Effective Peer Learning

From Principles to Practical Implementation

Keith Topping, Céline Buchs, David Duran, Hilde van Keer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781317443056
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Peer learning allows a positive use of differences between pupils, turning them into learning opportunities. Yet education professionals often remain unfamiliar with the principles necessary to guarantee its effectiveness.

The aim of this book is to help practitioners establish well-structured and effective peer learning projects using a variety of methods. It introduces and defines cooperative learning (mutual peer interaction) and peer tutoring (directional peer interaction) – outlining general organisational principles that will help practitioners implement peer learning in either of these forms. The authors consider how to prepare and train learners to undertake their roles effectively, and how to organise and monitor the process of interaction as it is happening. They then look at how these systems actually operate in the classroom, exploring how the organisational principles work in practice and giving many practical examples. Subsequently three successive chapters consider how to structure peer interactions in cooperative learning, same-age peer tutoring and cross-age peer tutoring. Finally, the advantages and problems, and the potential and challenges, of peer learning are examined.

The book should be read in stages, with each part being able to be read on its own – thus providing time for reflection. Within each part, readers can choose to focus on cooperative learning or peer tutoring. The successive focuses on definitions, general principles of implementation and practical issues of implementation should help practitioners build their skills and confidence. Many choices between methods are described, and when teachers are confident in one method they may then consider trying a new method. It is the authors' hope that the book will become a model for peer learning by sharing with readers the skills of other practitioners, and thereby helping all children to develop to their full potential.

Part I

Introducing peer learning

Welcome to Effective Peer Learning. In Part I we introduce the ideas of cooperative learning (mutual peer interaction) and peer tutoring (directional peer interaction), helping the practitioner to clearly establish the difference between them. In Part II we outline general organisational principles for peer learning in a way which will help practitioners implement either form of peer learning. We consider how to prepare and train learners to undertake their roles effectively, and how to organise and monitor the process of interaction as it is happening. In Part III we look at how these systems actually operate in the classroom, exploring how the organisational principles work in practice and giving many practical examples. Three successive chapters consider how to structure peer interactions in cooperative learning, same-age peer tutoring and cross-age peer tutoring. Finally, in Part IV we discuss the advantages and problems, and the potential and challenges, of peer learning, together with overall conclusions and some consideration of where teachers might go next and the options open to them.

We hope that readers will find Effective Peer Learning organised in a way that lends itself to reading in stages. Each of its four parts can be read on its own, with time for reflection rather than rushing on to the next part. Within each part, readers can choose to focus on cooperative learning or peer tutoring. The successive focuses on definitions, general principles of implementation and practical issues of implementation are designed to help practitioners build their skills and confidence as they go along.

We assume that most practitioners will have implemented at least one peer-learning project before they look at Part IV. Here we discuss the many choices available to practitioners who have accumulated some practical experience and are asking more complex questions about the best way to do things in their own unique context. Throughout we have tried to refer to the evidence which supports what we suggest, and sometimes the citations and references are rather numerous. Do not be put off by this – just disregard them in your first reading and then go back later to explore them if you are interested. Finally, we hope you will yourself become a model for peer learning by helping other practitioners learn some of the skills you have developed – and thereby of course helping all children develop their full potential.

So where do we start? Traditionally teaching was considered a one-way channel. Information flowed from the expert teacher to the novice pupil. Peer interaction was considered irrelevant, or even as a distraction from the serious business of absorbing knowledge, and therefore to be eliminated. However, more recently teachers and other practitioners have come to regard education as a process of acquiring skills and motivations as well as knowledge – and this cannot be done without opportunities to practice which are engaging.

For some time we have known that interactions between students (peer interactions) can give students the opportunity to practice and lead to learning and consolidation of skills. However, not all peer interaction (dialogue and joint action) actually does lead to learning. Just as with teacher–student interactions, peer interactions are not always constructive. We outline the conditions required for peer interactions to be effective.

We argue that learning occurs thanks to interaction with other peers, which is in line with Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s work. Both Piaget and Vygotsky underlined peers as mediators of learning. The former pointed at the importance of cooperative social exchange between equal partners (Piaget, 1928, 1932), and the latter pointed at the importance of peers who have more ability than the apprentice (Vygotsky, 1978). We rely on this general distinction to respectively develop mutual peer interactions (Chapter 1) and directional peer interactions (Chapter 2).

Mutual peer learning represents situations in which students are encouraged to work together in small teams on academic tasks in order to achieve a common goal and to develop mutual knowledge and skills (Topping, 2005a). The relations between students are reciprocal, with all students endorsing responsibilities in the interaction. Directional peer learning represents situations in which one student (a tutor) has the responsibility to help another or a limited number of other students (tutees) on academic tasks or schoolwork. Traditionally, in tutoring there is temporary or permanent disparity in information or skills between tutors and tutees.

This distinction between mutual and directional peer learning was refined at the end of the 1980s, based on a continuum regarding the quality of peer engagements or scenarios of the educational peer interactions (Damon & Phelps, 1989). Based on the characteristics of the members, the objectives and the type of interaction, the authors distinguish between peer tutoring (relationship and instruction between students presenting different skill levels regarding a specific topic), cooperative learning (relationship and acquisition or application of knowledge, established between a group of students with various skills within certain margins) and peer collaboration (relationship and focused on the acquisition and/or application of knowledge by two or more students with relatively similar abilities).

With respect to the type of interaction and peer engagement, Damon and Phelps (1989) refer to two elements. The degree of equality or directionality of the interactions determines whether both partners (high degree of equality with bidirectional flow) or mainly one partner (low degree of equality with unidirectional flow) shape(s) the interactions and take(s) the lead. The mutuality refers to the communicative transactions and represents the degree to which partners are connected in an extensive engagement.

Damon and Phelps (1989) proposed that in peer tutoring equality is low, derived from the unequal role that each student plays (as tutor or as tutee). It seems clear that this is a kind of peer learning with directional peer interactions, mainly managed by the tutor. However, the closer position of the peer tutor, in comparison with an adult teacher, can improve mutuality. Nonetheless, depending on the tutor’s interpersonal skills and/or training, as well as on the tutee’s receptiveness to learning, this mutuality in peer tutoring varies from low to moderate.

In cooperative learning, the responsibilities developed by the students are supposed to be relatively similar or have an equivalent level, based on students’ equal status. Therefore, in general, an equal reciprocal relationship is produced (high equality), although at certain times – throughout the team working – tutorial or directional relations may take place. Any student can act as tutor for the rest of the team members at one moment and as a tutee later. Damon and Phelps (1989) suggested that cooperative learning involves a certain division of responsibilities for mastering the task, which reduces mutuality because each member would work on one part before putting the different parts together. At the same time, however, they underscored that mutuality depends on the subdivision of the task, the competition among teams, the distribution of responsibilities or roles among members and the extrinsic or intrinsic rewards. Therefore, we propose that mutuality in cooperative learning varies from moderate to high.

Damon and Phelps (1989) proposed that ideal peer collaboration is high on both equality and mutuality. As for cooperative learning, the responsibilities in collaborative learning are supposed to be relatively similar, with partners having the same status, leading to high equality. The mutuality is also supposed to be high, with partners working together on the joint task. The degree of mutuality is supposed to be higher in collaborative learning than in cooperative learning. In line with Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye and O’Malley (1996), cooperative learning is viewed as requiring division of labour among participants, with each member being responsible for sub-tasks they resolve individually and then the group assembling the different portions into the group task. Coordination would be necessary at the final step for assembling the different parts.

By contrast, collaborative learning would require coordinated efforts to solve a joint problem, with members being mutually engaged in the joint task and working together with high coordination for synchronous activity during the whole process (Dillenbourg, 1999; Dillenbourg et al., 1996). These authors rely on Roschelle and Teasley (1995), stating that collaborative learning involves continued attempts to construct and maintain a shared conception of the problem and requires shared negation and meanings in the group.

Our conception differs from that restricted definition. Indeed, while reviewing the major cooperative methods as proposed in Chapter 1, we will underline that not all cooperative methods require division of labour or sub-tasks. Moreover, even if division is not foreseen in a collaborative scenario, it could happen spontaneously. Therefore, this distinction for mutuality criteria does not seem relevant to us. We will argue in Chapter 1 that a main difference between cooperative and collaborative learning lies in the degree of structuring proposed by teachers. Teachers structure students’ interactions to a greater extent in cooperative learning in order to strengthen all students’ engagement. But as we will see in Chapter 1, the differentiation is not always very clear between the two mutual peer learning approaches. Table I.1 summarises the argument so far.

Table I.1 Characteristics of the dimensions of peer learning

	Peer tutoring	Cooperative learning	Peer collaboration
Equality (directionality)	Low: Directional flow, tutors control information and agenda.	High: Bidirectional flow, mutual shared responsibilities.	High: Bidirectional flow, mutual shared responsibilities.
Mutuality	Low–moderate: Favoured by peer relations but can be variable depending on the tutor’s qualities and tutee’s receptivity.	Moderate–high: Variable depending on cooperative methods (subdivision of the task and reward structure).Can be reinforced with systematic planned sequence.	Variable: Supposed to be high, thanks to joint work on the same problem, but can be variable, depending on social-psychological factors.
Degree of structuring	High: Structured academic task and material.	High: Academic task, material and participation structured by teachers.	Variable: Depends on situations and the organisation endorsed by students.

We argue that it is useful to conceive cooperative/collaborative learning as mutual peer interactions and peer tutoring as a directional peer interaction. It is also useful to identify principles that help teachers to structure scenarios in order to favour students’ engagement and constructive social interactions. Part I introduces mutual peer interactions (Chapter 1) and then directional peer interactions (Chapter 2). We devote Part II to principles that permit the preparation of students to cooperate (Chapter 3) and the structuring of academic group work (Chapter 4).

Chapter 1

Mutual peer interactions

This chapter defines what represents mutual peer interactions for learning and explains the social and educational relevance of peer interactions, as well as the principles that promote it. We will present the main characteristics of cooperative and collaborative learning. We propose to take ‘cooperative learning’ as an umbrella term useful for teachers willing to structure mutual peer interactions in their formal learning in the classroom at primary and secondary schools as well as in higher education. Further, in order to help teachers use cooperative learning in their classrooms, examples of methods are synthesised as pedagogical designs to deliberately promote cooperation. Finally, this chapter presents a brief summary of the evidence supporting cooperative learning through results of meta-analyses and reviews of research.

1.1. Collaborative and cooperative learning

1.1.1. Perspectives and definitions

We have seen that both cooperative learning and collaborative learning involve high equality between learners. Nevertheless, these two approaches include a variety of practices, and there is no consensual scientific position. Some authors use the two terms synonymously (Jacobs, 2015). (The Latin roots of both ‘cooperative’ and ‘collaborative’ refer to working together.) So in teaching, both approaches can be understood as the use of small groups of students working together to achieve common goals of learning. Both involve active engagement, small-group learning and development of thinking capabilities (Davidson & Major, 2014). This proximity is illustrated by the fact that some authors espouse cooperative learning under the collaborative banner (cf. Gillies, 2015b).

However, some differences between the two approaches are proposed, which we will discuss briefly. Cooperative learning is rooted in American tradition and anchored in social interdependence, cognitive-developmental and behavioural theories. Collaboration is rooted in British tradition and the linguistic and social nature of knowledge (Brody & Davidson, 1998). For Brody (2009), the difference lies more in the philosophical traditions than in clear differences in practices. For others, differences are more pronounced. For some, ‘collaboration’ would be a more general term that reflects a philosophy or lifestyle or a way of understanding interactions, in which cooperative learning would be a subcategory (Cuseo, 1992). For others, collaborative learning is a personal general philosophy of interaction, while cooperative learning is a structure of interaction that helps to achieve a specific goal. In this conception, collaborative learning involves shared responsibilities among students in a student-centred approach in which teachers share the authority with students (Panitz, 1999); groups of students work together with the teacher in order to develop knowledge (Davidson & Major, 2014).

In line with Bruffee (1995), collaborative learning would be relevant for open-ended, nonfoundational knowledge, in which students challenge the teacher’s input and the whole community participates in evaluation; whereas cooperative learning would be more appropriate for foundational knowledge, for which the teacher proposes a specific goal or the development of an end product (the teacher proposes what to learn with the material and organises how to learn in structuring interactions, group composition, timing and evaluation). Cooperative learning aims to help students learn academic content (Davidson & Major, 2014). Others see cooperative learning as a more artificial ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• PART I: Introducing peer learning
• PART II: General principles for peer learning
• PART III: Practical propositions for the classroom
• PART IV: Conclusions and onward directions
• References
• Index