Peer-to-peer learning: Difference between revisions

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
* Peer tutoring
* Peer tutoring
* [[learning by teaching]] (reciprocal teaching)
* [[learning by teaching]] (reciprocal teaching)
Note: When writing contributes to a larger collective body of knowledge whose elements can put in relation, we rather refer to a [[Knowledge-building community model|knowledge building community]] approach, as for example in the [[http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/CSILE|CSILE]] project.


== Peer collaborative writing ==
== Peer collaborative writing ==
Line 11: Line 13:
"Peer-tutoring" writing consists in assisting the revision process through the intervention of a peer, following the peer-tutoring assumption: Peer-tutoring is expected to enrich the production through the confrontation with other learners, and by fostering processes like metacognitive awareness on their own productions, particularly epistemic monitoring and reflexive thinking.
"Peer-tutoring" writing consists in assisting the revision process through the intervention of a peer, following the peer-tutoring assumption: Peer-tutoring is expected to enrich the production through the confrontation with other learners, and by fostering processes like metacognitive awareness on their own productions, particularly epistemic monitoring and reflexive thinking.


Here is a [[design-based-research|conjecture map]] arguing
Peer tutoring is a process developed by Fantuzzo and his colleagues (Wolfe, Fantuzzo and Wolfe, 1986). It allows each student to play the role of tutor and tutored. Reciprocal peer tutoring allows each student to benefit from giving directions, evaluating and providing reinforcement for their partner. It creates mutual assistance and social support among participants (Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly and Dimeff, 1989; Pigott, Fantuzzo and Clement, 1986). Most of the time, research on peer tutoring provided evidence for its positive effects on performance, learning, reduction of stress and anxiety and an increase in satisfaction with the progress ( Riggio, Fantuzzo, Connelly and Dimeff, 1991). Still, little research has investigated the effects of peer tutoring for "writing to learn" activities (Gielen, Dochy, Tops, Peeters, 2007).
 
Here is a [[design-based_research#Conjecture_Maps|conjecture map]] summarizing some elements and relationships that may constitute a little peer collaborative writing activity that took place in a wiki.
 
[[image:dualt-collaborative-writing-conjecture-map.png|frame|none|Peer tutoring in collaborative writing]]


== Links ==
== Links ==
Line 25: Line 31:
* Höysniemi, J., Hämäläinen, P., & Turkki, L. (2003). Using peer tutoring in evaluating the usability of a physically interactive computer game with children. ''Interacting with Computers'', 15, 203-225.
* Höysniemi, J., Hämäläinen, P., & Turkki, L. (2003). Using peer tutoring in evaluating the usability of a physically interactive computer game with children. ''Interacting with Computers'', 15, 203-225.


* Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1988). Cooperative learning: Two heads are better than one. In Context. [http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC18/Johnson.htm HTML], retrieved 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC).
* Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1988). Cooperative learning: Two heads are better than one. In Context. [http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC18/Johnson.htm HTML], retrieved 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC).


* Kear, K. (2004). Peer learning using asynchronous discussion systems in distance education. Open Learning, 19(2), 151-164. Retrieved October 4, 2007
* Kear, K. (2004). Peer learning using asynchronous discussion systems in distance education. Open Learning, 19(2), 151-164. Retrieved October 4, 2007

Revision as of 16:32, 20 May 2008

Draft

There are several variants, e.g.

Note: When writing contributes to a larger collective body of knowledge whose elements can put in relation, we rather refer to a knowledge building community approach, as for example in the [[1]] project.

Peer collaborative writing

"Peer-tutoring" writing consists in assisting the revision process through the intervention of a peer, following the peer-tutoring assumption: Peer-tutoring is expected to enrich the production through the confrontation with other learners, and by fostering processes like metacognitive awareness on their own productions, particularly epistemic monitoring and reflexive thinking.

Peer tutoring is a process developed by Fantuzzo and his colleagues (Wolfe, Fantuzzo and Wolfe, 1986). It allows each student to play the role of tutor and tutored. Reciprocal peer tutoring allows each student to benefit from giving directions, evaluating and providing reinforcement for their partner. It creates mutual assistance and social support among participants (Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly and Dimeff, 1989; Pigott, Fantuzzo and Clement, 1986). Most of the time, research on peer tutoring provided evidence for its positive effects on performance, learning, reduction of stress and anxiety and an increase in satisfaction with the progress ( Riggio, Fantuzzo, Connelly and Dimeff, 1991). Still, little research has investigated the effects of peer tutoring for "writing to learn" activities (Gielen, Dochy, Tops, Peeters, 2007).

Here is a conjecture map summarizing some elements and relationships that may constitute a little peer collaborative writing activity that took place in a wiki.

Peer tutoring in collaborative writing

Links

References

  • Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 173-177.
  • Gielen, S., Filip Dochy, Liesje Tops, Elien Peeters (2007) Effects of formative peer-assessment on writing performance: What is the most beneficial role of the assessee in Proceedings of the 12th EARLI biennal conference on Research on Learning and Instruction, Aug. 28 - Sept. 1, Budapest (Hungary)
  • Höysniemi, J., Hämäläinen, P., & Turkki, L. (2003). Using peer tutoring in evaluating the usability of a physically interactive computer game with children. Interacting with Computers, 15, 203-225.
  • Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1988). Cooperative learning: Two heads are better than one. In Context. HTML, retrieved 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Kear, K. (2004). Peer learning using asynchronous discussion systems in distance education. Open Learning, 19(2), 151-164. Retrieved October 4, 2007
  • Pigott, H. E., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Clement, P. W. (1986). The effects of reciprocal peer tutoring and group contingencies on the academic performance of elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 93-98.
  • Riggio, R. E., Fantuzzo, J. W., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1991). Reciprocal peer tutoring: A classroom strategy of promoting academic and social integration in undergraduate students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 387-396.
  • Wolfe, J. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Wolfe, P. K. (1986). The effects of reciprocal peer management and group contingencies on the arithmetic proficiency of underachieving students. Behavior Therapy, 17, 253-265.