Subject: TL Forum 97: Beasley - Students as teachers: The benefits of peer tutoring
From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 8"
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:30:17 -0600

Teaching and Learning Forum 97 [ Contents ]

Students as teachers: The benefits of peer tutoring
[1]
Colin J. Beasley
Academic Services Unit
Murdoch University

Peer tutoring (or peer mentoring, proctoring, and supplemental
instruction) is a cost-effective means of providing academic support to
students through the use of a valuable teaching and learning resource, namely
other students. It involves training and resourcing successful, more
experienced students to tutor novice students in a collaborative learning
experience in which both parties richly benefit. Benefits include improved
understanding and performance in the subject area involved, improved
confidence and study skills, as well as on-going friendships. These benefits
accrue to both parties. Peer tutors regularly report what we as teachers
already know: that the best way to really develop one's understanding of an
area is to teach it to some-one else.

This paper examines the development and evaluation of a pilot peer tutoring
program conducted over two semesters in 1995 by the author with undergraduate
Commerce students, many of whom were international students. Although the
program was not without its problems (administrative as well as attitudinal on
the part of some staff and students), it could only be seen as being highly
successful in terms of the outcomes for all concerned: the course grades of
tutees and the very positive evaluations of both tutors and tutees.

Introduction
One of the challenges for first year students entering the
university discourse community is to adapt to differing expectations of them
with respect to thinking and learning. Some students make a smooth and rapid
transition from the roles and patterns of high school and college to being
independent learners and critical thinkers, whereas others struggle throughout
their university careers. Some overseas students have particular difficulty in
this regard because of differing cultural and educational traditions, which may
or may not be compounded by on-going problems with English language proficiency.
Furthermore, particular units of study are often problematic for many first year
students because they involve learning a whole new set of skills and different
disciplinary discourse patterns and conventions.

Peer tutoring is a cost-effective means of providing academic support to
students, particularly during their first year year, through the use of a
valuable teaching and learning resource, namely other students. It involves
training and resourcing successful, more experienced students to tutor novice
students in a collaborative learning experience in which both parties richly
benefit. As the coordinator and supervisor of the Supplemental Instruction (SI)
program at Queensland University of Technology points out, such programs
essentially adopt "a student centred, collaborative, learning strategy ... to
transform students from being passive, 'teacher' - dependent, uncritical
recipients and reproducers of information into engaged, questioning, reflective
and autonomous learners" (Gardiner, 1996, p. 2).

This paper examines the development and evaluation of a pilot peer tutoring
program conducted over two semesters in 1995 by the author with undergraduate
Commerce students, many of whom were international students. It argues that the
benefits of peer tutoring are many, both for peer tutors and tutees. While
schemes such as this may involve some organizational difficulties and investment
of time and money, the positive learning outcomes are considerable.

The Development of the Program
The author was successful in gaining a
small teaching grant from Murdoch University in 1994 to trial "a programme of
peer mentoring (or supplemental instruction) in assignment writing" in which a
small group of competent and successful undergraduate students from a range of
disciplines would be trained as peer tutors or mentors to other students in
assignment writing. In semester one 1995, however, it was decided in
consultation with the overseas students' association Singapore Link, that it
would be more strategic and pedagogically sound to target students in a specific
programme of study. The overseas students, who predominantly enrol in the
Commerce programme, nominated two first year Commerce units that were known to
be problematic for many beginning students, C165: Principles of Commercial Law
and C160: Introduction to Accounting.

It was decided to seek second and third year students who had achieved good
grades in the nominated units to act as peer tutors to first year students who
could benefit from extra assistance with the language and learning tasks in
these courses. The Singapore Link association offered to help publicise the
project and locate suitable tutors. The project, of course, was open to all
Commerce students for whom it might be useful: Australian residents as well as
overseas students. The coordinators of both units were consulted regarding the
project and their cooperation sought. Originally it was envisaged that the unit
lecturers and tutors might be able to nominate some dozen or so students as
suitable and worthy "tutees" (i.e. students who were trying hard but still
having considerable difficulty with the material) for the peer tutoring scheme.
This proved impractical in the end, especially as there was opposition to the
scheme from some staff in the Commerce programme. The concerns included a number
of unfounded fears including the idea that the scheme might create extra work
for unit lecturers and tutors and that peer tutors might "give students wrong
information". The author managed to allay most of the concerns raised through a
meeting with the staff concerned where these issues were more fully explored.
Permission was gained from the C160 and C165 coordinators to speak directly to
the students in their courses to explain the peer tutoring program and solicit
participants.

Notices were posted around the university calling for "Successful 2nd &
3rd year Commerce students for a pilot PEER TUTORING program". Peer tutors were
promised an initial two hour training workshop, on-going support, a final
de-briefing workshop, some remuneration ($50-$75 book vouchers), and "a useful
and enjoyable experience that will enrich your resume and enhance your future
employability". Potential peer tutors were required to submit a very brief CV
detailing their Murdoch academic record, past employment record and what they
personally hoped to gain from the peer tutoring program. Suitable tutees were
then sought by announcing the details of the program to C165 and C160 students
at the commencement of two normal unit lectures. Interested students were asked
to sign up on the ASU Student Learning noticeboard. Due to organisational
difficulties, the pilot program did not commence until the second half of
semester one (weeks 8 -13). Training workshops were held for twelve aspiring
peer tutors who were each matched with a C165 or C160 student who had registered
an interest in the program. Interestingly, overseas students slightly
predominated over Australian residents for the tutors (seven compared to five)
whereas Australian residents predominated over overseas students for the tutees
(eight compared to four), ensuring a rewarding cross-cultural experience for
many participants.

The program was repeated in semester two, again with the enthusiastic
cooperation and support of the overseas students' association. Due to the
perceived success of the program in semester one, considerably more students
(both tutors and tutees) wanted to be involved in the program. The semester two
program was advertised and conducted in the same way as in first semester except
that the whole program began earlier and ran longer (weeks 5 - 13). A total of
23 peer tutors (with three tutoring in both subjects) participated in the second
semester program which catered for the language and learning needs of a total of
38 C160 and C165 students. Overseas students were predominant in second
semester, numbering 18 out of 23 tutors and 25 out of 38 tutees. Half of the
tutors from first semester elected to participate again in the second semester
program. The initial training session was conducted in conjunction with Sally
Knowles but the on-going support and final evaluation for the semester two
program was provided by Sally while the author was on long service leave.

Tutor Training and Support
The training programs for both semesters
included an initial two hour workshop that examined learning styles at tertiary
level and the so-called deep and surface approaches to learning (Entwistle,
1987). The issue of cross-cultural differences in thinking and learning styles
was examined and the expectations of Australian university staff of tertiary
students discussed. The work of Ballard and Clanchy (1984) and Davis (1993) was
utilised in this regard. Participants were asked to consider their own
conceptions of academic learning in an exercise on metaphors in which students
brainstormed and then discussed the many and varied images they had of learning
ranging from passive and reproductive "empty vessels", "being parrots", and
"blank slates or floppy discs" to more dynamic and interactive metaphors such as
"cooking", "cultivating, watering and weeding", "stretching", and "moulding,
sculpting and renovating". This exercise was a springboard for discussion of the
notions of deep and surface learning and the expectations of academic staff of
tertiary students. The participants' experiences and perceptions of the student
- tutor relationship were explored through the filling out of a detailed
questionnaire on tutoring (Hawkins, 1978). This led to a discussion of the roles
and responsibilities of students and tutors and the aims and objectives of
tutoring.

The peer tutors were provided with background readings on the above matters
to consolidate the discussion in the workshop. Copies of the current course
outlines and other material (e.g. tutorial programmes) from the C160 and C165
units, obtained from the unit coordinators, were also provided. In addition, the
C165 peer tutors were also provided with extensive support teaching material
(including "model" or suggested answers to past assignment and exam questions)
for the C165 unit developed by the author as a result of on-going support
classes for this course and his research in this area. The peer tutors were
given advice on how best to use this material and how to conduct one-to-one
tutorials or consultations.

They were urged to adopt the procedures outlined in the Student Learning
handout for students on individual consultations which clearly delineates what
tutors can and cannot do for students and the respective roles and
responsibilities of both parties in the tutoring process. It was stressed that
the peer tutor's role was to act as a "facilitator" and guide. Peer tutors
should be extra and non-threatening resource personnel who could encourage
students' skill development, independence and confidence and thereby complement
the teaching endeavours of their mainstream unit lecturers and tutors. The peer
tutors' role was not to "give answers" to the students. Rather, their role was
firstly, to help develop the students' thinking and understanding of the course
content, tasks, and lecturers' expectations, and secondly, to help students
develop appropriate strategies for dealing effectively with these.

On-going informal meetings of peer tutors (one in first semester and two in
second semester) were scheduled to monitor the tutees' progress, share ideas and
strategies and address any problems or concerns that had emerged. Unfortunately,
these were not totally satisfactory in that not all the peer tutors attended. A
clear majority did, however, and they rated the sessions as useful.

Evaluation of the Programme
The tutors and tutees were given detailed
questionnaires to evaluate the programme with both groups being encouraged to
give completely honest and candid feedback. The tutees could post in their
evaluation questionnaires while their peer tutors reflected on their experiences
both orally and through the questionnaires in a final well-attended debriefing
and evaluation workshop held during the exam study break at the end of the
programme. The tutors' and tutees' questionnaires were parallel in form and
comprised 12 and 11 questions respectively which asked the participants to rate
the success of the sessions on a five point scale, whether the tutee's study
skills, knowledge of the subject and confidence had improved as a result of the
sessions, suggestions for improvement of the scheme, and whether they would be
prepared to participate in a similar scheme in the future. In addition, the
tutors' questionnaire asked for deatils of any problems encountered and how they
were dealt with, what they felt they had learnt or gained from the programme,
whether they had found the initial training helpful, and any advice they might
have for future peer tutors. The tutees' questionnaire, on the other hand, also
asked for the number and average length of the sessions, as well as reflections
on the least and most useful features of the sessions.

Results and discussion
The results of this programme include both
quantitative and qualitative data for both semesters. Tables 1 and 2 contain the
tutees' final grades for C160 and C165, respectively. The questionnaire
responses of tutors and tutees on the usefulness or otherwise of the programme
(i.e.for the quantifiable data) are contained in Tables 3(i) to 3(vi) and Tables
4(i) to 4(vi) respectively.

FINAL COURSE GRADES

Table 1: C160 results

course grades

W/D

N

P

C

D

HD

semester 1 (N=4)

-

-

1

3

-

-

semester 2 (N=15)

1

1

2

7

4

-

Table 2: C165 results

course grades

W/D

N

P

C

D

HD

semester 1 (N=8)

-

-

-

1

5

2

semester 2 (N=24)

-

-

1

10

13

-

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

Table 3: TUTORS

(i)

Q1 (success of sessions)

very suc-
cessful (%)

quite suc-
cessful (%)

not sure (%)

not very
successful (%)

unsuc-
cessful (%)

semester 1 (N=12)

2 (17%)

10 (83%)

-

-

-

semester 2 (N=21)

1 (5%)

18 (85.5%)

2 (9.5%)

-

-

(ii)

Q3 (study skills improved)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Maybe (%)

semester 1 (N=11)

7 (64%)

3 (27%)

1 (9%)

semester 2 (N=21)

15 (71%)

-

6 (29%)

(iii)

Q4 (knowledge improved)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Maybe (%)

semester 1 (N=10)

7 (70%)

-

3 (30%)

semester 2 (N=20)

16 (80%)

-

4 (20%)

(iv)

Q5 (confidence improved)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Maybe (%)

semester 1 (N=12)

9 (75%)

1 (8%)

2 (17%)

semester 2 (N=21)

15 (71%)

-

6 (29%)

(v)

Q8 (initial
training helpful)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Marginally (%)

"Not Appl-
icable" (%)

semester 1 (N=10)

6 (60%)

-

4 (40%)

-

semester 2 (N=22)

11 (50%)

1* (5%)

6* (27%)

4* (18%)

* The student who circled "no", two who
chose "marginally", and all four who wrote "not applicable" in their
comments (didn't circle any of the three choices) had tutored in first
semester and done their initial training session then. Most of the
students, regardless of what they circled, gave positive comments (15
definitely positive, i.e. 71%, and 6 marginally positive) of the
helpfulness of the initial training.

(vi)

Q11 (volunteer
again)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Maybe (%)

"Not Appl-
icable" (%)

semester 1 (N=11)

9 (82%)

-

2 (18%)

-

semester 2 (N=21)

8 (38%)

1 (5%)

11 (52%)

1* (5%)

* One student didn't circle any of the
three choices but commented that s/he is "not able to because I'm
graduating end of this semester".

Table 4: TUTEES

(i)

Q's 1 & 2

Av. No.
sessions

Av. Length
sessions (hrs)

semester 1 (N=12)

4.25 (s=2.56)*

1.1hrs (s=0.4)*

semester 2 (N=15)

6.7 (s=2.48)*

1.3hrs (s=0.4)*

* s = the standard deviation

(ii)

Q3 (usefulness of sessions)

very useful

quite useful

not sure

not very
useful

not useful
at all

semester 1 (N=9)

6 (67%)

3 (33%)

-

-

-

semester 2 (N=15)

5 (33%)

7 (47%)

2 (13%)

1 (7%)

-

(iii)

Q4 (study skills improved)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Maybe (%)

semester 1 (N=12)

9 (75%)

-

3 (25%)

semester 2 (N=15)

10 (67%)

2 (13%)

3 (20%)

(iv)

Q5 (knowledge improved)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Maybe (%)

semester 1 (N=12)

11 (92%)

-

1 (8%)

semester 2 (N=15)

11 (73%)

-

4 (27%)

(v)

Q6 (confidence improved)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Maybe (%)

semester 1 (N=12)

8 (67%)

1 (8%)

3 (25%)

semester 2 (N=15)

11 (73%)

3 (20%)

1 (7%)

(vi)

Q10 (participate again)

Yes (%)

No (%)

Maybe (%)

semester 1 (N=12)

11 (92%)

-

1 (8%)

semester 2 (N=14)

13 (93%)

-

1 (7%)

Course Grades
The final course grades for the students of C160:
Principles of Commercial Law in both semesters show that students usually
achieved good grades, the majority being credits or higher. In semester two,
however, there was one failure and one withdrawal. Personal reasons were given
by this student for her withdrawal although she did report that the peer
tutoring had been of benefit to her up until she was forced to withdraw from the
course. The student who failed C160 passed C165: Principles of Commercial Law
(with as different peer tutor) reporting that the peer tutoring was very helpful
to her and had improved her confidence in passing C165. However, she indicated
that there were some personality problems with the tutor that she had been
matched with in C160 and she was not very confident of passing the subject.

The results for students of C165: Principles of Commercial Law were even more
pleasing. The majority of students in semester one received distinctions or high
distinctions, and credits and distinctions in semester two. There were no
failures recorded of the thirty two students in both semesters in the C165
course.

Peer Tutor Evaluations
In their evaluations of the program, the peer
tutors in both semesters overwhelmingly rated the sessions with their tutees as
successful (either "quite successful" or "very successful") as revealed in Table
3 (i). Evidence cited by the tutors of the success of the sessions included the
tutees asking more questions, the tutees' greater understanding of the subject,
improved student confidence, ability to integrate material into essays, and to
draw conclusions. As one peer tutor commented,

"Apart from gaining intellectually, I believe the tutee has also
learnt expectations of university education, examinations technique, as well
as confidence in coping with future courses. For myself it was a teaching
experience as well as a learning process, especially in communication skills".

Table 3 (ii) shows that most tutors felt that the tutees study
skills had improved (60-70%). Comments given by the tutors to back up that
perception included greater confidence of students discussing the issues without
the need to refer to notes, the improved analytical approach of students to
questions, an improved ability to identify the main issues of a case in C165,
and to remember the concepts of the course.

Similarly, the overwhelming majority of the tutors (70-80% in both semesters)
felt that their tutees' knowledge of the subject had improved as a result of the
sessions. Comments largely centred around the demonstrated ability of their
students to be able to discuss and re-explain concepts in their own words, to be
able to ask good questions about something about which they were not sure, and
to demonstrate an ability to think about the actual issues and concepts. For
example,

"My tutee did not realize what she did not know about the subject.
It was only through our study sessions that she found out what she did not
know."
Another tutor commented on the importance of delineating her
role in the process of peer tutoring:

"I feel that my responsibility is not to be a lecturer but more as
a guide if she faces any problems."
Table 3(iv) demonstrates that a
similar majority (around 70%) of tutors in both semesters felt that their
students' confidence had improved as a result of the sessions. The peer tutors
mentioned that their students were more vocal, less hesitant, and less dependant
on the peer tutor. For example, one wrote that, "I always encourage her to think
before I state my points so that she is not so dependant on what I say." Another
tutor wrote, "Tutees attitude of accepting whatever being said by me and written
down in text has changed to an active one." The tutees could now argue points
and back them up effectively. Furthermore, a number of the peer tutors reported
that their tutees were more confident in approaching their mainstream tutors and
lecturers for help and more confident in participating in tutorials.

Tutors mentioned a range of problems experienced during the program with a
large number involving coordinating timetables for meetings and other minor
organisational matters. A small number of tutors mentioned problems with the
commitment of their students in second semester, with some students not always
preparing adequately for sessions and having different expectations. Some tutors
talked about initial difficulties identifying the students' weaknesses and where
to start. Many, however, reported no real problems.

Regarding the question of what tutors had learned or gained from
participating in the scheme, responses were very varied and overwhelmingly
enthusiastic. Most talked about the improved knowledge and understanding that
they gained of the subject area taught. They reaffirmed what we as teachers
already know: that the best way of really learning and understanding a subject
is to try to teach it to someone else. A substantial number of tutors also
reported an increase in their own confidence, an improvement in their
communication skills, and a greater sense of self worth from doing something
meaningful for someone else. An added benefit was the development of on-going
friendships. Several tutors also reported greater insights about teaching and
the value of discussion, as reflected in the following comments:

"The value of group discussion to share our understanding of the
course, not only for the tutors but for myself" and "making arguments creates
more interest and understanding".
On the question of whether the
initial training was helpful for the peer tutors, the majority reported that it
had been helpful. Comments about the initial training were varied but generally
included preparing them better in terms of expectations of their role, improving
their confidence, anticipating problems to come and dealing better with them, as
well as having useful strategies for the sessions. Comments included the
following:

"It is good to get perspective that the scheme is trying to
achieve and from the point of view that all people perceive things
differently."

"It made me aware that teaching to stimulate thought would be a more
effective way of preparing a student for an exam."

There were a
number of suggestions regarding how the scheme could be improved. Although most
tutors seemed quite happy with the scheme, many recommended that it be run for a
longer time throughout the semester and involve the actual course coordinators
and tutors. Others suggested that there be more support material and extra
instruction. Another suggestion was for the tutees to have an initial session of
what was expected of them, because there was a perceived need from some tutees
to be more committed. On what advice they would offer to future tutors, the
majority talked about the need to be understanding and patient, to have good
listening skills, and to be a friend and helper. A number also mentioned the
need to be properly prepared for sessions, and not be afraid of making mistakes
or knowing all the answers. It was also important to remember that tutoring is
an interactive, shared experience. In the words of some of the tutors,

"Each tutee is different, sharing procedure differently. Don't
think of teaching, it should be a sharing process."

"Keep an open dialogue with your tutee and enjoy the experience."

"Be patient, be willing to learn and see from the tutees' perspective.
Don't just give answers, learn to prompt and let the student delve (sic) the
answer. Be a good friend and give a kind understanding, listening ear."

There was an interesting difference between the two semesters
in connection with whether of not they would volunteer to be peer tutors again
(see Table 3(vi)). In first semester there was a clear majority who said that
they would (about 80%), whereas in the second semester it was a little more
equivocal (40% said "yes" and 55% said "maybe"). The increase in the "maybe"
category was probably because they were nearing the end of their university
courses and were worried about being overloaded. However, most commented
favourably about the experience, especially about the personal rewards involved:

"I find it challenging and motivating, and it gives me a sense of
achievement. Tutoring also provides me with an opportunity to contribute
something to the university community."

"I personally think that it is a really fruitful experience and felt really
fulfilled. It is like doing something useful for someone."

There were also a number of additional comments made, many of
which reinforced early comments of general support and enjoyment of the scheme
and the rewarding nature of the experience for all concerned.

"This scheme is a brilliant idea. It gives an easier environment
for shy students to ask questions as their peer tutors are all students. Some
of the shy students find it hard to approach their tutors."

"This pilot scheme is definitely very constructive and both tutors and
tutees are able to gain from it."

Tutee Evaluations
Regarding the evaluations of the tutees, Table 4(i)
reveals quite a degree of individual variation in the numbers of sessions
between the peer tutors and the tutees as reflected in the standard deviations.
Because the semester one programme started later, the average number of sessions
was four, while there were six or seven sessions on average in semester two. For
both semesters, however, the average length of sessions was about an hour.
Regarding the tutees' perception of the usefulness of these sessions (see Table
4(ii)), the majority of the tutees found them to be useful in both semesters
(either "quite useful" or "very useful").

Table 4(iii) reveals that the clear majority of the students thought that
their study skills had improved because of the sessions (approx. 70%). Students
reported a number of different areas of improvement in their comments including
their ability to analyse questions, to understand better the expectations of
staff, to understand better how to structure and argue their case, to be more
organised in terms of their study, and to improve their ability to think
critically. Several students also reported that the peer tutoring session made
them prepare better for their mainstream tutorials as the following comments
attest:

"It make me read up my lecture notes and practise the tutorial
questions".

"It forced me to complete tutorial work prior to actual tutorial".

"I'm more aware in regard to picking important sections from study
material. Much more organised."

Similarly, Table 4(iv) reveals
that a clear majority of students felt that their knowledge of the subject had
improved as a result of the sessions in both semesters. student comments
included the following:

"I have a better understanding and thus I can apply what I have
learnt."

"Asking and speaking to somebody who has recently sat the exam enabled me
to discover which parts of the course were relevant. I wish I had peer tutors
for all of my subjects."

Several students also commented on the
value of discussing with others, as the following illustrate:

"I needed to become more involved in cross student discussion.
Exchanging ideas clarifies knowledge".

"When I discuss with others, people may point out what I do not see, so it
improves my knowledge of the subject".

Similar results were
obtained with the next question on whether they thought their confidence had
improved as a result of the sessions. Table 4(v) reveals that around 70% in both
semesters thought that this was the case. Students were more confident in their
thinking, in their ability to participate in tutorials, and their preparedness
for examinations.

"I was more confident to speak in tutors because I had a better
understanding of the concepts"

"I'm not scared when I attend tutorial classes, I participate actively."

"Before, my goal for final examination was a credit. Now, it has changed to
a distinction."

The most useful feature of the sessions for the
students was the opportunity for discussion, to be able to clear their doubts,
and have their questions and confusions answered with someone who was not
threatening.

"Having someone to be able to bounce ideas off."

"Knowing that I can ask questions that I couldn't ask in tutorials."

Another feature that was mentioned by many students was the
working through of past examination papers and learning about the exam and how
to tackle it. In both semesters, there were very few comments regarding features
that were not very useful. In semester one a couple of students commented on the
fact that there were not enough sessions and that was remedied in the second
semester.

Comments on how the scheme could be improved, in first semester predictably
were largely about starting earlier and having more sessions. In second
semester, however, the comments centred on having more peer tutors and the
possibility of one to one situations. In both semesters ninety percent of the
students said that they would participate in future schemes. There were several
gratuitous comments, such as "Definitely" and "I do enjoy exchanging thoughts
with others". The additional comments asked for in Question 11 mostly were
fulsome thanks for the scheme and often sincere thanks to the particular tutor
who they had found to be very helpful and kind.

"X has been very helpful and obliging. I am most appreciative of
his time."

"Thanks very much for Y's help. She was very helpful and she showed me a
great patience especially with my poor English. Thanks a lot." (sic)

"Good experience with other people especially in sharing of thought and
different views". (sic)

Conclusion
In summary, it is clear that both the tutors and tutees
involved in the scheme in both semesters were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about
the experience. The course results of the tutees in both semesters were very
good with the majority of students passing with credits and distinctions, and in
some cases high distinctions. There was only one failure and one withdrawal for
personal reasons. The tutors found it to be an enjoyable experience that
improved and revised their knowledge of the subject matter, and improved their
teaching and communication skills. In addition, they gained personally from the
experience, in confidence and a greater sense of self worth. They also made
friends at the same time. The tutees likewise were very enthusiastic about the
experience, about the greater confidence it gave them, their better
understanding of the subject matter, and the improvement of their study skills.

For both tutors and tutees there was an increased awareness for a number of
them of the value of discussing their views and ideas with their peers. They,
therefore, appreciated more fully the value of the tutorial process, with many
reporting a greater ability to be able to contribute to their mainstream
tutorials. The quote utilised in the supplemental instruction literature
(Gardiner, 1996) seems particularly apposite:

"Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I
understand".

References
Ballard, B. and Clanchy, J. (1984). Study abroad: A manual
for Asian students. Longman: Kuala Lumpur.

Cornwall, M. (1980). Students as teachers: Peer teaching in higher
education. Amsterdam: COWO, University of Amsterdam.

Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching (Learning styles and
preferences, pp. 185-192). Jossey Bass Publishers: San Francisco.

Entwistle, N. (1987). The teaching learning process. In J. Richardson et al.
(eds.), Student learning research in Education and cognitive Psychology.
Society for Research into Higher Education: UK.

Gardiner, R. (1996). Supplemental instruction (SI). Academic Staff
Development Unit, Queensland University of Technology.

Hawkins, T. (1978). Personal checklist of tutoring skills. Student
Learning Center, University of California/Berkeley.

Magin, D. J. & Churches, A. E. (1995). Peer tutoring in Engineering
Design: A case study. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 73-85.

National Center for Supplemental Instruction, 1992. Supplemental
instruction: review of research concerning the effectiveness of SI from the
University of Missouri-Kansas City and other institutions from across the United
States. Kansas City: Centre for Academic Development.

Note

Although there are a number of terms (including, peer mentoring,
proctoring, and supplemental instruction) for essentially the same approach,
the term "peer tutoring" has been adopted in this project because it would
appear to be a more generic term and more widely used for schemes of this type
in Australia (Magin & Churches, 1995). Other closely related terms, such
as "proctoring" (Cornwall, 1980) and "supplemental instruction" (National
Center for Supplemental Instruction, 1992) have greater currency in the UK and
the US respectively.

Please cite as: Beasley, C. (1997). Students as teachers: The
benefits of peer tutoring. In Pospisil, R. and Willcoxson, L. (Eds),
Learning Through Teaching, p21-30. Proceedings of the 6th Annual
Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1997. Perth: Murdoch
University.
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1997/beasley.html

[ TL
Forum 1997 Proceedings Contents ] [ TL Forums Index
]
HTML: Roger Atkinson, Teaching and Learning Centre, Murdoch University [[email-masked]]
This URL:
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1997/beasley.html
Last revision: 25 Mar 2002.
© The University of Western Australia
Previous URL 9 Jan 1997 to 25 Mar 2002
http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/pubs/tlf/tlf97/beasle21.html