around them, specifically regarding how they were viewed by others, after transforming into their student-facilitator roles. Participants discussed the new level of respect they garnered from both faculty members and students once they became SI leaders. Gina commented that she was “viewed differently from the other students because now I was working closely with the professor, almost like a TA, so because of that, I felt like I got a little more respect from the professors.” Kelly expressed that “it’s just amazing to feel that level of respect even though you’re a student.”

Further, participants commented that, when faculty members knew they were SI leaders, they began to treat them like peers although they were still undergraduate students themselves. Allison noted, “you just build a different relationship with them because you become more of a colleague than a student.” Participants commonly reflected on how they had to navigate their new relationships with faculty members on the student–faculty level, interacting as a colleague when performing their SI leader responsibilities, yet still functioning as a student in their own classes and faculty-sponsored research projects.

In addition, participants expressed that they were challenged in developing relationships with other students while interpreting their new peer-facilitator roles within the SI program. Former SI leaders commented that other students viewed them differently because of their close working relationships with faculty members, despite the fact that they were still their undergraduate peers. They also reflected on the difficulty in learning how to interact with younger students in a way that fostered mentorship and did not perpetuate an authoritative role. Participant Caroline affirmed that “you become sort of like, I don’t want to say a friend, but kind of a friend, like a mentor.” Participants commonly identified the complexity associated with “wearing two hats” during their undergraduate years as both SI leader and undergraduate student.

Discussion and Implications

The former SI leaders who participated in the study expressed various ways in which they experienced personal development and perspective transformation as a result of serving as an SI leader as evidenced by their interview responses as well as within their graphic elicitations. Findings revealed that participants believed that their SI leader experience provided them with a greater opportunity to connect with others, an increase in campus engagement, a sense of internal change, and a reinterpretation of their role as they transitioned from student to facilitator. All of these characteristics contribute to the perspective transformation of the SI leader as discussed below in connection to the blended theoretical framework of transformative learning that serves as the foundation for this study (see Figure 1).

While former SI leaders commonly identified their student leadership experience as a turning point in regard to their personal development, none of the participants in the current study identified the exact moment that they experienced a specific transformation, which is consistent with Nohl’s (2015) nondetermining start stage of perspective transformation. However, findings do suggest that all participants experienced a period of self-examination when they became SI leaders and engaged in critical reflection both in action, during the time they served as SI leaders, and on action, during the time of the interview, which exemplifies the second stage of perspective transformation (Mezirow, 1991).

Based on the literature, perspective transformation occurs when an individual alters his or her own frames of reference through critical reflection, specifically in regard to problem-solving, and becomes critically aware of his or her encounters with the world, others, and themselves (Mezirow, 1990b, 1997). Findings of the current study confirm that, when examining their student roles both before and after becoming SI leaders, participants became cognizant of the assimilation of their emerging experience as a peer facilitator, thus offering them a new frame of reference through which they could extend their worldviews beyond the prior assumptions they held as a student (Mezirow, 1997). These findings also illustrate how former SI leaders experienced altered frames of reference when reflecting on their prior role as “just a student” and on their emerging role as a facilitator, specifically in regard to how that transformation would impact the remainder of their undergraduate years and, in some cases, their postgraduation lives. Experiencing altered frames of reference is one way that participants connected their student leadership experiences to transformative learning.

Additionally, findings suggest that both internal and external encounters shaped the SI leaders’ initial experiences when transitioning from students to facilitators, thus supporting the third stage of perspective transformation as defined by the current study: social testing and mirroring (Nohl, 2015). During this stage, individuals begin to reveal their new selves to others and have the opportunity to reflect on how others react to their transformation (Nohl, 2015). In terms of SI leader development, this stage is exemplified through the collaborative nature of the SI program, which fosters shared experiences among students and leaders.

Within the confines of the SI session, SI leaders have the opportunity to test their new facilitator roles, make a cognitive shift from student to facilitator, and have the ability to reflect on that transformation with constructive feedback from students, faculty, and program administrators. This shift from student to facilitator represents an additional way in which participants connected their student leadership experiences to transformative learning. Further, actively participating in civic engagement within higher education involves students learning from others, thereby fostering a learning experience that is transformative rather than merely transactional in nature (Jacoby, 2009).

Current findings also suggest that the team environment of the SI program fosters recognition that one’s process of transformation is a shared experience, which serves as the fourth stage of perspective transformation within the blended framework of the current study (Mezirow, 1991). The peer-to-peer bonds formed between SI leaders, which were commonly discussed by participants, bridge the internal experience of the new SI leader with the shared experience of the collective group. This is consistent with previous research on transformative learning in higher education that highlights the significance that building community has on fostering personal transformation, as “transformative learning is not about promoting and striving for individual autonomy, but about building connections and community” (Taylor, 1997, p. 43). Participants’ responses concur that belonging to a larger community of SI leaders serves as a support system and catalyst for personal transformation as well as an opportunity for increased on-campus engagement.

As SI leaders began to navigate their new peer-facilitator roles, findings confirm that they built both competence and confidence, not just in themselves but also in their relationships with others, which characterizes the fifth stage of perspective transformation (Mezirow, 1991). According to Taylor (1997), “without the medium of relationships, critical reflection is impotent and hollow, lacking the genuine discourse necessary for thoughtful and in-depth reflection” (p. 43). Current findings support this claim and suggest that the “trusting and authentic relationships” that SI leaders build with faculty and students are essential in fostering transformative learning experiences (Taylor, 1997).

The final stage of perspective transformation—social consolidation and reinterpretation of biography—occurs when SI leaders become fully aware of their enhanced personal growth and begin to discover how their new interpretation of self will continue to develop across the confines of the college campus and beyond, thus exploring how their transformative experiences may shape their postgraduation lives (Nohl, 2015). Participants’ reinterpretation of biography throughout their SI leader experience provides further evidence that SI leaders are challenged to reinterpret their role and perceive themselves through a new outlook while still undergraduate students themselves (Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Jacoby, 2009; Nohl, 2015). Through this reinterpretation of role, learning becomes synonymous with meaning, supporting Mezirow’s (1990a) definition of perspective transformation: SI leaders can reflect back on this experience to guide subsequent reinterpretations of self throughout their future career and/or academic journeys.

Program Recommendations

Examining perspective transformations of former SI leaders offers just one example of how an out-of-the-classroom opportunity impacted the personal development of undergraduate students. In practice, faculty and administrators with a vested interest in developing student leaders should provide increased leadership opportunities for undergraduate students to engage in high-impact and immersive experiences outside the classroom. By providing opportunities, like SI, for students to work together on problem-solving tasks with practical significance, institutions of higher education will better prepare students “to engage with those who are different from themselves, and to apply what they learn in the classroom to real world settings” (Moore McBride & Mlyn, 2013, p. 3). Therefore, higher education practitioners are encouraged to use these findings to reflect on how they can leverage transformative learning opportunities for all students at their institutions.

Conclusion

Findings from this study provide insight regarding the transformative learning experiences of former SI leaders who were employed at a mid-sized, 4-year private university located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States during their undergraduate study in an attempt to partially fill the void in research regarding development of student leaders in higher education. In addition to filling the void in research on this topic, this study serves as a stepping stone for future research on peer-facilitated academic assistance programs, including how serving as a student leader benefits future career and civic aspirations. Further, this study indicates that institutions of higher education should expand the availability of transformative opportunities outside the classroom through which students can develop the skills needed to become civic-minded leaders of future generations.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A1.

Participant Demographic Matrix.

Participant(by Pseudonym)	Age	Gender	Graduation Year	Length of SI Employment (Year)	SI Course(s) Facilitated
Gina	28	Female	2011	1	Western civilization
Michael	27	Male	2012	2	General chemistry 1 and 2
Lily	26	Female	2012	2	General chemistry 1 and 2
Siena	25	Female	2014	3	General chemistry 1 and 2
Theresa	25	Female	2014	2	Intro to cell/molecular bio
Kelly	25	Female	2014	3	Intro to cell/molecular bio
Simon	25	Male	2014	2	General chemistry 1 and 2
Caroline	24	Female	2015	3	Discovery of natural sciences
William	24	Male	2015	3	General chemistry 1 and 2
Kandice	25	Female	2014	2	Anatomy and physiology 1 and 2
Shawn	25	Male	2014	3	Anatomy and physiology 1 and 2, physics for life sciences 1 and 2
Krista	24	Female	2015	2.5	Discovery of natural sciences
Molly	23	Female	2016	2	Intro to cell/molecular bio
Allison	23	Female	2015	1	Physiology with anatomy 1 and 2
Emily	22	Female	2017	3	Physiology with anatomy 1 and 2
Felix	22	Male	2017	3	Intro to cell/molecular bio
Sarah	21	Female	January 2017	3	Organic chemistry 1 and 2, general chemistry 1 and 2, and physiology with anatomy 1 and 2
Kristin	22	Female	January 2017	2.5	Intro to biodiversity/evolution, general chemistry 1 and 2
Sandy	23	Female	January 2017	1	Intro to cell/molecular bio
Victor	32	Male	2013	1	Physiology with anatomy 1 and 2
Francesca	25	Female	2013	2	Financial accounting
Shae	24	Female	2015	3	Discovery of natural sciences, physics for life sciences 1 and 2

Note. SI = Supplemental Instruction.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2011). The LEAP vision for learning: Outcomes, practices, impact, and employers’ views. Washington, DC: Author.

Astin

A. W.

(1985). Achieving academic excellence: A critical assessment of priorities and practices in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin

A. W.

Astin

H. S.

(2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.

Bagnoli

(2009). Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9, 547–570.

Baxter

Jack

(2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544–559. Retrieved from http://www.mova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf

Copeland

A. J.

Agosto

D. E.

(2012). Diagrams and relational maps: The use of graphic elicitation techniques with interviewing for data collection, analysis, and display. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11, 513–533.

Cranton

Hoggan

(2012). Evaluating transformative learning. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 520–533). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Cress

C. M.

Astin

H. S.

Zimmerman-Oster

Burkhardt

J. C.

(2001). Developmental outcomes of college students’ involvement in leadership activities. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 15–27.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

11.

Crilly

Blackwell

A. F.

Clarkson

P. J.

(2006). Graphic elicitation: Using research diagrams as interview stimuli. Qualitative Research, 6, 341–366.

12.

Ender

S. C.

Kay

(2001). Peer leadership programs: A rationale and review of the literature. In Hamid

S. L.

(Ed.), Peer leadership: A primer on program essentials. Columbia: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

13.

Flanagan

Levine

(2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20, 159–179. Retrieved from http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/20_01_08.pdf

14.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herter and Herter.

15.

Habermas

(1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon.

16.

Hoggan

C. D.

(2016). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 66, 57–75.

17.

Jacoby

(2009). Civic engagement in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

King

K. P.

(2009). The handbook of the evolving research of transformative learning based on the Learning Activities Survey. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

19.

Kuh

G. D.

(1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 277–304.

20.

Kuhn

(1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Langan

Sheese

Davidson

(2009). Constructive teaching and learning: Collaboration in a sociology classroom. In Mezirow

Taylor

E. W.

(Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 46–56). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

22.

Lockie

N. M.

Van Lanen

R. J.

(2008). Impact of the supplemental instruction experience on science SI leaders. Journal of Developmental Education, 31, 2–14. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ832676.pdf

23.

Logue

C. T.

Hutchens

T. A.

Hector

M. A.

(2005). Student leadership: A phenomenological exploration of postsecondary experiences. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 393–408.

24.

Malm

Bryngfors

Morner

(2012). Benefits of guiding supplemental instruction sessions for SI Leaders: A case study for engineering education at a Swedish university. Journal of Peer Learning, 5, 32–41. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol5/iss1/1

25.

Mandell

Herman

(2009). Mentoring: When learners make the learning. In Mezirow

Taylor

E. W.

(Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 78–88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Merriam

S. B.

(2007). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Merriam

S. B.

Kim

(2012). Studying transformative learning: What methodology? In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), Handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 56–72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Mezirow

(1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28, 100–110.

29.

Mezirow

(1990a). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

30.

Mezirow

(1990b). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In Mezirow

Associates (Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 1–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Mezirow

(1997). Transformative learning: From theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.

33.

Moffatt

(1989). Coming of age in New Jersey: College and American culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

34.

Moore McBride

Mlyn

(2013, 11 5). Civic engagement and higher education at a crossroads. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-moore-mcbride/civic-engagement-and-higher-education_b_4218389.html

35.

Ning

H. K.

Downing

(2010). The impact of supplemental instruction on learning competence and academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 921–939.

36.

Nohl

(2015). Typical phases of transformative learning: A practice-based model. Adult Education Quarterly, 65, 35–49.

37.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Quinn

L. J.

Sinclair

A. J.

(2016). Undressing transformative learning: The roles of instrumental and communicative learning in the shift to clothing sustainability. Adult Education Quarterly, 66, 199–218.

39.

Rhodes

T. L.

(2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

40.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Shook

J. L

Keup

J. R.

(2012). The benefits of peer leader programs: An overview from the literature. New Directions for Higher Education, 157, 5–16. doi:10.1002/he.20002

42.

Skalicky

Caney

(2010). PASS student leader and mentor roles: A tertiary leadership pathway. Journal of Peer Learning, 3, 24–37. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol3/iss1/4

43.

Sloan

Davila

Malbon

(2013). Student-facilitators as university tutors: An effective approach to sustainability education. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 80–96. doi:10.1017/aee.2013.16

44.

Stout

M. L.

McDaniel

A. J.

(2006). Benefits to Supplemental Instruction leaders. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2006, 55–62. doi:10.1002/tl.233

45.

Stripling

(2016, 9 30). Obama’s legacy: An unlikely hawk on higher ed. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Obama-s-Legacy-An-Unlikely/237885

46.

Taylor

E. W.

(1997). Building upon the theoretical debate: A critical review of the empirical studies of Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 34–59.

47.

Taylor

E. W.

(2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 173–191.

48.

Taylor

E. W.

(2009). Fostering transformative learning. In Mezirow

Taylor

E. W.

(Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 3–17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

49.

Turner

D. W.

(2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15, 754–760. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol15/iss3/19

50.

Umoquit

M. J.

Dobrow

M. J.

Lemieux-Charles

Ritvo

P. G.

Urbach

D. R.

Wodchis

W. P.

(2008). The efficiency and effectiveness of utilizing diagrams in interviews: An assessment of participatory diagram and graphic elicitation. BMS Medical Research Methodology, 8, 53–64.

51.

Wilson

E. K.

(1966). The entering student: Attributes and agents of change. In Newcomb

Wilson

(Eds.), College peer groups (pp. 71–106). Chicago, IL: Aldine.