, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 329–338 | Cite as

Mutual learning: a systemic increase in learning efficiency to prepare for the challenges of the twenty-first century

  • Bernard Blandin
  • Bernard Lietaer
25th Anniversary Volume A Faustian Exchange: What is to be human in the era of Ubiquitous Technology?


One of the few certainties we have about our collective future is that it will require a massive amount of learning, by just about everybody, everywhere. The time for generating as many creative and collaborative knowledge builders has come. Therefore, improving the efficiency of learning could very well become a key leverage point for successfully meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century. This paper explores the possibilities of using mutual learning as a systemic means to improve learning efficiencies. This is measured through three different metrics: (1) the time required to learn, (2) the quantity of learning that is retained over time, and (3) the leveraging of the cost of scholarships through the use of a complementary currency designed to track and encourage mutual learning. In all three metrics, mutual learning is shown as an important approach to increase the effectiveness of learning and, at the very least, can be an adjunct to the conventional educational methods. Mutual learning could apply not only to learning among peers, but also to social, intergenerational, or intercultural mutual learning.


Economic development Learning efficiency Mutual learning 


  1. Annis LF (1983) The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Human Learn 2:39–47Google Scholar
  2. Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy. New-York, W.H. Freeman and CGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargh JA, Schul Y (1980) On the cognitive benefits of teaching. J Educ Psychol 72(5):593–604Google Scholar
  4. Barrows HS (1986) A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Med Educ 20(6):481–486Google Scholar
  5. Basham P, Merrifield J, Hepburn CR (2007) Home schooling: from the extreme to the mainstream, 2nd edn. Frazer Institute, Vancouver (Online). Available at Accessed 2012/01/25
  6. Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42Google Scholar
  7. Bruner JS (1990) Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Carré P, Charbonnier O (2003) Les apprentissages professionnels informels. L’Harmattan, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Carré P, Fenouillet F (2008) Traité de psychologie de la motivation. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter CJ, Fekete DF (2001) Reciprocal teaching: the application of a reading improvement strategy on urban students in Highland Park, Michigan, 1993–1995. UNESCO, International Bureau of Education, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. Corno L (2001) Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In: Zimmerman BJ, Schunk DH (eds) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical perspectives, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., MahwahGoogle Scholar
  12. Cosnefroy L (2011) L’apprentissage auto-régulé: entre cognition et motivation. PUG, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  13. Dale E (1946) Audio-visual methods in teaching. Dryden, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Despret V (2004) L’éthologie comme pratique des habitudes. In: Aubert JE, Landrieu J (eds) Vers des civilisations mondiales? De l’éthologie à la prospective. Editions de l’aube, La Tour d’Aigues, pp 59–71Google Scholar
  15. Eraut M (2004) Informal learning in the workplace. Stud Continuing Educ 26(2):247–273Google Scholar
  16. European Commission (1994) Growth, competitiveness, and employment. The challenges and ways forward into the 21st century. Luxemburg, Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (1995) Teaching and learning—towards a cognitive society. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  18. Fantuzzo JW, Riggio RE, Connelly S, Dimeff LA (1989) Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: a component analysis. J Educ Psychol 81(2):173–177Google Scholar
  19. Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Gartner A, Kohler MK, Riessman F (1971) Children teach children: learning through teaching. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Ginsburg-Block M, Fantuzzo J (1997) Reciprocal peer tutoring: an analysis of “teacher” and “student” interactions as a function of training and experience. School Psychol Q 12(2):134–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gréard O (1911) Mutuel (Enseignement). Dictionnaire de pédagogie de Ferdinand Buisson (Online). Available at Accessed 2009/07/12
  23. Greenwood CR, Delquadri JC, Hall RV (1989) Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. J Educ Psychol 81(3):371–383Google Scholar
  24. Grzega J, Schöner M (2007) The didactic model LdL (Lernen durch Lehren) as a way of preparing students for communication in a knowledge society. J Educ Teach 34(3):167–175Google Scholar
  25. Hauptman P (1982) Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Sa vie et sa pensée, Editions BeauchesneGoogle Scholar
  26. Heilman KM, Nadeau SE, Beversdorf DO (2003) Creative innovation: possible brain mechanisms. Neurocase 9(5):369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Illich YD (1971) Deschooling society. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Kettwig U (1986) Lernen durch Lehren, ein Plädoyer für lehrendes Lernen. Die deutsche Schule 4:474–485Google Scholar
  29. Klassen TF (1988) Lernen durch Lehren, das Beispiel der Jenaplanschule Ulmbach. Zeitschrift Pädagogik 11:26–29Google Scholar
  30. Kolb DA (1976) The learning styles inventory: technical manual. McBer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  32. Krüger R (1975) Projekt „Lernen durch Lehren“. Schüler als Tutoren von Mitschülern, Bad HeilbronnGoogle Scholar
  33. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leelawong K, Biswas G (2008) Designing learning by teaching agents: the Betty’s Brain System. Int J Artif Intell Educ 18(3):181–208Google Scholar
  35. Lietaer B (2004) Complementary currencies in Japan today: history, originality and relevance. Int J Commun Curr Res 8:1–23 (Online). Available at Accessed 2009/10/03Google Scholar
  36. Lietaer B (2006) Proposal for a Brazilian education complementary currency. Int J Commun Curr Res 10:18–23 (Online) Available at Accessed 2009/10/03Google Scholar
  37. Livingstone DW (2001) Adults’ informal learning: definitions, findings, gaps and future research. Centre for the Study of Education and Work, OISE/UT, Toronto (Online). Available at Accessed 2012/01/25
  38. Martin J-P (1985) Zum Aufbau didaktischer Teilkompetenzen beim Schüler. Fremdsprachenunterricht auf der lerntheoretischen Basis des Informationsverarbeitungsansatzes. Dissertation, Narr, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin J-P (1996) Das Projekt „Lernen durch Lehren“—eine vorläufige Bilanz. In: Henrici/Zöfgen (Hrsg.): Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen (FLuL). Themenschwerpunkt: Innovativ-alternative Methoden. Narr, Tübingen, vol 25, 70–86Google Scholar
  40. OECD (1996) The knowledge-based economy. Paris, OECD. Downloaded on 2009/07/17 from
  41. Palincsar AS, Brown AL (1984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cogn Instr I(2):117–175Google Scholar
  42. Pask G (1975) Conversation, cognition and learning. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Pask G (1976a) Styles and strategies of learning. Br J Educ Psychol 46(2):128–148Google Scholar
  44. Pask G (1976b) Conversation theory: applications in education and epistemology. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Piaget J (1974) Réussir et comprendre. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Querrien A (2005) L’école mutuelle. Une pédagogie trop efficace?. Les empêcheurs de penser en rond/Le Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  47. Renkl A (1997) Lernen durch Lehren. Zentrale Wirkmechanismen beim kooperativen Lernen. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  48. Riding R, Rayner S (1998) Cognitive styles and learning strategies: understanding style differences in learning and behavior. David Fulton Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Riggio RE (2006) Reciprocal peer tutoring: learning through dyadic teaching (Online). Available at Accessed 2009/08/20
  50. Savery JR (2006) Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdiscip J Problem-based Learn 1(1):9–20Google Scholar
  51. Schmeck RR (ed) (1988) Learning strategies and learning styles. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Schunk D, Meese J, Pintrich P (2009) Motivation in education: theory, research, and applications, 3rd edn. London & New York, PearsonGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwartz G (2008) Digital emancipation and local development in Brazil. Paper presented at Media@LSE fifth anniversary conference September 2008. Accessed March 3, 2009. See also ( Accessed April 8, 2012
  54. Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Taddei F (2009) Training creative and collaborative Knowledge Builders: a major challenge for 21st century education. OECD, Paris. Downloaded on 2009/15/06 from:
  56. Tough A (1971) The adult’s learning projects: a fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning. OISE, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  57. Vygotsky LS (1986) Thought and language. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Welch WW, Klopfer LE, Aikenhead GS, Robinson JT (1981) The role of inquiry in science education: analysis and recommendations. Sci Educ 65:33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. World Bank (2012) The learning pyramid (online). Retrieved 2012/04/09 from
  60. Zimmerman BJ, Schunk DH (2008) Motivation: an essential dimension of self-regulated learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., MahwahGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Recherches Education FormationUniversité Paris 10ParisFrance
  2. 2.Centre d’Etudes Supérieures Industrielles, ParisMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Center for Sustainable Resources of the University of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations