Content uploaded by Martin Stigmar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Stigmar on Jan 28, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cmet20
Download by: [Malmö University] Date: 04 October 2017, At: 01:27
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning
ISSN: 1361-1267 (Print) 1469-9745 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmet20
Peer-to-peer Teaching in Higher Education: A
Critical Literature Review
Martin Stigmar
To cite this article: Martin Stigmar (2016) Peer-to-peer Teaching in Higher Education: A
Critical Literature Review, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24:2, 124-136, DOI:
10.1080/13611267.2016.1178963
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2016.1178963
Published online: 10 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 823
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Peer-to-peer Teaching in Higher Education: A Critical Literature
Review
Martin Stigmar
Linnaeus University
The aim of my critical literature review is to identify studies where students are
engaged as partners in teaching in higher education and to analyze how tutors and
tutees benefit from peer teaching. Thirty studies were included for review. Thirteen
countries are represented and two thirds of the studies conducted in the United States
of America or the United Kingdom. There is a significant representation of studies
from natural- and physical science. The dominating pedagogical belief and theory is
social constructivism. The most frequent study design is the use of quasi-experimental
pre- and post-testing. University teachers do not comprise the view of peer teaching
necessarily resulting in greater academic achievement gains or deep learning.
University teachers identify and esteem other pedagogical benefits such as improving
students’: critical thinking, learning autonomy, motivation, collaborative and commu-
nicative skills. The main finding of this review is the clarification that the training of
generic skills benefits from peer teaching.
Keywords: deep learning, generic skills, higher-education, literature review,
peer-to-peer teaching
Introduction, Purpose and Knowledge Gap
To meet the dual requirement of improving teaching and learning quality while doing
more with less, an increased interest for engaging students as partners in learning and
teaching has emerged. Consequently, in my critical literature review, I identify studies
where university students are engaged as partners in learning and teaching in higher edu-
cation and analyze how tutors and tutees benefit from peer teaching. A peer tutor is any-
one who is of a similar status as the person being tutored and operates as a complement
and active partner with university teachers in the process of learning and teaching. It is
essential to clarify that student partners, often a senior student, involved in academic
support programs such as peer-to-peer teaching are not teachers and are not expected to
teach and present new material. However, they facilitate the learning of their peers.
Peer-to-peer teaching is not consistently defined and a number of expressions are used
interchangeably by authors (Dawson, van der Meer, Skalicky, & Cowley, 2014).
Reduced resources in higher education coupled with increased student numbers have
often resulted in larger classes encouraging a traditional lecturing style of delivery and
transmission of information from teacher to students and less interactive teaching and
learning. There has also been concern that traditional lecturing promotes a surface
approach to learning, failing to stimulate the development of transferable and generic
Martin Stigmar, University Center for Educational Development, Linnaeus University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Martin Stigmar, University Center
for Educational Development, Linnaeus University, Box 451, 351 06 Campus, Växjö, Sweden.
E-mail: martin.stigmar@lnu.se
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 2016
Vol. 24, No. 2, 124–136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2016.1178963
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
skills (Topping, 1996). A highly relevant article within the field of peer teaching is,
Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept
Mapping, by Karpicke and Blunt (2011). In this study students practice retrieval by
recalling information, it is concluded that retrieval practice between peers is an effective
tool to promote learning of complex concepts (Karpicke & Blunt, 2011). It was claimed
that the act of reconstructing knowledge, in itself enhances learning “… tutoring itself
can have an important, positive impact on knowledge retention. Thus, learning the mate-
rial to teach another student may be a particularly effective way to increase content mas-
tery”(Astin, 1993, p. 111). How then can student retrieval practice, reconstructing
knowledge, be used in higher education, when students are teaching each other? John
Hattie, Professor of Education, makes the following claim in his groundbreaking book,
Visible Learning: “The remarkable feature of the evidence is that the biggest effects on
student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching, and when
students become their own teachers”(Hattie, 2009, p. 22).
When learners shift from being students as recipients to being productive teachers, it
is likely they need to understand the material at a deeper level to be effective teachers.
According to Mazur (2014), many students concentrate on learning recipes or problem-
solving strategies without understanding the underlying concepts; a focus on memoriza-
tion does not always result in understanding.
On the other hand, students, who become teachers of their own learning, tend to
engage in self-assessing, self-evaluating, self-monitoring, and self-learning. Cognitive
activities to monitor and recall information include: (a) summarizing, ( b) questioning,
(c) clarifying, and (d) predicting and this is, according to Hattie (2009), accomplished
when students become their own teachers”(p. 22). Cornwall (1980) suggested
peer-assisted learning is successful because the peer-teacher and students share a similar
knowledge base, or a cognitive congruence, which allows the peer-teachers to use
language that their learners understand and to explain concepts at an appropriate level.
In summary, on the basis of the presumption that the best way to learn something is
to teach it, the purpose of my literature review is to locate studies in which participating
students must organize information in such a way as to be able to verbally articulate it to
others.
The Knowledge Gap
There are a number of research gaps that need to be investigated in connection to peer
teaching. For example, how do researchers demonstrate how university teachers have
arranged learning environments to support students in being actively involved in their
learning? Hattie’s book Visible Learning (2009) is based on synthesizing meta-analyses
but there is much disapproval of meta-analyses, one being that of combining disparate
studies. What findings will emerge if instead separate studies on a concrete detailed level
are scrutinized?
First, while Topping (1996) established that there is substantial evidence that peer
teaching is effective in schools in previous reviews and meta-analyses of research, these
results can certainly not be automatically generalized to higher education. What condi-
tions apply to higher education, what have university teachers in partnership with stu-
dents as co-creators in teaching and learning actually accomplished? What lessons have
been learned (see Velez, Cano, Whittington, & Wolf, 2011)?
PEER-TO-PEER TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 125
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
Second, the theory that students who assume the role of teachers, need to understand
the subject matter at a deeper level, is not well explored according to Hattie (2009).
What then does previous research reveal on the relation of deep learning and students as
peer teachers? What research has been presented since Hattie’s book Visible Learning
was published in 2009 in the field of students as peer teachers in higher education?
The lack of literature in the area of peer-to-peer teaching and learning was high-
lighted by Deakin, Wakefield, and Gregorius (2012). Without an updated literature
review there will be no full understanding of the topic or what has already been
researched and what remains to be explored (Booth, Papaioannou, & Sutton, 2012). The
result of a literature review explicitly presented and in a transparent and reproducible
way, can generally give us the most reliable estimate of the effectiveness of a specific
intervention (Booth et al., 2012).
My study will serve as a first step and foundation reviewing previous research, a
logical second step will be to continue with an empirical study.
Aim and Research Questions
The aim of my literature review was to identify studies where university students are
engaged as partners in learning and teaching in higher education and to analyze how
tutors and tutees benefit from peer teaching.
The following four questions are examined:
(1) In which countries and subjects are the studies discovered?
(2) What pedagogical beliefs and theories influence the teaching approach?
(3) What study designs are frequent?
(4) What are the research outcomes and what evidence in previous research show:
“… that the tutors need to understand the material at a deeper level to be effec-
tive teachers”(Hattie, 2009, p. 187)?
Method
According to Booth et al. (2012), the stages of the search process and recommended
techniques should be utilized in relation to the purpose of the review. Five stages were
relevant for this review: (a) an initial scoping search for existing articles and getting
familiarized with the topic, (b) conduct search using the identified search terms and
publication years, (c) synthesis and theory based on data extraction (d) presentation of
research outcomes, (e) analysis,discussion and conclusions.
Stage 1: Scoping Search and Descriptors
In order to get familiarized with the topic and volume of literature, an initial search for
existing articles was carried out in the database ERIC, Educational Resource Informa-
tion Centre. The purpose of this initial search was to develop a search strategy and deter-
mine what databases, descriptors, and search period to be used in the critical literature
review.
The string peer-tutoring OR reciprocal-teaching OR peer-teaching AND higher edu-
cation AND review limited to peer-reviewed journals and the years of 1976–2014,
126 STIGMAR
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
resulted in 46 search outcomes. Out of the 46 search outcomes 38 were available in full
text online. These 38 journal articles were skimmed through.
As a result of the initial search, it was determined that only face-to-face tutoring was
of interest for this review, not tutoring in connection to electronic media or virtual learn-
ing environments. My review focuses both cross-level peer tutoring, when a student
from a higher level (a senior student) helps a more novice student and a same-year group
of peers. Librarians, community partnership, university writing centers, self-directed
learning with work books were excluded from the review.
A complementary search was made in the University Library’s discovery tool,
EBSCO Discovery Service, to check for relevant articles indexed in other databases. The
discovery tool includes the Web of Science databases, PsycInfo, ERIC and a number of
other databases from all disciplines. The search with the same search terms as above
resulted in only a few articles found in other databases than ERIC. A decision was there-
fore made to use ERIC as the main database. As a result of my searches, the descriptors
were specified and limited to: peer teaching = “Practice in which students take on a
teaching role in a school setting in order to share their knowledge with other students”,
and reciprocal teaching = “An instructional technique in which a teacher and student, or
a tutor and tutee, take turns with the role of teaching—frequently used for improving
reading comprehension.”
Stage 2: Conduct Search
My literature search was conducted in ERIC, using the string: DE peer teaching OR DE
reciprocal teaching AND higher education resulting in 127 peer-reviewed search hits.
My literature review was limited to studies published as journal articles published during
the years of 2010–2013, proceeding Hattie’s book Visible Learning, from 2009. Neither
literature reviews nor meta-analyses were included.
The next step was to exclude studies based on irrelevant title and/or abstract and/or
full text as illustrated in Figure 1.
All 30 studies were read and data were extracted from each one. In addition to basic
data about country and subject context, data extraction focused on (a) the pedagogical
approach and theory, (b) the research design and (c) what outcomes and evidence was
found on deep learning, in other words learning as primarily seeking meaning (Marton
& Booth, 1997). The following studies were identified where university students were
engaged as partners in learning and teaching in higher education Table 1.
Countries. In my review studies were discovered in the following countries:
•United States of America (4; 7; 8; 9; 14; 15; 17; 21; 23; 25; 26; 28; 29; 30)
•United Kingdom (1; 3; 10; 16; 20)
•New Zealand (12)
•South Africa (27)
•Australia (6)
•Thailand (5)
•Belgium (19)
•Sri Lanka (22)
PEER-TO-PEER TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 127
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
•Turkey (13)
•Spain (2)
•Hong Kong (18)
•Mexico (11)
•India (24)
In total 13 countries are represented and almost two-thirds of the studies derive from
the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Eleven countries are represented
by a single study.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of review procedure.
128 STIGMAR
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
Table 1
Included Studies for Review
Author Year Title
1 Alpay, E., Cutler, P. S., Eisenbach, S., &
Field, A. J.
2010 Changing the marks-based culture of
learning through peer-assisted tutorials
2 Arco-Tirado J. L., Fernandez-Martin, F.
D., & Fernandez-Balboa, J. M.
2011 The impact of a peer-tutoring program on
quality standards in higher education
3 Asghar, A. 2010 Reciprocal peer coaching and its use as a
formative assessment strategy for first-year
students
4 Brooks, B. J., & Koretsky, M. D. 2011 The influence of group discussion on
students’responses and confidence during
peer instruction
5 Buraphadeja, V., & Kumnuanta, J. 2011 Enhancing the sense of community and
learning experience using self-paced
instruction and peer tutoring in a computer-
laboratory course
6 Calma, A., & Eggins, M. 2012 Enhancing the quality of tutorials through
peer-connected tutor training
7 Carr, W. D., Volberding, J., & Vardiman,
P.
2011 A peer-assisted learning program and its
effect on student skill demonstration
8 Constantinou, P. 2011 Empowering pre-service physical educators
through the planning and instruction of a
novel activity unit
9 Danowitz, A. M., & Taylor, C. E. 2011 Integrating a peer-taught module on practical
research ethics into the graduate student
orientation curriculum
10 Deakin, H., Wakefield, K., & Gregorius,
S.
2012 An exploration of peer-to-peer teaching and
learning at postgraduate level: The
experience of two student-led Nvivo
workshops
11 Duran, C. E. P., Bahena, E. N., &
Rodriguez, Maria de los A. G.
2012 Near-peer teaching in an anatomy course
with a low faculty-to-student ratio
12 Garbett, D., & Ovens, A. 2012 Being a teacher educator: Exploring issues
of authenticity and safety through self-study
13 Gok, T. 2012 The effects of peer instruction on students’
conceptual learning and motivation
14 Gosser, D. K., Jr. Kampmeier, J. A., &
Varma-Nelson, P.
2010 Peer-led team learning: 2008 James Flack
Norris award address
15 Goto, K., & Schneider, J. 2010 Learning through teaching: Challenges and
opportunities in facilitating student learning
in food science and nutrition by using the
interteaching approach
16 Hammond, J .A., Bithell, C. P., Jones,
L., & Bidgood, P.
2010 Afirst year experience of student-directed
peer-assisted learning
17 Hennings, J., Wallhead, T., & Byra, M. 2010 A didactic analysis of student content
learning during the reciprocal style of
teaching
18 Hoi K. N., & Downing, K. 2010 The impact of supplemental instruction on
learning competence and academic
performance
19 Iserbyt, P., Elen, J., & Behets, D. 2010 Instructional guidance in reciprocal peer
tutoring with task cards
(Continued)
PEER-TO-PEER TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 129
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
Subjects. The subjects and content areas below met the criteria for peer teaching and
reciprocal teaching in higher education during 2010–2013:
•Anatomy, medical curriculum, physiology (11; 20; 22; 24)
•Chemistry (4; 14; 23; 28)
•Physical education (7; 8; 12; 17)
•Engineering (1; 2)
•Geoscience, science (21; 25)
•Physiotherapy (3; 16)
•Business Disciplines (6; 18)
•Microcomputer Applications (5)
•Research ethics (9)
•NVivo workshops (10)
•Algebra-based physics course (13)
•Nutrition and food science (15)
•Kinesiology to learn Basic Life Support (19)
•Sociology (26)
Table 1 (Continued).
Author Year Title
20 Jackson,T. A., & Evans, D. J. R. 2012 Can medical students teach? A near-peer-led
teaching program for “year 1”students
21 Kapp, J. L., Slater, Timothy F., Slater, S.
J., Lyons, Daniel J., Manhart, K.,
Wehunt, M. D., & Richardson, R. M.
2011 Impact of redesigning a large-lecture
introductory earth science course to increase
student achievement and streamline faculty
workload
22 Kommalage, M., & Imbulgoda, N. 2010 Introduction of student-led physiology
tutorial classes to a traditional curriculum
23 Lloyd, P. M., Eckhardt, R. A. 2010 Strategies for improving retention of
community college students in the sciences
24 Singh, S. 2010 Near-peer role modeling: The fledgling
scholars education paradigm
25 Streitwieser, B., & Light, G. 2010 When undergraduates teach undergraduates:
Conceptions of and approaches to teaching
in a Peer led team learning intervention in
the STEM disciplines–results of a two year
study
26 Tsui, M. 2010 Interteaching: Students as teachers in lower-
division sociology courses
27 Underhill, J., & McDonald, J. 2010 Collaborative tutor development: Enabling a
transformative paradigm in a South African
university
28 Vazquez, A. V. & McLoughlin, K.,
Sabbagh, M,. Runkle, A. C., Simon, J.,
Coppola, B. P., & Pazicni, S.
2012 Writing-to-teach: A new pedagogical
approach to elicit explanative writing from
undergraduate chemistry students
29 Velez, J. J., Cano, J., Whittington, M. S.,
Wolf, K. J.
2011 Cultivating change through peer teaching
30 Zhang, A. 2012 Cooperative learning and soft skills training
in an IT course
130 STIGMAR
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
•History (27)
•Early pre-service teacher candidates (29)
•IT-course (30)
There is a significant representation of studies from natural- and physical science.
Several of the subjects are of a practical and professional nature.
Stage 3: Synthesis and Theory
Pedagogical belief and theory. The dominating pedagogical belief and theory of
knowledge, in my review is social constructivism, represented by Vygotsky (N= 7). This
leading theory is based on the idea that humans generate knowledge and meaning from
interaction between experiences and ideas and therefore construct their own knowledge.
“The interaction between peers allows students to enter the zone of proximal develop-
ment where a less able peer is able to enter a new area of potential development through
problem-solving with someone more able”(Asghar, 2010, p. 406).
University teachers in my review, represent the theoretical belief that learners benefit
from collaborative work when students interact with each other constructing knowledge.
Collaboration is based on active questioning, explaining, monitoring, and regulating the
learning process. The theory of metacognition, the ability to monitor learning, and Eric
Mazur’s instructional strategy for teaching, called peer instruction are also recurrent in
the reviewed articles.
More pedagogical beliefs and theories expressed in the reviewed articles to engage
students in teaching and learning are active and student-led involvement and lower stu-
dent anxiety, since peer tutors may seem less intimidating than lecturers. Furthermore
communication and organizational skills development, improved student socialization,
retention and critical thinking, increased ownership of the learning process, i.e. auton-
omy and self-esteem are mentioned.
Additional time to help students with difficulties, stimulating generic skills, and
increasing motivation are also mentioned. Theoretical belief in constructivism and the
teacher incentives presented above are more frequent and dominating in my review, than
the notion that peer teaching necessarily leads to academic student improvements and
higher grades.
Stage 4: Research Outcomes
The research outcome is extensive and this is a representative summary of recurring pat-
terns and common themes that cut across the data and all statements are based on empir-
ical data generated out of the 30 articles.
Study design. The most frequent study design is the quasi-experiment (5; 13; 17;
21) and pre- and post-testing (7, 18, 25). Three studies (12; 16; 27) are action research
based and several studies report quantitative as well as qualitative data (mixed methods).
A wide range of traditional data collection methods are reported ( for example: focus
groups, semi-structured interviews, multiple-choice items, written explanations, open-
ended questions, word frequency counts, student experience survey, videotaping, feed-
back forms, case studies, journals, observations, Likert scales and discourse analysis).
PEER-TO-PEER TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 131
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
The findings confirm a minor over-representation of studies with cross-level peer
tutors (N= 18) when a student from a higher level helps a more novice student, to
same-year peer tutoring (N= 12). About half of the studies (N= 16) include first-year
(freshmen at junior-level) tutees.
Deep level learning. It is unclear how peer teaching influences student learning out-
come. The imprecise outcome is demonstrated by frequent expressions like: plausible,
suggests, indicated, can help, most likely, slight improvement, difficult to assess the
effects, effects were not rigorously recorded; a direct causal relationship between peer
teaching to teaching quality cannot be established, no significant difference in the learn-
ing index, no statistically significant differences, etc.
The vague outcome is owed to several explanations. It is difficult, if not impossible,
to isolate different variables in a complex teaching and learning context and to identify
casual relationships. This methodological weakness is not only relevant for peer teach-
ing, but applies to most behavioral research. Accordingly, quasi-experimental methods
based on pre- and posttests are of limited usefulness in systematic investigations in
higher education to identify casual variables. The context has to be considered in a
holistic way. What is characteristic about the teacher, is he or she experienced or a
novice? What subject matter competence does the teacher hold? Are the students
beginners or proficient in their skill base? Where does the teaching take place? What
methods or media are included in the teaching environment? All these variables co-vary
and influence the learning outcome and thus it is problematic to identify what causes
what.
However, in seven of the studies (9, 10, 11, 16, 22, 25, 30) a deeper level of under-
standing as a result of peer teaching is mentioned. If results like increased responsibility
and monitoring of the learning process and metacognitive awareness are included as sig-
nals for deep learning, then even more studies in this review indicate that deep learning
is promoted by peer teaching. Two studies (24, 26) express an explicit intention of
designing the peer teaching in order to deepen the student understanding, but tell nothing
about the factual outcome. One study reveals both increased surface and deep learning
and another one reports increased surface learning. These ambiguous results ought to be
interpreted in the light of methodological limitations in the included studies for review.
Generic skills. Peer teaching can provide rapid feedback and develop a variety of
generic skills. Peer-to-peer teaching is proved to be beneficial for tutors as well as tutees
because of improved interaction. Included in the outcome are claims that peer teaching
result in better connection to the student’s level of understanding, increased critical think-
ing, wider student participation, and improved feedback and encourage greater engage-
ment with the subject matter. Self-regulation is improved and includes elements of
motivation, self-efficacy, time management, goal setting, metacognition, self-reflection,
and organizational skills. Being asked to present something to a peer gives a clear reason
for the work and is motivating for an active and engaging learning experience. The result
and claim that students participating in peer-to-peer teaching, develop a range of
academic skills as mentioned above, is consistent with a rigorous and extensive
systematic review on supplemental instruction by Dawson et al. (2014).
132 STIGMAR
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
Student teachers and learners develop richer explanations. Explaining, in turn,
encourages students to integrate new knowledge with existing knowledge and leads to
richer conceptual understanding. Peer teaching allows the instructor to foster a sense of
community in the classroom and students to take control of their learning, increasing
responsibility for their own learning process, and to develop an increased sense of
belonging and engagement. When students are engaged as partners working with others,
student leadership skills are promoted and learn to respect other perspectives, reaching a
more nuanced understanding. Consequently, an increase in students social and self-
awareness through collaboration and effective team-building in an interactive and warm
classroom environment, lead to reduced student anxiety (see also Dawson et al., 2014).
Peer teaching counteracts “academic isolation”being an opportunity for discussion
among students and encourage communication and improvement of the presentation
ability. Peer teaching programs can lead toward low student dropout rates and create a
low-risk environment.
Stage 5: Analysis, Discussion, and Conclusions
The main contribution of my literature review is the clarification that the training of gen-
eric skills benefits from peer teaching. The results of my review do not suggest that peer
teaching result in greater academic achievement gains, such as higher students’grades.
Nonetheless academics continue to devote efforts into arranging peer-to-peer teaching
and learning. Academics identify pedagogical benefits such as improving students’:
(a) critical thinking, (b) learning autonomy, (c) motivation, (d) collaborative and
(e) communicative skills. According to Bath, Smith, Stein, and Swann (2004) along with
increases in the development of generic skills, there were increases in the development
of discipline knowledge skills. Subject content knowledge seems to be a spin-off benefit
from training of generic skills. There appears to be a symbiotic relationship between
these two outcomes (Bath et al., 2004) and this is a finding useful for university teachers
to encourage among students and colleagues.
A second finding worth noting is the methodological shortcomings in the reviewed
studies. Quasi-experimental study designs, including pre- and post-tests only have lim-
ited potentials to explain the outcome of a teaching and learning environment. It is
nearly impossible to isolate variables in a complex educational setting and to establish
causal relationships. The quasi-experimental research outcome is not seldom meaningless
and contradictive. According to Pedhazur and Pedhazur Schmelkin (1991) quasi-
experimental designs have acquired respectability far beyond what they deserve. A note
of caution in connection to quasi-experimental designs is also mentioned by Dawson
et al. (2014).
Future researchers focused on peer teaching would benefit by using in-depth reflec-
tions (Altrichter et al., 1993). In general, it seems pointless to try to prove one teaching
method’s superiority to another. The effect of a particular teaching method, such as peer
teaching, can only be evaluated in a certain and specific educational setting.
Third, peer teaching encourages students to take control of their learning and increas-
ing responsibility for their own learning process. The development of metacognitive
skills, being able to learn and re-learn autonomously, will be increasingly essential in the
future information society characterized by lifelong learning. University teachers need to
be aware of their responsibility to arrange teaching and learning situations and develop
PEER-TO-PEER TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 133
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
instructional strategies that better suit new generations of students. Students in turn, need
to have a chance to foster and improve their metacognitive competence and learning
strategies.
Conclusions
The main conclusions are that generic skills development and metacognitive training
benefit from peer teaching. University teachers need to stimulate students’metacognitive
skills and lifelong learning in a knowledge society through peer-led teaching. My review
does not suggest that peer teaching result in greater academic achievement gains. Nearly
two-thirds of the studies in my review emanate from the United States and the United
Kingdom. Several of the studies are from natural- and physical science. Social construc-
tivism is the dominating pedagogical belief and the most frequent study design is the
quasi-experiment.
It remains unclear whether peer teaching stimulate students’deep level learning. The
reason for this uncertainty is that several of the included studies for review are method-
ologically weak and limited. Future research on the effects of peer teaching would
methodologically gain from a participatory action research approach in the humanities
and social sciences.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express appreciation to many colleagues for discussions and communica-
tion. This manuscript and initial ideas were discussed in two Roundtables. First at
the Conference of the International Consortium for Educational Development, ICED,
Stockholm, June, 2014 abstract title Docendo Discimus =By teaching we learn. Sec-
ond at Blekinge Institute of Technology, August 2014, abstract title By teaching, we
learn: Results from a systematic literature review. I am pleased to extend greetings
to those who have contributed with constructive suggestions for improvement of this
article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Martin Stigmar is an associate professor in pedagogy and head of the University Center for Educa-
tional Development at Linnaeus University, Sweden. His current research is on peer teaching, flexi-
ble learning, and quality in higher education.
References
Alpay, E., Cutler, P. S., Eisenbach, S., & Field, A. J. (2010). Changing the marks-based culture of
learning through peer-assisted tutorials. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35,
17–32. doi:10.1080/03043790903202983
Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work. An introduction to
the methods of action research. New York, NY: Routledge.
134 STIGMAR
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
Arco-Tirado, J. L., Fernandez-Martin, F. D., & Fernandez-Balboa, J. M. (2011). The impact of a
peer-tutoring program on quality standards in higher education. Higher Education, 62,
773–788. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9419-x
Asghar, A. (2010). Reciprocal peer coaching and its use as a formative assessment strategy for
first-year students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 403–417. doi:10.1080/
02602930902862834
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bath, D., Smith, C., Stein, S., & Swann, R. (2004). Beyond mapping and embedding graduate
attributes: Bringing together quality assurance and action learning to create a validated and liv-
ing curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 23, 313–328. doi:10.1080/
0729436042000235427
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature
review. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brooks, B. J., & Koretsky, M. D. (2011). The influence of group discussion on students’responses
and confidence during peer instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1477–1484.
doi:10.1021/ed101066x
Buraphadeja, V., & Kumnuanta, J. (2011). Enhancing the sense of community and learning
experience using self-paced instruction and peer tutoring in a computer-laboratory course.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 1338–1355.
Calma, A., & Eggins, M. (2012). Enhancing the quality of tutorials through peer-connected tutor
training. Issues in Educational Research, 22, 213–227. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/
iier22/calma.html
Carr, W. D., Volberding, J., & Vardiman, P. (2011). A peer-assisted learning program and its effect
on student skill demonstration. Athletic Training Education Journal, 6, 129–135. Retrieved
from http://nataej.org/journal-information.htm
Constantinou, P. (2011). Empowering pre-service physical educators through the planning and
instruction of a novel activity unit. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators,
24,25–28. doi: 10.1080/08924562.2011.10590930
Cornwall, M. G. (1980). Students as teachers: Peer teaching in higher education. Amsterdam:
Centrum Onderzoek Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs.
Danowitz, A. M., & Taylor, C. E. (2011). Integrating a peer-taught module on practical research
ethics into the graduate student orientation curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 88,
1090–1093. doi:10.1021/ed1009915
Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). On the effectiveness of supple-
mental instruction: A systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-assisted study
sessions literature between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 84, 609–639.
doi:10.3102/0034654314540007
Deakin, H., Wakefield, K., & Gregorius, S. (2012). An exploration of peer-to-peer teaching and
learning at postgraduate level: The experience of two student-led Nvivo workshops. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 36, 603–612. doi:10.1080/03098265.2012.692074
Duran, C. E. P., Bahena, E. N., & Rodríguez, M. de los A. G. (2012). Near-peer teaching in an
anatomy course with a low faculty-to-student ratio. Anatomical Sciences Education., 5, 171–
176. doi:10.1002/ase.1269
Garbett, D., & Ovens, A. (2012). Being a teacher educator: Exploring issues of authenticity and
safety through self-study. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37,44–56. doi:10.14221/
ajte.2012v37n3.3
Gok, T. (2012). The effects of peer instruction on students’conceptual learning and motivation.
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(1). Retrieved from https://www.ied.
edu.hk/apfslt/download/.../gok.pdf
Gosser, Jr. D. K., Kampmeier, J. A., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2010). Peer-led team learning: 2008
James Flack Norris award address. Journal of Chemical Education, 87, 374–380. doi:10.1021/
ed800132w
Goto, K., & Schneider, J. (2010). Learning through teaching: Challenges and opportunities in facil-
itating student learning in food science and nutrition by using the interteaching approach. Jour-
nal of Food Science Education, 9,31–35.
PEER-TO-PEER TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 135
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
Hammond, J. A., Bithell, C. P., Jones, L., & Bidgood, P. (2010). A first year experience of stu-
dent-directed peer-assisted learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11, 201–212.
doi:10.1177/1469787410379683
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hennings, J., Wallhead, T., & Byra, M. (2010). A didactic analysis of student content learning dur-
ing the reciprocal style of teaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29, 227–244.
Hoi, K. N., & Downing, K. (2010). The impact of supplemental instruction on learning compe-
tence and academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 921–939.
Iserbyt, P., Elen, J., & Behets, D. (2010). Instructional guidance in reciprocal peer tutoring with
task cards. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29,38–53.
Jackson, T. A., & Evans, D. J. R. (2012). Can medical students teach? A near-peer-led teaching
program for year 1 students. AJP: Advances in Physiology Education, 36, 192–196.
doi:10.1152/advan.00035.2012
Kapp, J. L., Slater, T. F., Slater, S. J., Lyons, D. J., Manhart, K., Wehunt, M. D., & Richardson, R.
M. (2011). Impact of redesigning a large-lecture introductory earth science course to increase
student achievement and streamline faculty workload. Journal of College Teaching & Learn-
ing, 8,23–36.
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative
studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772–775. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2006.00012.x
Kommalage, M., & Imbulgoda, N. (2010). Introduction of student-led physiology tutorial classes
to a traditional curriculum. AJP: Advances in Physiology Education, 34,65–69. doi:10.1152/
advan.00010.2010
Lloyd, P. M., & Eckhardt, R. A. (2010). Strategies for improving retention of community college
students in the sciences. Science Educator, 19,33–41.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates,.
Mazur, E. (2014). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Essex: Pearson New International Edition.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurment, design, and analysis. An inte-
grated approach. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,.
Singh, S. (2010). Near-peer role modeling: The fledgling scholars education paradigm. Anatomical
Sciences Education, 3,50–51. doi:10.1002/ase.126
Streitwieser, B., & Light, G. (2010). When undergraduates teach undergraduates: Conceptions of
and approaches to teaching in a peer led team learning intervention in the STEM disciplines–
results of a two year study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Educa-
tion, 22, 346–356.
Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typol-
ogy and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32, 321–345. doi:10.1007/BF00138870
Tsui, M. (2010). Interteaching: Students as teachers in lower-division sociology courses. Teaching
Sociology, 38,28–34. doi:10.1177/0092055X09353887
Underhill, J., & McDonald, J. (2010). Collaborative tutor development: Enabling a transformative
paradigm in a South African university. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18,
91–106. doi:10.1080/13611261003678853
Vazquez, A. V., McLoughlin, K., Sabbagh, M., Runkle, A. C., Simon, J., Coppola, B. P., &
Pazicni, S. (2012). Writing-to-teach: A new pedagogical approach to elicit explanative writing
from undergraduate chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 1025–1031.
doi:10.1021/ed200410 k.
Velez, J. J., Cano, J., Whittington, M. S., & Wolf, K. J. (2011). Cultivating change through peer
teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52,40–49.
Zhang, A. (2012). Cooperative learning and soft skills training in an IT course. Journal of Informa-
tion Technology Education Research: Teaching, 11,65–79.
136 STIGMAR
Downloaded by [Malmö University] at 01:27 04 October 2017
