A Three-Year Multi-Faculty Evaluation of 16 SI-PASS Schemes: Attendance Thresholds, Performance Gains, and Standardized Metrics

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
FACULTY	ACADEMIC YEAR AND SEMESTER	POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS	ACTUAL UNIQUE PARTICIPANTS	% PARTICIPATION	N PARTICIPATION	AVERAGE MEETINGS PER UNIQUE PARTICIPANT	N QUESTIONNAIRES (P/NP)	N LEADERS	DILIGENT LEADERS	N THEORETICAL MEETINGS/THEORETICAL CONTACT HOURS	N ACTUAL MEETINGS/ESTIMATED CONTACT HOURS	N THEORETICAL PARTICIPATIONS	% ACTUAL MEETINGS ATTENDANCE	AVERAGE NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER MEETING	COSTS IN EUROS (€)
Applied Sciences	19–20 S2 20–21 S1 20–21 S2 21–22 S1 21–22 S2	288 315 358 222 368	108 215 164 208 65	37.5 68.3 45.8 93.7 17.7	487 1,146 825 1,130 489	4.5 5.3 5.0 5.4 7.5	117 (95/22) 63 (57/6) 90 (74/16) 127 (111/16) 66 (66/0)	16 15 10 13 17	10 12 8 13 6	208 195 130 169 221	100 144 99 155 70	3,744 4,095 4,654 2,886 4,784	13 28 17.7 39.2 10.2	2.3 5.9 6.3 6.7 2.2	5,600 5,250 3,500 4,550 5,950
Bioengineering	19–20 S1 20–21 S1 20–21 S2 21–22 S1 21–22 S2	276 238 260 208 218	113 140 90 92 89	40.9 58.8 34.6 44.2 40.8	515 655 327 480 311	4.6 4.7 3.6 5.2 3.5	15 (15/0) 30 (24/6) 55 (36/19) 46 (37/9) 22 (22/0)	16 19 13 15 10	16 19 13 15 10	208 247 169 195 130	161 212 142 160 119	3,588 3,094 3,380 2,704 2,834	14.4 21.2 9.7 17.8 11	2.5 2.7 1.9 2.5 2.4	5,600 6,650 4,550 5,250 3,500
Psychology	20–21 S2 21–22 S1 21–22 S2	293 303 64	247 253 28	84.3 83.5 43.8	1,777 1,292 246	7.2 5.1 8.8	161 (129/32) 141 (100/41) 45 (45/0)	36 33 6	35 27 6	468 364 78	377 293 72	3,809 3,939 832	46.7 32.8 29.6	3.8 3.5 3.2	12,600 11,550 2,100
Sciences	20–21 S1 21–22 S1 21–22 S2	45 68 171	15 35 64	33.3 51.5 37.4	102 170 408	6.8 4.9 6.4	16 (14/2) 20 (18/2) 31 (31/0)	3 3 9	3 3 9	39 39 117	39 39 106	585 884 2,223	17.4 19.2 18.4	2.6 4.4 3.5	1,050 1,050 3,150
Total		3,695	1,926	52	10,360	5.5	1,045 (874/171)	229	205	2,977	2,218	48,035	21.6	3.5	81,900

[i] Note. S1 and S2 stand for Semester 1 and Semester 2. For detailed column explanations, please refer to Appendix 2.

Table 2

Frequency of Motivational Themes Mentioned by SI-PASS Students Across Faculties.

THEMES	APPLIED SCIENCES	BIO-ENGINEERING	PSYCHOLOGY	SCIENCES	TOTAL	X²	p
1. Learn, understand, ask questions	359*	186*	220*	82*	847	11.01	.012
2. Socializing	73*	21*	91*	4*	189	34.40	< .001
3. Ambiance	27	19	27	11	84	3.88	.275
4. Elder leaders	27*	17*	20*	13*	77*	7.91	.048
5. Keeping pace	22	16	26	0	64	.	.
6. Other approach	34	12	9	4	59	.	.
7. Emotional support	5	5	22	1	33	.	.
8. Curiosity	6	4	7	0	17	.	.
Total	553	280	422	115	1,370

[i] Note. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in response frequencies for each theme between faculties using a chi-square test are marked by (*). Not all chi-square analyses were conducted because several cells in the table contain frequencies below 5, violating the assumptions required for χ² testing (Cochran, 1954).

Table 3

Frequency of Motivational Themes Mentioned by SI-PASS Students From Each Faculty Depending on the Number of Meetings They Reported Participating In.

	APPLIED SCIENCES			BIOENGINEERING			PSYCHOLOGY			SCIENCES			TOTAL
Number of meetings	1–5	6–10	> 10	1–5	6–10	> 10	1–5	6–10	> 10	1–5	6–10	> 10	1–5	6–10	> 10
Total N respondents	66	20	132	41	28	26	10	62	103	10	5	24	127	115	285
1. Learn, understand, ask questions	105	23	231	104	44	38	14	91	115	14	7	61	237	165	445
2. Socializing	18	3	52	11	5	5	2	35	54	1	1	2	32	44	113
Total	123	26	283	115	49	43	16	126	169	15	8	63	269	209	558

[i] Note. Chi-square analyses were not conducted because several cells in the table contain frequencies below 5, violating the assumptions required for χ² testing (Cochran, 1954).

Table 4

Frequency of Reasons for Non-Participation Mentioned by SI-PASS Students From Each Faculty.

	APPLIED SCIENCES	BIOENGINEERING	PSYCHOLOGY	SCIENCES	TOTAL
1. Lack of time	23	15	13	4	55
2. Useless	12	14	11	3	40
3. Didn’t know	4	1	22	1	28
4. No interest	2	6	1	0	9
5. Already tried	3	2	0	0	5
6. Absent leader	0	1	3	0	4
7. Stress or timidity	3	0	0	0	3
Total	47	39	50	8	144

[i] Note. Chi-square analyses were not conducted because several cells in the table contain frequencies below 5, violating the assumptions required for χ² testing (Cochran, 1954).

Table 5

Suggestions for More Participation Mentioned by SI-PASS Students From Each Faculty.

	APPLIED SCIENCES	BIOENGINEERING	PSYCHOLOGY	SCIENCES	TOTAL
1. Better schedule	30	24	25	7	86
2. Better organization	36	19	15	1	71
3. No Visio conference	9	6	10	2	27
4. More participants	9	2	2	2	15
5. More meetings	0	2	1	0	3
6. More information	2	0	1	0	3
Total	86	53	54	12	205

[i] Note. Chi-square analyses were not conducted because several cells in the table contain frequencies below 5, violating the assumptions required for χ² testing (Cochran, 1954).

Table 6

Frequency of Students’ Perception of the Significant Contribution SI-PASS Will Have in Helping Them Pass the Exam From Each Faculty Depending on the Number of Meetings They Reported Participating In.

	APPLIED SCIENCES			BIOENGINEERING			PSYCHOLOGY			SCIENCES			TOTAL
Number of meetings	1–5	6–10	> 10	1–5	6–10	> 10	1–5	6–10	> 10	1–5	6–10	> 10	1–5	6–10	> 10
Total % respondents	18	62	74	38	61	85	52	71	91	25	57	76	27	66	81
Strongly agree	1	9	27	0	5	9	1	25	57	0	1	13	2	40	106
Agree	12	30	67	8	11	14	9	21	35	3	3	7	32	65	123
Neither disagree nor agree	32	16	19	10	7	4	4	10	8	4	2	5	50	35	36
Disagree	9	5	10	0	2	0	1	3	1	3	1	1	13	11	12
Strongly disagree	16	2	3	3	1	0	4	5	0	2	0	0	25	8	3
Total	70	62	126	21	26	27	19	64	101	12	7	26	122	159	280

[i] Note. Chi-square analyses were not conducted because several cells in the table contain frequencies below 5, violating the assumptions required for χ² testing (Cochran, 1954).

Table 7

Number of Students, Mean Grades, Standard Deviation, t-Tests on Academic Performance for SI-PASS Students, and Size Effects (Lockdown Semesters are in Bold).

FACULTY, ACADEMIC YEAR, AND SEMESTER	SI-PASS			NON-SI-PASS			t	p	COHEN’S d
FACULTY, ACADEMIC YEAR, AND SEMESTER	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	t	p	COHEN’S d
Applied Sciences 19–20 S2	108	8.97	.45	176	8.27	.35	1.23	.22	.15
Applied Sciences 20–21 S1	190	7.13	.32	103	6.82	.42	0.58	.56	.07
Applied Sciences 20–21 S2	164	9.22	.47	122	7.10	.53	3.00	.003*	.36
Applied Sciences 21–22 S1	194	7.91	.34	101	6.07	.40	3.30	< .001**	.41
Applied Sciences 21–22 S2	63	11.86	.64	301	8.54	.32	4.35	< .001**	.60
Bioengineering 19–20 S1	108	8.64	.37	145	6.61	.32	4.14	< .001**	.53
Bioengineering 20–21 S1	127	9.77	.41	104	7.07	.42	4.60	< .001**	.61
Bioengineering 20–21 S2	75	9.83	.36	117	9.38	.28	0.98	.33	.15
Bioengineering 21–22 S1	88	8.52	.45	99	5.38	.45	4.93	< .001**	.72
Bioengineering 21–22 S2	82	6.49	.51	133	3.51	.31	5.28	< .001**	.74
Psychology 20–21 S2	175	11.90	.23	450	9.63	.19	6.65	< .001**	.59
Psychology 21–22 S1	220	7.86	.42	640	4.59	.21	7.68	< .001**	.60
Psychology 21–22 S2	24	6.17	.61	674	5.95	.14	0.30	.76	.06
Sciences 20–21 S1	13	7.15	.95	29	4.48	.82	1.5	.14	.50
Sciences 21–22 S1	30	6.10	.78	28	4.68	1.02	1.11	.27	.29
Sciences 21–22 S2	63	5.40	.68	93	3.42	.53	2.31	.022*	.38

[i] Note. S1 and S2 stand for Semester 1 and Semester 2. Statistical significance is indicated by p < .05 (*), and by p < .001 (**).

Table 8

Significant Threshold (Number of Meetings Required Calculated with Tukey Tests for SI-PASS Students).

FACULTY, ACADEMIC YEAR, AND SEMESTER	NO. MEETINGS	ESTIMATE	STD	t	p
Applied Sciences 19–20 S2*	.	.	.	.	.
Applied Sciences 20–21 S1*	.	.	.	.	.
Applied Sciences 20–21 S2	7	5.51	2.24	2.46	.015
Applied Sciences 21–22 S1	6	2.92	1.19	2.46	.015
Applied Sciences 21–22 S2	8	4.59	2.28	2.02	.045
Bioengineering 19–20 S1	5	3.13	1.25	2.50	.013
Bioengineering 20–21 S1	5	3.34	1.06	3.17	.002
Bioengineering 20–21 S2*	.	.	.	.	.
Bioengineering 21–22 S1	5	4.27	2.07	2.06	.042
Bioengineering 21–22 S2	5	4.99	1.26	3.96	< .001**
Psychology 20–21 S2	8	3.04	1.22	2.85	.044
Psychology 21–22 S1	8	5.13	2.41	2.12	.034
Psychology 21–22 S2*	.	.	.	.	.
Sciences 20–21 S1*	.	.	.	.	.
Sciences 21–22 S1*	.	.	.	.	.
Sciences 21–22 S2	8	8.70	1.90	4.58	< .001**

[i] Note. S1 and S2 stand for Semester 1 and Semester 2. The iterations marked by an (*) produced no significant t-test result in Table 7 and were therefore excluded from the subsequent Tukey HSD test. Statistical significance is indicated by p < .05 (*), and by p < .001 (**).

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR CERTIFIED SI-PASS PROGRAMS		ULIège IMPLEMENTATION
SI-PASS programs* are…*
1.	managed by a certified SI-PASS Supervisor who has undertaken training with a Certified Trainer based at a National or Regional Centre (e.g., European Centre at Lund University).	1.	In Liège, two certified supervisors monitor all aspects of the program.
2.	student-driven with participants determining the content of SI-PASS sessions facilitated by SI-PASS leaders.	2.	Leaders’ training puts strong emphasis on this aspect. Field observations confirm its good implementation.
3.	monitored and evaluated through attendance data, student feedback, and students’ final marks. Outcomes are reported to stakeholders where appropriate.	3.	This very article demonstrates compliance to this criterion.
SI-PASS sessions* are…*
4.	small supplementary study groups in which there are no more than 20 participants, with groups of 8–12 being best practice.	4.	Initial groups do not exceed 15 participants. Natural attrition reduces this number.
5.	voluntary and are open to all students enrolled in the unit, subject, or course.	5.	All students enrolled in the targeted course are invited to participate.
6.	not linked to the awarding of marks for the unit, subject, or course.	6.	Instructors of the targeted courses do not know who takes part.
7.	facilitated by a student who is at least one year beyond the level of the target unit in their own studies and has successfully completed the unit they are supporting.	7.	Leaders are second- or third-year students selected because they are: a) willing to help peers, b) successful in the targeted course, and c) globally successful in their studies.
8.	designed to supplement existing learning opportunities open to all students, such as lectures, tutorials, practicals, etc.	8.	Leaders are trained and supported in the management of sessions that materialize the unique tenets of SI-PASS. The seminal exhortation of “not to teach” is the repeated motto of the program, so that it keeps its special space in the array of help for academic success. Leaders must also keep in mind the distinctive boundaries of their role, which does not equate with being a faculty or a teaching assistant.
9.	aligned with unit, subject, or course content. SI-PASS leaders plan regular sessions and related activities based on the previous week’s lecture(s) or core content.	9.	Each session takes place within the week following each course and is dedicated to the content covered in this course.
10.	meant to integrate both course content and related study skills.	10.	Leaders are trained to welcome both content- and method-related issues.
11.	active, positive, collaborative peer learning environments.	11.	These SI-PASS key features are strongly highlighted during the initial leaders’ training and are recalled as often as possible.
12.	not directly connected with assessable tasks (i.e., anything that has marks attached, such as homework or assignments).	12.	The targeted courses do not organize marked tasks before the exam.
13.	monitored through taking attendance and having an SI-PASS representative regularly observe leaders and provide them with guidance and feedback for ongoing improvement.	13.	Two or three voluntary debriefings as well as one compulsory field observation per leader usually takes place during the semester. Leaders experiencing difficulties must report to the supervisors. All leaders fill in an online attendance registry after every meeting.
14.	attached to classes or disciplines, never to students, and are non-remedial in their approach.	14.	The program targets “high risk courses and not high-risk students.” The targeted courses are selected by faculties among those recording high exam fail rates (e.g., at the psychostatistics exam in the Faculty of Psychology in 2023, only 14% of all students passed the course in January).
SI-PASS supervisors…
15.	and senior leaders, mentors, and coordinators model SI-PASS principles and facilitation skills both in training and in ongoing professional learning in order to inform best practice. The same is true of other locally specified roles, such as mentors (senior leaders) and coordinators.	15.	Initial and ongoing training is delivered by certified and seasoned supervisors who themselves practice SI-PASS principles and spirit. They regularly attend supervisors’ “master classes” offered by the European Center. There are unfortunately no senior leaders at ULiège.
16.	work collaboratively with academic colleagues to ensure SI-PASS is linked appropriately into the course schedule and content.	16.	Supervisors have a contact person in each faculty, helping to manage the practical aspects of the program. Low contact with teachers of the targeted courses is a weakness at ULiège.
SI-PASS leaders and facilitators* are…*
17.	recognized and rewarded (e.g., some institutions pay their leaders while others offer academic credit or other appropriate compensation).	17.	Leaders sign a contract with the university and are financially compensated for their role with the official student job salary.
18.	provided with an initial minimum two-day training program and ongoing professional learning.	18.	An initial one-day training is mandatory for all leaders (new and confirmed). Ongoing training opportunities called “mini cursus” are provided as well as a compulsory reflective exercise.
19.	provided with resources to support them in their role.	19.	An online platform is being created to provide leaders with multiple resources: course-related material, translated SI-PASS cards, techniques covered in mini-cursus, FAQs answering all kinds of questions received over the last four years, and SI-PASS literature.
20.	instructed not to reteach the course material. They are specifically trained to develop students as independent learners and to ensure that SI-PASS sessions do not become another lecture or a replacement for tutorials.	20.	This aspect is the key point during their training, and they are constantly reminded of it. The field observations confirm that this notion is well rooted in leaders’ practice.
21.	in regular contact with course teaching team so they are knowledgeable about what is occurring in the course to ensure that the following aims are met: leaders are modeling good study behavior, marketing the purpose and benefits of SI-PASS, remaining up-to-date with subject content and relevant unit information to support preparation, retaining awareness of difficult content, and providing feedback to inform the course teaching team.	21.	Some teachers have sometimes provided agendas for their courses. The online space of the course is open, on university LMS, to leaders. To be knowledgeable, the leaders rely on their own notes, handbook, and exercises. They are officially paid for one hour to prepare each meeting (e.g., content revision, activity planning). Contact between leaders and supervisors with teachers is unfortunately scarce, even in the sharing of the collected feedback.

FACULTY	ACADEMIC YEAR AND SEMESTER	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	M10	M11	M12	M13	TOTAL
Applied Sciences	19–20 S2 20–21 S1 20–21 S2 21–22 S1 21–22 S2	92 158 135 167 61	59 123 98 122 55	57 117 85 110 49	51 113 80 98 44	47 102 59 96 38	43 108 62 74 41	40 97 52 84 35	30 90 54 78 37	30 77 50 84 32	11 72 50 80 28	9 57 41 80 30	8 24 34 37 21	10 8 25 20 18	487 1,146 825 1,130 489
Bioengineering	19–20 S1 20–21 S1 20–21 S2 21–22 S1 21–22 S2	31 98 54 34 60	64 69 39 39 48	72 72 39 59 26	61 69 25 48 31	55 37 25 47 33	54 40 27 24 20	15 48 13 24 13	33 51 19 31 3	37 47 22 38 14	34 47 18 46 12	36 37 16 28 22	20 35 14 37 18	3 5 16 25 11	515 655 327 480 311
Psychology	20–21 S2 21–22 S1 21–22 S2	213 166 22	192 142 20	181 144 20	164 142 21	168 110 22	156 88 21	149 90 20	138 75 16	145 80 20	139 72 22	95 68 20	37 65 16	. 50 6	1,777 1,292 246
Sciences	20–21 S1 21–22 S1 21–22 S2	12 30 53	11 20 48	11 17 38	8 9 33	8 12 36	8 11 38	8 12 34	7 7 28	7 12 35	6 9 25	6 12 17	6 10 9	4 9 14	102 170 408
Total		1,386	1,149	1,097	997	895	815	734	697	730	671	574	391	224	10,360

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/jopl.143 | Journal eISSN: 2200-2359

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 3 - 3

Submitted on: Jun 9, 2025

Accepted on: Jun 17, 2026

Published on: Jul 29, 2026

Published by: Virginia Tech Publishing

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2026 Ninon Puttaert, Dominique Toye, France Mélot, Catherine Colaux, Anne-Sophie Nyssen, Dominique Verpoorten, published by Virginia Tech Publishing
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 17 (2026): Issue 1