Participation ahead: Perceptions of master degree students on reciprocal peer learning activities

Catarina Lelis

Abstract


Peer Learning is broadly described as the development of knowledge or skills by individuals from similar statutory conditions who are learning from and with each other in both formal and informal ways. There is a considerable amount of published work on peer learning in the context of schools and undergraduate courses but little work has been developed around postgraduate levels, specifically with Masters courses. The goal of the research presented in this paper was to understand how Masters degree students perceive and engage with a peer learning activity set in a taught module. One specialist subject topic from the curriculum was assigned to each student who, during two sessions in regular teaching times, had to perform both as peer tutor and tutee in a reciprocal peer learning approach. Two questionnaires were applied - one for each role the students had to perform. Results reveal that the majority of students considered the peer tutor role undeniably positive; however, while performing as tutees, students expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of the approach. As the credibility of peers was evidenced as an issue (when set against these students’ high expectations), this paper contends that reciprocal peer learning may not be the most suitable peer learning method for master levels. 


Keywords


peer learning, master degree, student perception, participation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Annis, L.F. (1983). The processes and effects of peer tutoring, Human Learning. 2(1), 39–47.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Boud, D. (1988). Moving towards autonomy. In D. Boud (Ed.), Developing student autonomy in learning (2nd ed., pp. 17-39). London: Kogan Page.

Boud, D., Cohen, R. & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. London: Kogan Page.

Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Chanock, K. (2004). Autonomy and responsibility: same or different? Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.independentlearning.org/uploads/100836/ila03_chanock.pdf

Ferrari, A., Cachia, R. & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and training in the EU member states: Fostering creative learning and supporting innovative teaching. Luxembourg: European Commission Joint Research Centre (Institute for Prospective Technological Studies). Retrieved from ftp://ftp.jrc.es/users/publications/public/EURdoc/JRC52374_TN.pdf

Fischer, G. & Ostwald, J. (2002). Seeding, evolutionary growth, and reseeding: Enriching participatory design with informed participation. In T. Binder, J. Gregory, & I. Wagner (Eds.), Participatory Design Conference (PDC’02), 2002, Malmö University, Sweden. Retrieved from http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers.html

Ginns, P., Prosser, M. & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 603–615.

Havnes, A., Christiansen, B., Bjørk, I. T., & Hessevaagbakke, E. (2016). Peer learning in higher education: Patterns of talk and interaction in skills centre simulation. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 8, 75–87.

Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/engagement_through_partnership.pdf

Hendelman, W.J., & Boss, M. (1986). Reciprocal peer teaching by medical students in the gross anatomy laboratory. Journal of Medical Education, 61(8), 674–80.

Hilsdon, J. (2014). Peer learning for change in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51, 244–254.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lim, L. L. (2014). A case study on peer-teaching. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 35-40.

Marquardt, M., & Waddill, D. (2004) The power of learning in action learning: A conceptual analysis of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1(2), 185-202. doi: 10.1080/1476733042000264146

Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (pp. 214-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from https://www.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/23772_Ch7.pdf

Pavlina, K., Zorica, M. B. & Pongrac, A. (2011). Student perception of teaching quality in higher education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2288–2292.

Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32, 321-345.

Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in Peer Learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v10i2.286
Abstract Views:
157
Views:
PDF
51

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.



Contact | Announcements | © Queensland University of Technology | ISSN: 1832-8342