Making the Move to Peer Learning

Full text

7
Accepted version of Boud, D. (2001). Making the move to peer learning. In Boud, D., Cohen, R. &
Sampson, J. (Eds.) (2001). Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and with each other.
London: Kogan Page (now Routledge), 1-20.
Making the move to peer learning
David Boud
In everyday life we continually learn from each other. For most of the things we need in our
working and personal lives we find enough information and guidance from friends and
colleagues. It is relatively uncommon to take a course, or consult a teacher. We draw upon
whatever resources we need wherever we can find them. Most people who use word processing
packages have not studied them formally: they receive tips from others, observe what they do
and ask questions. Similarly, when buying a car: reviews in newspapers or magazines might be
read, owners of cars of the type wanted consulted and sales staff listened to.
While it might be argued that these are not necessarily the most efficient ways to go about
learning and that they do not always lead to getting accurate information, they do meet the needs
of most people in a timely and convenient fashion. The advantage in learning from people you
know is that they are or have been in a similar position to oneself. They have faced the same
challenges as ourselves in the same context, they talk to us in our own language and we can ask
them what may appear in other situations to be silly questions.
Learning from each other is not only a feature of informal learning, it occurs in all courses at all
levels. Students have conversations about what they are learning inside and outside classrooms
whether teachers are aware of it or not. The first approach, when stuck on a problem, is normally
to ask another student, not the teacher. Not only can they provide each other with useful
information, but sharing the experience of learning also makes it less burdensome and more
enjoyable. The power of peer learning is manifest daily in popular culture and many books and
movies illustrate its influence. The Paper Chase is a classic example of a feature film that
portrays students learning from each other in competitive professional courses.
As teachers, we often fool ourselves in thinking that what we do is necessarily more important
for student learning than other activities in which they engage. Our role is vital. However, if we
place ourselves in the position of mediating all that students need to know, we not only create
unrealistic expectations but we potentially deskill students from developing the vital skills of

8
effectively learning from each other needed in life and work. The skill of getting accurate
information is not learned by being given accurate information by a teacher, but through practice
in discerning how to judge the accuracy of the information we receive.
This book is based on the assumption that there is considerable benefit in taking what we know
of the value of informal peer learning, making it explicit and using it more directly in the design
and conduct of higher education courses. Formalising the informal is not intended to give
teachers a more prominent or controlling role in informal learning, but to realise the potential
benefits of peer learning so that all students can benefit from peer learning, not just those who
are socially adept or best networked. It is neither possible nor desirable to formalise all aspects of
peer learning. However, quite modest moves in that direction can have a large impact on learning
compared to the effort expended by teachers.
The book is also based on the premise that peer learning—that is, learning with and from each
other—is a necessary and important aspect of all courses. The role it plays varies widely and the
forms it takes are very diverse, but without it students gain an impoverished education.
The aim of the book is to explore the use of peer learning in formal courses. It addresses
questions such as: What is peer learning and what is it good for? How can it best be fostered?
And what issues need to be considered by teachers and students? It draws on the direct
experience of the authors in using peer learning in their own courses and in studying its effects.
While the focus is on higher education, many of the ideas are applicable more widely.
What is peer learning and why is it important?
Peer learning is not a single, undifferentiated educational strategy. It encompasses a broad sweep
of activities. For example, researchers from the University of Ulster identified ten different
models of peer learning (Griffiths, Houston & Lazenbatt 1995). These ranged from the
traditional proctor model, in which senior students tutor junior students, to the more innovative
learning cells, in which students in the same year form partnerships to assist each other with both
course content and personal concerns. Other models involved discussion seminars, private study
groups, parrainage (a buddy system) or counselling, peer assessment schemes, collaborative
project or laboratory work, projects in different sized (cascading) groups, workplace mentoring
and community activities.

9
The term ‘peer learning’, however, remains abstract. The sense in which we use it here suggests
a two-way, reciprocal learning activity. Peer learning should be mutually beneficial and involve
the sharing of knowledge, ideas and experience between the participants. It can be described as a
way of moving beyond independent to interdependent or mutual learning (Boud, 1988).
Students learn a great deal by explaining their ideas to others and by participating in activities
from which they can learn from their peers. They develop skills in organising and planning
learning activities, working collaboratively with others, giving and receiving feedback and
evaluating their own learning. Peer learning is becoming an increasingly important part of many
courses, and it is being used in a variety of contexts and disciplines in many countries.
While the potential of peer learning is starting to be realised, examination of the ways in which it
is used in existing courses suggests that practices are often introduced in an ad hoc way, without
consideration of their implications. When such practices are used unsystematically, students
unfamiliar with this approach become confused about what they are supposed to be doing, they
miss opportunities for learning altogether, and fail to develop the skills expected of them. Much
peer learning occurs informally without staff involvement, and students who are already
effective learners tend to benefit disproportionately when it is left to chance.
Formalised peer learning can help students learn effectively. At a time when university resources
are stretched and demands upon staff are increasing, it offers students the opportunity to learn
from each other. It gives them considerably more practice than traditional teaching and learning
methods in taking responsibility for their own learning and, more generally, learning how to
learn. It is not a substitute for teaching and activities designed and conducted by staff members,
but an important addition to the repertoire of teaching and learning activities that can enhance the
quality of education.
It is important to consider who are the ‘peers’ in peer learning. Generally, peers are other people
in a similar situation to each other who do not have a role in that situation as teacher or expert
practitioner. They may have considerable experience and expertise or they may have relatively
little. They share the status as fellow learners and they are accepted as such. Most importantly,
they do not have power over each other by virtue of their position or responsibilities. Throughout
the book we will be discussing the role of students who are in the same classes as those from
whom they are learning.

10
Peer teaching, or peer tutoring, is a far more instrumental strategy in which advanced students or
those in later years take on a limited instructional role. It often requires some form of credit or
payment for the person acting as the teacher. Peer teaching is a well-established practice in many
universities, whereas reciprocal peer learning is often considered to be incidental—a component
of other, more familiar strategies, such as the discussion group (eg. Brookfield and Preskill
1999). As a consequence, until recently reciprocal peer learning has not been identified as a
phenomenon in its own right that might be used to students’ advantage.
Reciprocal peer learning typically involves students within a given class or cohort. This makes
peer learning relatively easy to organise because there are fewer timetabling problems. Also,
there is no need to pay or reward with credit the more experienced students responsible for peer
teaching. Students in reciprocal peer learning are by definition peers, and so there is less
confusion about roles compared with situations in which one of the ‘peers’ is a senior student, or
is in an advanced class or has special expertise.
Reciprocal peer learning emphasises students simultaneously learning and contributing to other
students’ learning. Such communication is based on mutual experience and so they are better
able to make equal contributions. It more closely approximates to Habermas’ notion of an ‘ideal
speech act’ in which issues of power and domination are less prominent than when one party has
a designated ‘teaching’ role and thus takes on a particular kind of authority for the duration of
the activity.
We define peer learning in its broadest sense, then, as ‘students learning from and with each
other in both formal and informal ways’. The emphasis is on the learning process, including the
emotional support learners offer each other, as much as the learning task itself. In peer teaching
the roles of teacher and learner are fixed, whereas in peer learning they are either undefined or
may shift during the course of the learning experience. Staff may be actively involved as group
facilitators or they may simply initiate student-directed activities such as workshops or learning
partnerships.
According to Topping’s review of literature, surprisingly little research has been done into either
dyadic reciprocal peer tutoring or same-year group tutoring (Topping, 1996). He identified only
ten studies, all with a very narrow, empirical focus. This suggests that the teaching model, rather
than the learning model, is still the most common way of understanding how students assist each
other. Although the teaching model has value, we must also consider the learning process itself if
we want to make the best use of peers as resources for learning.

11
As mentioned earlier, it is important to recognise that peer learning is not a single practice. It
covers a wide range of different activities each of which can be combined with others in different
ways to suit the needs of a particular course. It is like peer assessment in this regard (Falchikov
in press) and it is unfortunately similarly misunderstood as referring to a particular practice.
Why do we need to focus now on peer learning?
There are both pragmatic reasons and reasons of principle for the current focus on peer learning
in university courses. It would be naïve to ignore the most pressing pragmatic reason even
though it has little to do with concerns about teaching and learning. It is that in many countries
there is considerable pressure on university funding, which has lead to staff being required to
teach more students without diminution in the quality of the student learning. This has prompted
a search for teaching and learning strategies that might help staff to cope with larger student
numbers, without increasing their overall workload. Peer learning is promising because it
appears to maintain or increase student learning with less input from staff.
We are not so cynical as to think that this has been the prime motive driving interest in peer
learning. Concurrent with this financial pressure has been a reassessment of the goals of
university courses, and new emphasis has been placed on generic learning outcomes. Employers
now want graduates who possess a broader range of skills and abilities to communicate
effectively beyond their specialisation, and so courses are now expected to develop in students
what are variously termed transferable skills (Assiter, 1995), key competencies (Mayer, 1992),
generic attributes (Wright, 1995) or capabilities (Stephenson & Yorke, 1998). These are part of a
repertoire of skills and strategies designed to foster lifelong learning in the student. Candy,
Crebert and O’Leary (1994, p. xii) cited ‘peer-assisted and self-directed learning’ as the first of
five teaching methods in undergraduate courses that encourage graduates to become lifelong
learners, as well as helping them to develop ‘reflective practice and critical self-awareness’.
Technology is now an important driver towards the use of peer learning. Effective courses do not
involve the delivery of substantial amounts of content through new media (Stephenson 2001).
Web-based activities appear to be most effective when there is direct interaction between staff
and students and among students themselves. The nature of the Web as a medium means that it is
impossible for a teacher to personally deal with a large number of interactions between a teacher
and individual students. This soon becomes far more time consuming than any form of
conventional teaching. How then is the need for interaction reconciled with the limitations on the

12
capacity of teaching staff? Peer learning provides a key solution to this dilemma. It is possible
for tutors to deal with the volume of interaction emerging from groups of students working
together in a way which is not realistic with individuals.
In addition to these ‘mainstream’ motives, it is also argued that collective forms of peer learning
suit some students better than the individualistic teaching and learning practices of traditional
courses (Slavin, 1995; Chalmers & Volet, 1997). This has been particularly true for women and
students from some cultural backgrounds, as peer learning activities value co-operation within
groups above competition and encourages greater respect for the varied experiences and
backgrounds of the participants.
How does peer learning link to other ideas and practices?
A common misconception is that peer learning is simply about using group work in courses. This
is not surprising, as some of the strongest proponents of group work are also major scholars of
cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson 1997). Of course group work does involve peers
learning from each other (Jaques 2000), but much peer learning also occurs on a one-to-one basis
and peer learning need not be primarily about learning to work in groups.
There are a number of other practices discussed particularly in the North American literature,
which have some similarities to peer learning. These include cooperative learning and
collaborative learning. There is a substantial literature on cooperative learning (eg. Jacob 1999)
and it is discussed in best selling books, such as Johnson and Johnson (1997). However, most of
the applications are not in higher education and the role of the teacher is much stronger than in
the examples we will be discussing here.
Cooperative learning grew out of developmental psychology—cognitive, social, developmental
psychology. Attention was focussed on the processes of group interaction, individual skill
development, social learning and management of the educational environment. These activities
took place within an established body of knowledge/discipline and authority for knowledge was
vested in the teacher. The emphasis was on the process used by teachers to achieve specified
educational outcome. Teacher intervention and management is expected - to set goals, determine
activities and measure and evaluate educational achievement. Group learning was structured to
achieve a balance between process and skills and knowledge acquisition.

13
The practice known as collaborative learning is used more in higher education in the US. The
emphasis is on the setting of open-ended but focused tasks to students who work together to
solve them, thus encouraging interdependent learning (Bruffee 1999). Collaborative learning had
its genesis in adult and adolescent learning with the notion of participatory learning. Groups
engage in exploration of ideas and knowledge and learning to learn. Structured activities may be
set up by teachers, but their specific means of achievement are left to the group. Learning is the
key concept, not education. The teacher is more a facilitator, negotiating the learning and
evaluation with learners and handing over more control. The group determines group roles and it
is the personal sense of the learning that signifies collaborative learning. Critical thinking,
problem solving, sensemaking and personal transformation, the social construction of
knowledge—exploration, discussion, debate, criticism of ideas are the stuff of collaborative
learning. The implicit assumption is that adult learners are experienced social beings who can act
in a collaborative manner, organise themselves, have some intrinsic motivation or educationally
imposed motivation and do not require the imposed structures of the facilitator to inspire
learning. Bruffee (1999) names this approach constructive conversation—an educative
experience in which students learn by constructing knowledge as they talk together and reach
consensus or dissent. Dissent, questioning each other’s views within a group is a necessary part
of learning.
Despite these distinctions, there is considerable overlap in practice between cooperative and
collaborative learning, and in some discussions the terms are used interchangeably. However,
there tends to be a greater emphasis on direction by teachers in cooperative learning. There are
also other approaches that have some common characteristics with these and include features of
peer learning. An example is the use of syndicate groups, common in management education, but
used extensively in other settings (Collier 1983).
What outcomes does peer learning aim to promote?
Peer learning promotes certain types of learning outcomes. Some of these are not so easily
achieved through other teaching and learning strategies. While different varieties of peer learning
emphasise different outcomes, some of the common learning outcomes include:
Working with others
The skills involved in working with others include teamwork and being a member of a
learning community. Peer learning can prompt a sense of responsibility for one’s own and
others’ learning and development of increased confidence and self-esteem through engaging

14
in a community of learning and learners. Much learning takes place from sharing others’
experiences, existing knowledge and skills. Students learn to acknowledge the backgrounds and
contributions of the people they are working with. Peer learning necessarily involves students
working together to develop collaborative skills. Working together gives them practice in
planning and teamwork and makes them part of a learning community in which they have a
stake.
Critical enquiry and reflection
Challenges to existing ways of thinking arise from more detailed interchanges between
students in which points of view are argued and positions justified. It provides opportunities
for formulating questions rather than simply responding to those posed by others. There is
evidence to suggest that fostering critical reflection and reassessment of views more readily
comes from interchange between peers (Smith and Hatton 1993) than even from well planned
discussion sessions with teachers. Depending on the particular activities chosen, peer learning
can provide opportunities for deep engagement in the learning process, as students are
learning through their relationships with peers, not just trying to ‘beat the system’. Students
are often better able to reflect on and explore ideas when the presence and authority of a staff
member (Boud and Walker 1998) do not influence them. In peer learning contexts students
generally communicate more about the subject area than they do when staff are present. They
are able to articulate what they understand and be more open to be critiqued by peers, as well
as learning from listening to and critiquing others.
Communication and articulation of knowledge, understanding and skills
Concept development often occurs through the testing of ideas on others and the rehearsing of
positions that enable learners to express their understanding of ideas and concepts. It is often
only when they are expressed and challenged, that students appreciate whether they have a
good grasp of what they are studying. There are often limited opportunities for this without
peer learning activities. Invaluable additional practice in practising skills is often available in
peer settings especially when direct supervision is not required for safety or ethical reasons.
Managing learning and how to learn
Peer learning activities require students to develop self-management skills and managing with
others. They are not being continually prompted by deadlines from staff (though there may be
some ultimate deadlines), but through the exigencies of cooperating with others. This
demands different kinds of self-responsibility as it involves obligations to others and
maintaining ones position in a peer group. Many peer learning activities require students to

15
cooperate on quite substantial tasks which students have to work out how to tackle for
themselves with minimum specific direction. Such tasks require students to construct an
environment in which they can identify their learning needs and find ways of pursuing them
within time constraints. Peer learning involves a group of students taking collective
responsibility for identifying their own learning needs and planning how these might be
addressed. This is a vital skill in learning how to learn. It also allows students to practise the
kinds of interaction needed in employment. Learning to co-operate with others to reach
mutual goals is a prerequisite for operating in a complex society.
Peer learning prompts the acquisition of knowledge about ways of working with others in
groups and one-to-one, and the implications of one’s own learning choices on others. Seeing
the different approaches that others use can broaden the base of understanding about variation
in learning (Bowden and Marton 1998).
Self and peer assessment
There are seldom enough opportunities for formative assessment and getting feedback from
staff in order to significantly develop skills and concepts. Peer learning settings provide
opportunities for additional self and peer assessment of a formative kind. It provides
opportunities for giving and receiving feedback on one’s work and a context for comparing
oneself to others. This mirrors the kinds of informal assessment activities which take place
daily in the world of work: self-assessment and peer judgements are more common and can
often have a more powerful influence in professional work than formal appraisals. Practice in
identifying criteria to assess ones own learning and applying this in a variety of circumstances
is a key element of sustainable assessment needed for lifelong learning (Boud 2000).
Why does it need to be managed?
Peer learning, usually organised by students themselves, has always been a key feature of student
life, but for a number of reasons these informal arrangements are beginning to break down or be
undervalued. However the experience of peer learning is known to be a significant component of
a student's overall academic experience (Light, 1992) and the skills developed from working
closely with peers are also considered very relevant preparation for most work places. This is
especially the case in the project-based work environments of contemporary organisations. In
order to ensure that peer learning opportunities are available to all students the processes need to
be promoted and managed. This means including peer learning explicitly as part of the formal
academic program. Some responsibility for the initiation and management of these parts of

16
courses needs to be taken by academic staff. The extent of the responsibility they take is a matter
of careful judgement. If it is directed simply as another teaching task, then the benefits of
students taking responsibility for their actions can be eroded and some of the potential beneficial
outcomes cannot be realised. On the other hand, leaving it for students to initiate and manage
may mean that it never takes place or that it only benefits a restricted group.
It is instructive to note some of the reasons why informal arrangements have been breaking
down. The first reason is changes in the student profile. For many students, opportunities to meet
outside class may be very limited, due to work, family and other commitments. Informal
meetings outside classes also favour friendship groupings and some students simply do not have
the time or the social skills necessary to develop successful relationships. Such students, who
may include those already disadvantaged, are therefore excluded from much of the peer learning
experience. Although the need for many students to have part-time work has always had an
influence on student life there is a diminishing of campus life as more students engage in more
paid work. There are fewer ‘full-time’ students able to spend time at university talking with
peers; most students have to work in some way to pay fees and living expenses. Those most in
need of peer support mechanisms may therefore have least access to them.
Another reason informal peer learning may have become less common is that student
populations are becoming more fragmented as students are given more choices about how they
study a course. With broader subject choice, students are able to design their own progression of
subjects. This means that they are less likely to be studying their course with an acknowledged
class or cohort, or part of a particular home group of peers. This loss of continuity with peers can
affect a student’s informal learning, which traditionally has added so much to a student’s
university learning experience. Recent literature suggests that progress through a course with the
same class can have significant and positive effects on student learning (Wesson, 1996).
Other factors that have reduced the opportunities for students to benefit from peer learning
exchanges include the effects of changes in university funding. In many courses these changes
have lead to the creation of larger class groups, particularly in tutorial groups. Traditionally, the
purpose of tutorials was to provide students with a place to work closely with each other and to
develop their ability to express, debate and discuss different points of view. These opportunities
have been limited because of increases in the size of class groups.
Informal peer learning arrangements have also diminished as students have failed to recognise
the important work and learning skills peer learning develops, such as interpersonal

17
communication, team work, project management and general research and study skills. The
competitive nature of many courses and the scramble for jobs after graduation may make the
idea of freely sharing one’s knowledge with other students seem unattractive. Some students may
also refuse to believe that they can learn anything worthwhile from other students.
Thus, only by formally acknowledging peer learning within the study curriculum can appropriate
recognition for the process and its outcomes be achieved (Saunders, 1992). Once students have
been introduced to peer learning through planned activities, they usually realise that they have
more to gain than to lose. We therefore need to provide opportunities for different types of peer
learning by building relevant activities into the course of study itself. This means more than just
planning a few small group discussions to fill the gaps between lectures. By managing peer
learning we are formalising what would be a highly unpredictable and selective process if left to
students and their casual conversations outside the classroom, and also making the process more
inclusive. Formalising the activities also enables more deliberate review of the process and
outcomes, thus making the benefits and difficulties more visible.
An important goal is to establish an environment of mutual help that continues over time and
beyond the classroom. As Kail (1983) points out, if students work together only during class,
then at the end of the semester, when the class has disbanded, there will be no opportunity to
continue developing the group relationship. This obviously requires an institutional culture able
to nurture and sustain such an environment. Peer learning will not be effective if it is introduced
in isolation from other parts of the learner’s life and without regard to what is happening in other
parts of the course.
We need to manage the learning process in ways which draw upon the best features of traditional
peer teaching and learning, without it being overly managed and prescriptive. Much of the value
of these strategies for learners comes from exploration and the sense of discovery. These
experiences are easily lost when prescriptive or pre-determined methods are used. The key to
successful peer learning, then, lies in the mutually supportive environment which learners
themselves construct, and in which they feel free to express opinions, test ideas and ask for, or
offer help when it is needed (Smith, 1983). Providing a structure within which this can occur is
the challenge for teachers and course designers.

18
Does peer learning have to involve face-to-face contact?
While the original involvement of most of the contributors to this book arose from working with
students in face-to-face settings, new interest has arisen more recently from those confronting the
challenges of learning on-line. In courses where students meet each other in person, normal
social interaction creates opportunities for peer learning at every turn. These opportunities have
to be utilised by students and may need to be prompted by teachers, but they often exist without
prompting. In distance learning there is no meeting of students or interaction between them
unless it is especially contrived. This observation of the obvious points to why the use of peer
learning facilitated by staff is a more urgent and unavoidable concern in distance courses and on-
line settings (Salmon 2000).
Of course, peer learning can occur in principle in distance courses that rely on correspondence by
conventional mail, but this is difficult and ponderous when students do not meet. Peer learning
has been prompted in such courses by the use of residential summer schools or weekend
workshops. The use of the Internet opens new possibilities. At the simplest level, students may
exchange e-mail addresses and form a discussion list. This enables all students to have ready
contact with one or more of their peers as easily as sending a single message. Discussion lists
formed around groups of, say, six to twelve students can maintain dialogue with each other and
readily discuss issues and collaborate on tasks. Lists comprising all students run the risk of
degenerating into devices for administrative use or one way communication between tutors and
students as the volume of messages in an active discussion can test the patience of the most avid
learners.
The limitations of e-mail communication—overload of students and teachers and the difficulty of
easily tracking discussion themes—has led to the use of web-based discussion as the medium of
choice for peer learning in distance or on-line courses. An environment such as WebCT, Top
Class or Blackboard has the facility to host as many discussion groups in as many combinations
as teachers or students choose, and there are packages such as Lotus Notes which can be used
without an institutional commitment to a Web-based environment. All use what is termed
‘threaded discussion’ to display who has contributed on what subject. There is a record of what
contributions have been read and responses can be made as easily as clicking to reply and simply
typing a contribution. Students can simply discuss an issue or use a discussion forum as a means
of working together on a common task. The only disadvantage this medium has over the use of
e-mail is that those using the environment have to log in specially to see the discussion. This is
more than balanced by the ease of navigation.

19
While these two uses are the ‘bread and butter’ of peer learning among students at a distance and
have become so commonplace they are hardly worth mentioning in discussions of innovation.
There are more sophisticated forms and uses of on-line which are discussed in Stephenson
(2001) and later in this book. A number of the developments in the use of computers in peer
learning are taking place under the heading of computer-supported collaborative learning
(CSCL). There have been bi-annual international conferences on CSCL since 1995 and a
substantial literature is now available (eg. McConnell 1999). While many of the practices
described do not involve peer learning as such, there are still good examples of this to be found
there.
What led to the production of this book?
The project that eventually led to this book started five years ago. Four of us working in what
was then the School of Adult Education at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)
identified a common interest in our own teaching. We all placed a great emphasis on students
learning from each other. We were using different strategies and teaching different topics across
the range from undergraduate to doctoral level, but we shared a concern that our exclusively
adult students should engage in study which was personally meaningful to them and which
involved them in working well with each other. We were using student led workshops, study
groups, team projects, student-to-student learning partnerships and peer feedback sessions. The
four of us (the present editors and our late colleague, Geoff Anderson) put together a successful
proposal for a National Teaching Development Grant. This enabled us to document and analyse
our existing practices, evaluate their effects on students and make them available to others. Key
features of the guide produced as a result of this project have been incorporated into the present
book.
Not content to limit these ideas to a Faculty of Education, we recruited collaborators to extend
the exploration of peer learning practices to other disciplines and professional areas. Very
interesting examples of peer learning were taking place in business, law, design, information
technology and engineering at UTS and these greatly extended the repertoire of peer learning
approaches which could be considered, not least into the area of online learning. The students
involved included recent school leavers and in some cases much higher numbers of overseas
students than was the case in the original adult education study. In order to assist other teachers
in higher education to benefit from the combined experience, we considered that the best way
would be to bring these approaches together in the present book.

20
What does the book emphasise?
The contributions to this book focus primarily on the use of peer learning in coursework
programs. While there is considerable use made of peer activities in research degree studies,
particularly in professional doctorates, and in clinical work and field placements, the special
demands of these contexts demand treatment in their own right. The focus here is on the normal
undergraduate and postgraduate classes that most teaching staff in higher education deal with on
a regular basis.
The book is structured in three sections. The first addresses the key features of peer learning:
How can peer learning activities be designed and incorporated into courses? (Chapter Two)
What are some common approaches used in higher education courses? (Chapter Three) How can
peer learning activities be managed effectively? (Chapter Four) And what are some of the key
issues involved in peer learning and assessment? (Chapter Five). These chapters are written by
the editors and draw extensively on their experience in using peer learning in courses in
education, mainly with adult education students.
The second part of the book broadens the disciplinary base of examples of subjects in which peer
learning has been used. The authors come from the areas of design, management, law,
information technology and engineering. They describe different examples of applications of
peer learning in their own courses. Their case studies illustrate the different cultures of higher
education disciplines and, as well, each picks up a particular theme.
In ‘Team-based learning in management education’ (Chapter Six) Ray Gordon and Robert
Connor describe their experiences in using peer learning to pursue the important objectives of
promoting student autonomy and focusing on new organisational forms within a large MBA
program. They faced the particular challenges of students from diverse backgraounds working
with each other in groups.
Jenny Wilson in ‘Project management teams: a model of best practice in design’ (Chapter Seven)
also simulates the group-based nature of work, but with first year undergraduate students
studying design. Individual project work is difficult in large classes, but through peer learning in
group projects she was able to more effectively reproduce the experience of working in teams
while providing students with opportunities to get feedback on their design activities through
peer assessment.

21
Jim Cooper teaches law, and in ‘Using a group journal in law’ (Chapter Eight) he shows how,
like Ray Gordon and Robert Connor in management he has used group journals. His emphasis is
quite different to that in the management course: the focus in management was on learning about
working in a group; in law it was to appreciate current legal issues. This chapter examines the
issues surrounding the use of the journal, and the problems of designing, introducing and
implementing a journal within the context of an introductory subject.
Information technology and computing courses frequently use project work, but Brian Lederer
and Richard Raban in ‘Autonomy, uncertainty, and peer learning in IT project work’ (Chapter
Nine) place particular emphasis on students learning without the intervention of tutors and on
how they have used group assessment.
The final two chapters in this section explore the use of peer learning through electronic-
mediated communication. Robert McLaughlan and Denise Kirkpatrick in ‘Peer learning using
computer supported role play simulations’ (Chapter Ten) describe an innovative combination of
peer learning and computer mediated simulations to teach about the social, political, economic
and scientific dimensions of decision making. These processes have been used with senior
undergraduate and postgraduate students, bringing students from engineering to work
collaboratively with political science students, and students from engineering to work with
students from geology.
Mark Freeman and Jo McKenzie in ‘Aligning peer assessment with peer learning for large
classes: the case for an on-line self and peer assessment system’ (Chapter Eleven) provide an
account of working with large undergraduate classes in business. They show how self and peer
assessment can play a key role in motivating the positive outcomes of teamwork and inhibiting
the possible negative aspects given the strong links between assessment, student effort and
learning. They consider how self and peer ratings can also be used to encourage peer learning
when used for formative feedback purposes and show how they have operationalised this
through a web-based strategy.
The third section includes the closing commentary on the key issues raised by the book. It
locates peer learning as a vital element of course design in an era in which the use of teaching
staff will be limited. It points to how peer learning is an integral part of a high quality learning
environment and identifies some important questions which need to be addressed if peer learning
is to develop further.

22
References
Assiter, A. (ed) (1995) Transferable Skills in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D. (1988) 'Moving towards autonomy', in D. Boud (ed). Developing Student Autonomy in
Learning. Second Edition. London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies
in Continuing Education, 22, 2, 151-167.
Boud, D. & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: the challenge of
context. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 2, 191-206.
Bowden, J. and Marton, F. (1998) The University of Learning: Beyond Quality and Competence
in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.
Brookfield, S. and Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a Way of Teaching. Buckingham: Open
University Press
Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence and the
Authority of Knowledge. Second Edition. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Candy, P., Crebert, G. & O’Leary, J. (1994) Developing Lifelong Learners Through
Undergraduate Education NBEET, Commissioned Report No 28, Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Chalmers, D. & Volet, S. (1997) 'Common misconceptions about students from South-East Asia
in Australia', Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 1, 87-98.
Collier, G. (ed.) 1983, The Management of peer-group learning: Syndicate methods in higher
education, Guildford: SRHE.
Falchikov, N. (in press) Learning Together: Peer Tutoring in Higher Education. London:
Routledge.
Griffiths, S. , Houston, K. & Lazenbatt, A. (1995) Enhancing Student Learning Through Peer
Tutoring in Higher Education, Coleraine: Educational Development Unit, University of
Ulster.
Jacob, E. (1999). Cooperative Learning in Context. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York
Press.
Jaques, D. (2000) Learning in Groups, 3rd edn. , London: Kogan Page.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (1997) Joining Together: Group theory and group skills, 6th
edn. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kail, H. (1983) ‘Collaborative learning in context: the problem with peer tutoring’. College
English, 45, 6, 594-599.

23
Light, J. (1992) Explorations with Students and Faculty about Teaching, Learning, and Student
Life, The Harvard Assessment Seminars Second Report 1992, Cambridge, Ma: Harvard
University.
Mayer, E. (1992) Putting General Education to Work: The key competency report, Committee to
Advise the Australian Education Council and the Ministers of Vocational Education,
Employment and Training on Employment-related Key Competencies for Postcompulsory
Education and Training, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
McConnell, D. (1999) Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning. Second
Edition. London: Kogan Page.
Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Kogan
Page.
Saunders, D. (1992) ‘Peer tutoring in higher education’, Studies in Higher Education, 17, 2, 211-
218.
Slavin, R. E. (1995) Cooperative Learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, D. L. and Hatton, N. (1993). Reflection in teacher education: a study in progress.
Educational Research and Perspectives. 20, 1, pp. 13-23.
Stephenson, J. & Yorke, M. (Eds.) (1998). Capability and Quality in Higher Education.
(London: Kogan Page).
Stephenson, J. (Ed.) (2001). Teaching and Learning Online: Pedagogies for New Technologies.
London: Kogan Page.
Topping, K. J. (1996). 'The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: a
typology and review of the literature', in Higher Education. 32 (3) 321-345.
Wesson, L. H. (1996) 'Cohesion or Collusion: Impact of a Cohort Structure on Educational
Leadership Doctoral Students', Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, April, 1996. New York N. Y.
Wright, P. (1995) What Are Graduates? Clarifying the attributes of ‘graduateness’. Quality
Enhancement Group, The Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC).