Instructional Science

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 159–173 | Cite as

Peer Support: Relations between the context, process and outcomes for the students who are supported

  • Paul Ashwin

Abstract

In this paper an investigation of the outcomesof a Peer Support scheme for the students whoare supported is reported. It was found thatattendance at Peer Support sessions waspositively and significantly correlated toacademic performance. This relationship wasfound even when prior levels of academicperformance were controlled for. However, itwas also found that students who attended PeerSupport sessions adopted less meaningorientated approaches to studying over thecourse of the academic year. It is argued thatthis is an indication that the quality of thelearning of these students fell. Qualitativeevidence suggests that this change in approachwas in response to an increased awareness ofthe assessment demands of the course and thatthese students had become more strategicallyorientated in their approach to studying as aresult of their attendance at Peer Supportsessions. It is argued that these resultssuggest that the outcomes and operation of thisPeer Support scheme were influenced by thecontext in which it operated. Two implicationsof these findings are discussed.

approaches to studying further education Peer Learning peer support Supplemental Instruction (SI) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashwin, P. (in press). Peer facilitation and how it contributes to the development of a more social view of learning. Research in Post-Compulsory Education.Google Scholar
  2. Bidgood, P. (1994). The success of Supplemental Instruction: The statistical evidence. In C. Rust & J. Wallace, eds, Helping Students to Learn from Each Other: Supplemental Instruction. Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.Google Scholar
  3. Blanc, R.A., DeBuhr, L.E. & Martin, D.C. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of Supplemental Instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. Journal of Higher Education 54: 80-90.Google Scholar
  4. Bridgham, R.G. & Scarborough, S. (1992). Effects of Supplemental Instruction in selected medical school science courses. Academic Medicine 67: 569-571.Google Scholar
  5. Bryngfors, L. & Bruzell-Nilsson, M. (1997). An Experimental Project with the Method of Supplemental Instruction. Lund, Sweden: Lund University.Google Scholar
  6. Burmeister, S.L., Carter, J.M., Hockenberger, L.R., Kenney, P.A., McLaren, A. & Nice, D.L. (1994). Supplemental Instruction sessions in college algebra and calculus. In D.C Martin & D.R Arendale, eds, Supplemental Instruction: Increasing Achievement and Retention. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, Vol. 60 (Winter). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Center for Supplemental Instruction (1998). Supplemental Instruction: Review of Research Concerning the Effectiveness of SI from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and other Institutions from across the United States. Kansas City: University of Missouri-Kansas City.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, R.M. (1986). Students' approaches to learning in an innovative medical school: A cross-sectional study. British Journal of Educational Psychology 56: 309-321.Google Scholar
  9. Congos, D.H. & Schoeps, N. (1993). Does Supplemental Instruction really work and what is it anyway? Studies in Higher Education 18: 165-176.Google Scholar
  10. Entwistle, N.J. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N.J. Entwistle, eds, The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  12. Goldschmid, B. & Goldschmid, M.L. (1976). Peer teaching in higher education: A review. Higher Education 5: 9-33.Google Scholar
  13. Goodlad, S. & Hirst, B. (1989). Peer Tutoring: A Guide to Learning by Teaching. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  14. Healey, C.E. (1994). Supplemental Instruction. A model for supporting student learning. In H.C. Foot, C.J. Howe, A. Anderson, A.K. Tolmie & D.A. Warden, eds, Group and Interactive Learning. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, C. (1995). Peer tutoring in economics at the University of Melbourne. In S. Goodlad, ed., Students as Tutors and Mentors. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  16. Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J. & Stott, V. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of educational innovations: Using the Study Process Questionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in Educational Evaluation 23: 141-157.Google Scholar
  17. Kenney, P.A. (1989). Effects of Supplemental Instruction on student performance in a collegelevel mathematics course. A paper presented at Meeting of the American Educational Association, March.Google Scholar
  18. Kenney, P.A. & Kallison, J.M. (1994). Research studies on the effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction in mathematics. In D.C Martin & D.R Arendale, eds, Supplemental Instruction: Increasing Achievement and Retention. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, Vol. 60 (Winter). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Lundeberg, M. (1990). Supplemental Instruction in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27: 145-155.Google Scholar
  20. Lundeberg, M.A. & Moch, S. (1995). The influence of social interaction on cognition: connected learning in science. Journal of Higher Education 66: 312-334.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, D.C. & Arendale, D.R., eds (1993). Supplemental Instruction: Improving First-Year Student Success in High-Risk Courses, 2nd edn. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition.Google Scholar
  22. McCarthy, A., Bridget, S. & Cosser, M. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction: A critique and a case study. Studies in Higher Education 22: 221-231.Google Scholar
  23. McMillin, J. (1993). Adapting Supplemental Instruction to English composition classes. In D.C. Martin & D.R. Arendale, eds, Supplemental Instruction: Increasing Achievement and Retention. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, Vol. 60 (Winter). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Norton, L.S. & Crowley, C.M. (1995). Can students be helped to learn how to learn? An evaluation of an 'Approaches to Learning' programme for first year degree students. Higher Education 29: 307-328.Google Scholar
  25. Price, M. & Rust, C. (1994). Introducing SI in business courses in a modular programme. In C. Rust & J. Wallace, eds, Helping Students to Learn from Each Other: Supplemental Instruction. Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.Google Scholar
  26. Price, M. & Rust, C. (1995). Laying firm foundations: The long-term benefits of Supplemental Instruction for students on large introductory courses. Innovations in Education and Training International 32: 123-130.Google Scholar
  27. Ramsden, P. & Entwistle, N.J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students' approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology 51: 368-383.Google Scholar
  28. Ramsden, P., Martin, E. & Bowden, J. (1989). School environment and sixth form pupils' approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 59: 129-142.Google Scholar
  29. Richardson, J.T.E. (1990). Reliability and replicability of the approaches to studying questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education 15: 155-168.Google Scholar
  30. Rye, P.D., Wallace, J. & Bidgood, P. (1993). Instructions in learning skills: An integrated approach. Medical Education 27: 470-473.Google Scholar
  31. Topping, K. (1996). Effective Peer Tutoring in Further and Higher Education. Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.Google Scholar
  32. Watkins, D. & Hattie, J. (1985). Longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students. Human Learning 4: 127-141.Google Scholar
  33. Whitman, N.A. (1988). Peer Teaching: To Teach is to Learn Twice. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  34. Zerger, S. (1994). Supplemental Instruction in content areas: humanities. In D.C. Martin & D.R. Arendale, eds, Supplemental Instruction: Increasing Achievement and Retention. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, Vol. 60 (Winter). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Ashwin
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for the Advancement of University Learning, University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations