Peer Assisted Learning: Exploring 4 Different Methods

Traditional Proctor Model of Peer Assisted Learning

Question:

Discuss about the Student Independence and Peer to Peer Learning.

Learning is the art of acquiring knowledge either by study, experience or teaching, the process of learning however is continuous, which is influenced by several parameters, both external and internal. However the learning process is never same for all. Different people have different learning capacities, while few may find learning process easier on their own, few might be in need of some additional effort. One of the most abundantly utilized mediator techniques in learning process is peer assisted learning, a recent contemporary addition to the world of learning and teaching (Sams & Bergmann, 2013).

Elaborating more, a peer can be identified as the individual, who holds the similar academic rank, and peer assisted learning or PAL is the concept of involving the assistance and cooperation of the peers in the learning process of an individual. Now it has to be mentioned in this context that peer assisted learning cannot be categorized as a singular undifferentiated learning strategy. On the contrary, the concept of peer to peer learning encompasses a broad range of tools and methods, making it a more or less multidimensional learning strategy. According to the research study conducted in university of Ulster, there are 10 different modes of peer to peer learning (Riese, Samara & Lillejord, 2012). This assignment will attempt to explore four different methods of peer to peer learning and how they can be integrated to ensure maximum student independence and autonomy.

The first method that will be discussed here is the traditional proctor model of peer assisted learning. Despite being a traditional model of learning this style takes into consideration diverse contemporary teaching method and styles. According to Li & Lam, 2013, this mode of peer to peer learning is characterized by the incorporation of an educational setting where the senior students are entasked with the responsibility of tutoring or teaching the junior students utilizing much more application based and innovative learning techniques than what the usual classroom learning design employs. The authors have indicated that teaching or tutoring is a domain where experience and knowledge, both play a significant role, a single misconception or flawed understanding in the tutor may be passed on to the students that he or she is tutoring hence, and the gap in knowledge is passed on rather than being addressed and eradicated. Hence it can be said that in this model the responsibility of tutoring is given to a senior student who is ought to have a better understanding and conceptual clarity regarding the subject rather than the new learners, and hence this model can be considered much more suited and beneficial for the best of interest of the new learners. Another school of thought regarding the employment of traditional proctor model in per to peer learning setting acknowledges a different ideology within the same model (Kearney, 2013). According to this new ideology, the students from similar learning capacity or similar modules cooperate in a partnership in the learning cells assigned by the senior tutor, and the partners of the same team help each other equally in the learning process. Now it has been argued that team learning environment grouping learners with similar capacity makes the learning process much easier for both of them and along with that introduces the additional element of mutual support, which in turn facilitates the learning process further although one drawback if this integration can be the slow paced learning process and lack of constructive competitiveness. This method can be best utilized to group two individual in the similar learnng curve with a senior tutor.

Cooperative Learning Method

The second method of introducing peer assisted learning illustrates the last discussed integration method with more impact on eliminating the concept of senior tutoring. This method of peer to peer learning is also known as cooperative learning, the main principle behind this integrative ideology is to establish and facilitate positive interdependence and autonomy in the students utilizing cooperation and mutual learning experiences. In this approach earners are grouped on the basis of shared learning outcomes, and the process guides the involved individuals in a mutually beneficial interactive process guiding the entire learning process. The main difference between the proctor method and cooperative learning method is the fact that in thus method no senior tutor is assigned to a group, and the group of 6 to 7 learners with similar learning outcomes are guided by the teachers themselves (Jimenez et al., 2012). According to Kearney, 2013, this mode of peer assisted learning brings about the best invested efforts for the sake of  student autonomy, where the students participate equally with simultaneous interaction, synergy, and values to facilitate mutually beneficial learning process, fortifying the strength of each other and camouflaging the flaws, enabling the learners within a peer group to depend on their own abilities and understanding to bridge the gaps left behind in their learning process without having to depend on the assistance of the tutor, in turn employing best student independence. However a second school of thought regarding this context is the competence threat that can be a potential challenge when integrating cooperative learning method, however according to a few authors the best method to implement this method so that competence threat is eliminated and best outcome is achieved can be by incorporating the jigsaw method of informational independence while forming the groups (Jimenez et al., 2012).

The third method of peer to peer learning is another derivation from the proctor model, however this method emphasizes on the idea of peer monitoring rather than group studying activity. The method of peer monitoring is another very popular peer assisted learning method, which is characterized by the specific role taking as monitor by an experienced learner belong to the same curriculum. In this method of learning the peer monitor is chosen on the basis of understanding, performance and conceptual clarity among a group of learners belonging to a same or similar modules (Burke & Sass, 2013). Unlike the proctor model, there are no internal groups or teams formed in this scenario, and with the lack of sub-grouping, each and every individual gets the equal opportunity to learn. In case of peer tutoring or mentoring the most of focus is bestowed on the curriculum development module contents helping and monitoring the students to understand their curriculum and learn the contents rather than memorizing it. according to Boud,  2012, the best method to implement this technique will depend on deciphering and optimally utilizing the speciality level of the tutoring while assigning him or her a team of learners, where some tutoring modes scaffold interactive learning with structured material to facilitate better understanding, and many of the authors believe this specialized mode of peer tutoring is potentially more beneficial for bringing forth the concepts of student autonomy than the generic peer tutoring.

Peer Monitoring

The last method of peer to peer learning is the one that has attracted the most of the controversial arguments and has the minimal documented proof of the positive results. It has to be understood in this context that the responsibility of the peer mentor or tutor is to guide, assist and motivate the learners to attempt for learning activities and efforts that they have otherwise not opted for on their own. Hence, it is of great importance for the peer tutor to be experienced with exceptional leadership skills and cooperative and motivating understanding. This method of peer to peer learning represents the concept of spontaneous tutoring where untrained individuals with lacking experience and knowledge providing random training and tutoring sessions to the learners. According to the authors, this method is unwarranted and more or less unproductive as it does not abide by the standard norms of peer tutoring. In most cases, spontaneous tutoring behaviour can inevitably lead to incomplete learning process with frequent gaps that are left uncorrected (Boud, 2012). Hence it neither facilitates the concept of shared learning nor educational autonomy in the students or learners, nor can be considered counter-productive to the establishment of educational autonomy in the students, which is the primary outcome of the peer to peer learning programs. However, one beneficial result of this learning method can be the fact that this spontaneous training does not require meticulous preplanning and setting organization, and the learners can get their doubts cleared much sooner than any other peer assisted learning method. However, as opined by the authors, the best method to utilize this method is to take acute attention to ensure that spontaneous training is only employed to clear small doubts or confusions and is not trusted as a mainstream peer learning technique among the learners (Boud, 2013).

Conclusion:

On a concluding note, it can be said that there are a number of different tutoring techniques within the concept of peer to peer learning style, and each technique has its own sets of benefits and pitfalls. However the correct integration technique that will be able to yield the best results will entirely depend on the individual characteristics of the learner population and the learning environment setting. It has to be understood that, the process of acquiring knowledge is different for each and every individual; hence there cannot a single standardized protocol that will be able to achieve every learning goal in different learner setting. Rather, if the peer assisted learning technique is chosen on the basis of the learning capacity of the learners and the environment, it will be able to extract the optimal results out of peer to peer learning philosophy. 

References:

Boud, D. (2013). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. Routledge.

Boud, D. (Ed.). (2012). Developing student autonomy in learning. Routledge.

Burke, M. A., & Sass, T. R. (2013). Classroom peer effects and student achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(1), 51-82.

Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & Dibiase, W. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 301-317.

Kearney, S. (2013). Improving engagement: the use of ‘Authentic self-and peer-assessment for learning’to enhance the student learning experience. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 875-891.

Li, M. P., & Lam, B. H. (2013). Cooperative learning. The Active Classroom, The Hong Kong Institude of Education.

Riese, H., Samara, A., & Lillejord, S. (2012). Peer relations in peer learning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(5), 601-624.

Sams, A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip your students' learning. Educational leadership, 70(6), 16-20.