In order to address the question of learning outcomes in peer learning practices, a review and meta synthesis of qualitative studies on learning processes that are in accordance with the definition of  peer learning practices will been conducted. Studies including settings that could be characterised by one or more of the following three characteristics are to be included: 1. Students are expected to work together with relatively little involvement of staff over semester or a whole year. 2. Students are expected to learn with or from each other in both formal and informal ways. 3. Students are expected to take responsibility for each other’s learning in a setting often constructed by the students.

 

Expected results will be on how conditions such as instruction, group structure, assessment, project character and teachers role will influence on learning outcome from peer learning practises. The results will be discussed with relation to the relevance of the concept as well as the theoretical base for peer learning practices. The question opens the possibility of exploring the relationship between the perspectives on the process of learning and the learning outcomes (Lillejord & Dysthe, forthcoming). Furthermore it will contribute to the understanding of how or in what ways peer learning may contribute in the development of a productive learning environment.

Peer learning as a method is described as favouring learning outcomes both regarding specific objectives and more generic skills and competencies such as teamwork and interpersonal skills as well as acquisition of learning strategies. Based on the wide range of possible outcomes and the fact that this method also leaves students “the freedom to determine how they might proceed with their learning and even what they might learn within a particular framework” (Sampson, Boud, Cohen, & Gaynor, 1999), the question addressed by the paper is as follows: What kind of learning outcomes regarding process and product do peer learning practices lead to in different educational settings? Is it possible to identify specific conditions that stimulate one or another kind of learning outcomes?

 

The question will be addressed through a review of existing qualitative studies on peer learning practices or educational schemes that may be said to qualify to the term ‘peer learning practice’, and a meta-synthesis of the results in the papers retrieved. In order to retrieve qualitative studies on peer learning practices, a thorough search for studies will be carried out in all relevant search engines and databases indexing educational research. Depending on the findings from this search, other search strategies as snowballing from relevant papers etc will be considered (Alberti, Sciascia, & Poli, 2004). All literature will be organised and systematised through use of the Quari-database (Pearson, 2004). Based on the review, studies meeting one or more of the following inclusion criteria will be included in a meta-synthesis: Studies of learning processes where: 1. Students are expected to work together with relatively little involvement of staff over semester or a whole year. 2. Students are expected to learn with or from each other in both formal and informal ways. 3. Students are expected to take responsibility for each other’s learning in a setting often constructed by the students. Educational offers that satisfy the criteria listed above, might not necessarily be termed ‘peer learning’, however they may still be grouped under this heading. The meta-synthesis will be carried out in accordance with the principles for meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988).

 

Results to be expected from this synthesis are data on how work instructions in peer groups influence the learning outcome, how group structure influence the outcome, the importance of assessment for the working process, the importance of the character of the project for the work process, and the teachers role in the work process. As the term is relatively new and not necessarily used in all studies constituting the basis for the analysis, a further discussion on the usefulness of the concept as well as suggestions for theoretical development of the base of the method will be built on the results.

 

What is termed ‘peer learning practices’ build on assumptions such as; learners are experienced social beings, learners are able to act in a collaborative manner, and learners have an intrinsic motivation for learning (Sampson, Boud, Cohen, & Gaynor, 1999). The method may be said to be in accordance with sociocultural perspectives on learning drawing on perspectives from Dewey, Vygotsky, Engeström and Bakhtin in emphasising learning as an activity and as a transforming process driven by disturbance, disruption and tension (Lillejord & Dysthe, 2006). It can be argued that ‘peer learning practices’ is an open term and designating a broad scope of methods. It turns the attention towards learning per se, not on the expense of the acquisition of specific knowledge, but underscoring the importance of knowing how to learn or paying attention to the process of learning. Such educational schemes can be said to be in concordance with present discourse on education both in social research and in policy, as moving towards a focus upon learning as less normative, emphasising the continuous learning processes, the individual responsibility, and performativity, as is seen for instance in the concept “the entrepreneurial student” (Masschelein & Simons, 2002; Simons & Masschelein, 2006; Wain, 2004). Given the concordance of this method with current policy matters, as well as with the sociocultural perspective on learning also strongly influencing educational policy making (Popkewitz, 2000; Simons & Masschelein, 2006), it may be assumed to be widely implemented on different educational levels. This further accentuates the relevance of reviewing and synthesising the knowledge on how the method works in different educational settings, and in what ways it contributes to productive learning environments.

 

 

 

 

Literature

Alberti, F., Sciascia, S., & Poli, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship Education: Notes on an Ongoing Debate. Paper presented at the 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, University of Napoli Federico II.

Anderson, G., & Boud, D. (1996). Extending the role of peer learning in university courses. Research and Development in Higher Education(19), 15-19.

Lillejord, S., & Dysthe, O. (2006). Productive Learning Practice - A theoretical discussion based on two cases. forthcoming.

Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2002). An adequate education in a globalised world? A note on immunisation against being-together. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(4), 589-608.

Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Pearson, A. (2004). Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews (No. 2).

Popkewitz, T. S. (2000). The Denial of Change in Educational Change: Systems of Ideas in the Construction of nationa Policy and Evaluation. Educational Researcher, 29(1), 17-29.

Sampson, J., Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Gaynor, F. (1999, 12-15 July 1999). Designing peer learning. Paper presented at the HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne.

Simons, M., & Masschelein, J. (2006). The governmentalization of learning and the assemblage of a learning apparatus.

Wain, K. (2004). The Learning society in a Postmodern World. The Education Crisis. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.