Peer tutoring (or peer mentoring, proctoring, and = supplemental=20 instruction) is a cost-effective means of providing academic support = to=20 students through the use of a valuable teaching and learning resource, = namely=20 other students. It involves training and resourcing successful, more=20 experienced students to tutor novice students in a collaborative = learning=20 experience in which both parties richly benefit. Benefits include = improved=20 understanding and performance in the subject area involved, improved=20 confidence and study skills, as well as on-going friendships. These = benefits=20 accrue to both parties. Peer tutors regularly report what we as = teachers=20 already know: that the best way to really develop one's understanding = of an=20 area is to teach it to some-one else.=20This paper examines the development and evaluation of a pilot peer = tutoring=20 program conducted over two semesters in 1995 by the author with = undergraduate=20 Commerce students, many of whom were international students. Although = the=20 program was not without its problems (administrative as well as = attitudinal on=20 the part of some staff and students), it could only be seen as being = highly=20 successful in terms of the outcomes for all concerned: the course = grades of=20 tutees and the very positive evaluations of both tutors and tutees.=20
Peer tutoring is a cost-effective means of providing academic support = to=20 students, particularly during their first year year, through the use of = a=20 valuable teaching and learning resource, namely other students. It = involves=20 training and resourcing successful, more experienced students to tutor = novice=20 students in a collaborative learning experience in which both parties = richly=20 benefit. As the coordinator and supervisor of the Supplemental = Instruction (SI)=20 program at Queensland University of Technology points out, such programs = essentially adopt "a student centred, collaborative, learning strategy = ... to=20 transform students from being passive, 'teacher' - dependent, uncritical = recipients and reproducers of information into engaged, questioning, = reflective=20 and autonomous learners" (Gardiner, 1996, p. 2).=20
This paper examines the development and evaluation of a pilot peer = tutoring=20 program conducted over two semesters in 1995 by the author with = undergraduate=20 Commerce students, many of whom were international students. It argues = that the=20 benefits of peer tutoring are many, both for peer tutors and tutees. = While=20 schemes such as this may involve some organizational difficulties and = investment=20 of time and money, the positive learning outcomes are considerable.=20
It was decided to seek second and third year students who had = achieved good=20 grades in the nominated units to act as peer tutors to first year = students who=20 could benefit from extra assistance with the language and learning tasks = in=20 these courses. The Singapore Link association offered to help publicise = the=20 project and locate suitable tutors. The project, of course, was open to = all=20 Commerce students for whom it might be useful: Australian residents as = well as=20 overseas students. The coordinators of both units were consulted = regarding the=20 project and their cooperation sought. Originally it was envisaged that = the unit=20 lecturers and tutors might be able to nominate some dozen or so students = as=20 suitable and worthy "tutees" (i.e. students who were trying hard but = still=20 having considerable difficulty with the material) for the peer tutoring = scheme.=20 This proved impractical in the end, especially as there was opposition = to the=20 scheme from some staff in the Commerce programme. The concerns included = a number=20 of unfounded fears including the idea that the scheme might create extra = work=20 for unit lecturers and tutors and that peer tutors might "give students = wrong=20 information". The author managed to allay most of the concerns raised = through a=20 meeting with the staff concerned where these issues were more fully = explored.=20 Permission was gained from the C160 and C165 coordinators to speak = directly to=20 the students in their courses to explain the peer tutoring program and = solicit=20 participants.=20
Notices were posted around the university calling for "Successful 2nd = &=20 3rd year Commerce students for a pilot PEER TUTORING program". Peer = tutors were=20 promised an initial two hour training workshop, on-going support, a = final=20 de-briefing workshop, some remuneration ($50-$75 book vouchers), and "a = useful=20 and enjoyable experience that will enrich your resume and enhance your = future=20 employability". Potential peer tutors were required to submit a very = brief CV=20 detailing their Murdoch academic record, past employment record and what = they=20 personally hoped to gain from the peer tutoring program. Suitable tutees = were=20 then sought by announcing the details of the program to C165 and C160 = students=20 at the commencement of two normal unit lectures. Interested students = were asked=20 to sign up on the ASU Student Learning noticeboard. Due to = organisational=20 difficulties, the pilot program did not commence until the second half = of=20 semester one (weeks 8 -13). Training workshops were held for twelve = aspiring=20 peer tutors who were each matched with a C165 or C160 student who had = registered=20 an interest in the program. Interestingly, overseas students slightly=20 predominated over Australian residents for the tutors (seven compared to = five)=20 whereas Australian residents predominated over overseas students for the = tutees=20 (eight compared to four), ensuring a rewarding cross-cultural experience = for=20 many participants.=20
The program was repeated in semester two, again with the enthusiastic = cooperation and support of the overseas students' association. Due to = the=20 perceived success of the program in semester one, considerably more = students=20 (both tutors and tutees) wanted to be involved in the program. The = semester two=20 program was advertised and conducted in the same way as in first = semester except=20 that the whole program began earlier and ran longer (weeks 5 - 13). A = total of=20 23 peer tutors (with three tutoring in both subjects) participated in = the second=20 semester program which catered for the language and learning needs of a = total of=20 38 C160 and C165 students. Overseas students were predominant in second=20 semester, numbering 18 out of 23 tutors and 25 out of 38 tutees. Half of = the=20 tutors from first semester elected to participate again in the second = semester=20 program. The initial training session was conducted in conjunction with = Sally=20 Knowles but the on-going support and final evaluation for the semester = two=20 program was provided by Sally while the author was on long service = leave.=20
The peer tutors were provided with background readings on the above = matters=20 to consolidate the discussion in the workshop. Copies of the current = course=20 outlines and other material (e.g. tutorial programmes) from the C160 and = C165=20 units, obtained from the unit coordinators, were also provided. In = addition, the=20 C165 peer tutors were also provided with extensive support teaching = material=20 (including "model" or suggested answers to past assignment and exam = questions)=20 for the C165 unit developed by the author as a result of on-going = support=20 classes for this course and his research in this area. The peer tutors = were=20 given advice on how best to use this material and how to conduct = one-to-one=20 tutorials or consultations.=20
They were urged to adopt the procedures outlined in the Student = Learning=20 handout for students on individual consultations which clearly = delineates what=20 tutors can and cannot do for students and the respective roles and=20 responsibilities of both parties in the tutoring process. It was = stressed that=20 the peer tutor's role was to act as a "facilitator" and guide. Peer = tutors=20 should be extra and non-threatening resource personnel who could = encourage=20 students' skill development, independence and confidence and thereby = complement=20 the teaching endeavours of their mainstream unit lecturers and tutors. = The peer=20 tutors' role was not to "give answers" to the students. Rather, their = role was=20 firstly, to help develop the students' thinking and understanding of the = course=20 content, tasks, and lecturers' expectations, and secondly, to help = students=20 develop appropriate strategies for dealing effectively with these.=20
On-going informal meetings of peer tutors (one in first semester and = two in=20 second semester) were scheduled to monitor the tutees' progress, share = ideas and=20 strategies and address any problems or concerns that had emerged. = Unfortunately,=20 these were not totally satisfactory in that not all the peer tutors = attended. A=20 clear majority did, however, and they rated the sessions as useful.=20
FINAL COURSE GRADES=20
| Table 1: C160 results | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| course grades | W/D | N | P | C | D | HD |
|
| ||||||
| semester 1 (N=3D4) | - | - | 1 | 3 | - | - |
| semester 2 (N=3D15) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 4 | - |
|
| ||||||
| Table 2: C165 results | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| course grades | W/D | N | P | C | D | HD |
|
| ||||||
| semester 1 (N=3D8) | - | - | - | 1 | 5 | 2 |
| semester 2 (N=3D24) | - | - | 1 | 10 | 13 | - |
|
|
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES=20
| Table 3: TUTORS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| (i) | |||||
| Q1 (success of sessions) | very suc- cessful (%) |
quite suc- cessful (%) |
not sure (%) | not very successful (%) |
unsuc- cessful (%) |
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D12) | 2 (17%) | 10 (83%) | - | - | - |
| semester 2 (N=3D21) | 1 (5%) | 18 (85.5%) | 2 (9.5%) | - | - |
|
| |||||
| (ii) | |||||
| Q3 (study skills improved) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Maybe (%) | ||
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D11) | 7 (64%) | 3 (27%) | 1 (9%) | ||
| semester 2 (N=3D21) | 15 (71%) | - | 6 (29%) | ||
|
| |||||
| (iii) | |||||
| Q4 (knowledge improved) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Maybe (%) | ||
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D10) | 7 (70%) | - | 3 (30%) | ||
| semester 2 (N=3D20) | 16 (80%) | - | 4 (20%) | ||
|
| |||||
| (iv) | |||||
| Q5 (confidence improved) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Maybe (%) | ||
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D12) | 9 (75%) | 1 (8%) | 2 (17%) | ||
| semester 2 (N=3D21) | 15 (71%) | - | 6 (29%) | ||
|
| |||||
| (v) | |||||
| Q8 (initial training helpful) |
Yes (%) | No (%) | Marginally (%) | "Not Appl- icable" (%) | |
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D10) | 6 (60%) | - | 4 (40%) | - | |
| semester 2 (N=3D22) | 11 (50%) | 1* (5%) | 6* (27%) | 4* (18%) | |
|
| |||||
| * The student who circled "no", = two who=20 chose "marginally", and all four who wrote "not applicable" in = their=20 comments (didn't circle any of the three choices) had tutored in = first=20 semester and done their initial training session then. Most of the = students, regardless of what they circled, gave positive comments = (15=20 definitely positive, i.e. 71%, and 6 marginally positive) of the=20 helpfulness of the initial training. | |||||
|
| |||||
| (vi) | |||||
| Q11 (volunteer again) |
Yes (%) | No (%) | Maybe (%) | "Not Appl- icable" (%) | |
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D11) | 9 (82%) | - | 2 (18%) | - | |
| semester 2 (N=3D21) | 8 (38%) | 1 (5%) | 11 (52%) | 1* (5%) | |
|
| |||||
| * One student didn't circle any = of the=20 three choices but commented that s/he is "not able to because I'm=20 graduating end of this semester". | |||||
|
|
| Table 4: TUTEES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| (i) | |||||
| Q's 1 & 2 | Av. No. sessions |
Av. Length sessions (hrs) | |||
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D12) | 4.25 (s=3D2.56)* | 1.1hrs (s=3D0.4)*=20 | |||
| semester 2 (N=3D15) | 6.7 (s=3D2.48)* | 1.3hrs (s=3D0.4)* | |||
|
| |||||
| * s =3D the standard = deviation | |||||
|
| |||||
| (ii) | |||||
| Q3 (usefulness of sessions) | very useful | quite useful | not sure | not very useful |
not useful at all |
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D9) | 6 (67%) | 3 (33%) | - | - | - |
| semester 2 (N=3D15) | 5 (33%) | 7 (47%) | 2 (13%) | 1 (7%) | - |
|
| |||||
| (iii) | |||||
| Q4 (study skills improved) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Maybe (%) | ||
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D12) | 9 (75%) | - | 3 (25%) | ||
| semester 2 (N=3D15) | 10 (67%) | 2 (13%) | 3 (20%) | ||
|
| |||||
| (iv) | |||||
| Q5 (knowledge improved) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Maybe (%) | ||
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D12) | 11 (92%) | - | 1 (8%) | ||
| semester 2 (N=3D15) | 11 (73%) | - | 4 (27%) | ||
|
| |||||
| (v) | |||||
| Q6 (confidence improved) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Maybe (%) | ||
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D12) | 8 (67%) | 1 (8%) | 3 (25%) | ||
| semester 2 (N=3D15) | 11 (73%) | 3 (20%) | 1 (7%) | ||
|
| |||||
| (vi) | |||||
| Q10 (participate again) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Maybe (%) | ||
|
| |||||
| semester 1 (N=3D12) | 11 (92%) | - | 1 (8%) | ||
| semester 2 (N=3D14) | 13 (93%) | - | 1 (7%) | ||
|
|
The results for students of C165: Principles of Commercial Law were = even more=20 pleasing. The majority of students in semester one received distinctions = or high=20 distinctions, and credits and distinctions in semester two. There were = no=20 failures recorded of the thirty two students in both semesters in the = C165=20 course.=20
"Apart from gaining intellectually, I believe the tutee has = also=20 learnt expectations of university education, examinations technique, = as well=20 as confidence in coping with future courses. For myself it was a = teaching=20 experience as well as a learning process, especially in communication = skills".=20Table 3 (ii) shows that most tutors felt that the tutees = study=20 skills had improved (60-70%). Comments given by the tutors to back up = that=20 perception included greater confidence of students discussing the issues = without=20 the need to refer to notes, the improved analytical approach of students = to=20 questions, an improved ability to identify the main issues of a case in = C165,=20 and to remember the concepts of the course.=20
Similarly, the overwhelming majority of the tutors (70-80% in both = semesters)=20 felt that their tutees' knowledge of the subject had improved as a = result of the=20 sessions. Comments largely centred around the demonstrated ability of = their=20 students to be able to discuss and re-explain concepts in their own = words, to be=20 able to ask good questions about something about which they were not = sure, and=20 to demonstrate an ability to think about the actual issues and concepts. = For=20 example,=20
"My tutee did not realize what she did not know about the = subject.=20 It was only through our study sessions that she found out what she did = not=20 know."Another tutor commented on the importance of = delineating her=20 role in the process of peer tutoring:=20
"I feel that my responsibility is not to be a lecturer but = more as=20 a guide if she faces any problems."Table 3(iv) = demonstrates that a=20 similar majority (around 70%) of tutors in both semesters felt that = their=20 students' confidence had improved as a result of the sessions. The peer = tutors=20 mentioned that their students were more vocal, less hesitant, and less = dependant=20 on the peer tutor. For example, one wrote that, "I always encourage her = to think=20 before I state my points so that she is not so dependant on what I say." = Another=20 tutor wrote, "Tutees attitude of accepting whatever being said by me and = written=20 down in text has changed to an active one." The tutees could now argue = points=20 and back them up effectively. Furthermore, a number of the peer tutors = reported=20 that their tutees were more confident in approaching their mainstream = tutors and=20 lecturers for help and more confident in participating in tutorials.=20
Tutors mentioned a range of problems experienced during the program = with a=20 large number involving coordinating timetables for meetings and other = minor=20 organisational matters. A small number of tutors mentioned problems with = the=20 commitment of their students in second semester, with some students not = always=20 preparing adequately for sessions and having different expectations. = Some tutors=20 talked about initial difficulties identifying the students' weaknesses = and where=20 to start. Many, however, reported no real problems.=20
Regarding the question of what tutors had learned or gained from=20 participating in the scheme, responses were very varied and = overwhelmingly=20 enthusiastic. Most talked about the improved knowledge and understanding = that=20 they gained of the subject area taught. They reaffirmed what we as = teachers=20 already know: that the best way of really learning and understanding a = subject=20 is to try to teach it to someone else. A substantial number of tutors = also=20 reported an increase in their own confidence, an improvement in their=20 communication skills, and a greater sense of self worth from doing = something=20 meaningful for someone else. An added benefit was the development of = on-going=20 friendships. Several tutors also reported greater insights about = teaching and=20 the value of discussion, as reflected in the following comments:=20
"The value of group discussion to share our understanding of = the=20 course, not only for the tutors but for myself" and "making arguments = creates=20 more interest and understanding".On the question of = whether the=20 initial training was helpful for the peer tutors, the majority reported = that it=20 had been helpful. Comments about the initial training were varied but = generally=20 included preparing them better in terms of expectations of their role, = improving=20 their confidence, anticipating problems to come and dealing better with = them, as=20 well as having useful strategies for the sessions. Comments included the = following:=20
"It is good to get perspective that the scheme is trying to=20 achieve and from the point of view that all people perceive things=20 differently."=20There were a=20 number of suggestions regarding how the scheme could be improved. = Although most=20 tutors seemed quite happy with the scheme, many recommended that it be = run for a=20 longer time throughout the semester and involve the actual course = coordinators=20 and tutors. Others suggested that there be more support material and = extra=20 instruction. Another suggestion was for the tutees to have an initial = session of=20 what was expected of them, because there was a perceived need from some = tutees=20 to be more committed. On what advice they would offer to future tutors, = the=20 majority talked about the need to be understanding and patient, to have = good=20 listening skills, and to be a friend and helper. A number also mentioned = the=20 need to be properly prepared for sessions, and not be afraid of making = mistakes=20 or knowing all the answers. It was also important to remember that = tutoring is=20 an interactive, shared experience. In the words of some of the tutors,=20"It made me aware that teaching to stimulate thought would be a = more=20 effective way of preparing a student for an exam." =
"Each tutee is different, sharing procedure differently. = Don't=20 think of teaching, it should be a sharing process."=20There was an interesting difference between the two = semesters=20 in connection with whether of not they would volunteer to be peer tutors = again=20 (see Table 3(vi)). In first semester there was a clear majority who said = that=20 they would (about 80%), whereas in the second semester it was a little = more=20 equivocal (40% said "yes" and 55% said "maybe"). The increase in the = "maybe"=20 category was probably because they were nearing the end of their = university=20 courses and were worried about being overloaded. However, most commented = favourably about the experience, especially about the personal rewards = involved:=20"Keep an open dialogue with your tutee and enjoy the experience."=20
"Be patient, be willing to learn and see from the tutees' = perspective.=20 Don't just give answers, learn to prompt and let the student delve = (sic) the=20 answer. Be a good friend and give a kind understanding, listening = ear."=20
"I find it challenging and motivating, and it gives me a = sense of=20 achievement. Tutoring also provides me with an opportunity to = contribute=20 something to the university community."=20There were also a number of additional comments made, = many of=20 which reinforced early comments of general support and enjoyment of the = scheme=20 and the rewarding nature of the experience for all concerned.=20"I personally think that it is a really fruitful experience and = felt really=20 fulfilled. It is like doing something useful for someone."=20
"This scheme is a brilliant idea. It gives an easier = environment=20 for shy students to ask questions as their peer tutors are all = students. Some=20 of the shy students find it hard to approach their tutors."=20"This pilot scheme is definitely very constructive and both tutors = and=20 tutees are able to gain from it."
Table 4(iii) reveals that the clear majority of the students thought = that=20 their study skills had improved because of the sessions (approx. 70%). = Students=20 reported a number of different areas of improvement in their comments = including=20 their ability to analyse questions, to understand better the = expectations of=20 staff, to understand better how to structure and argue their case, to be = more=20 organised in terms of their study, and to improve their ability to think = critically. Several students also reported that the peer tutoring = session made=20 them prepare better for their mainstream tutorials as the following = comments=20 attest:=20
"It make me read up my lecture notes and practise the = tutorial=20 questions".=20Similarly, Table = 4(iv) reveals=20 that a clear majority of students felt that their knowledge of the = subject had=20 improved as a result of the sessions in both semesters. student comments = included the following:=20"It forced me to complete tutorial work prior to actual tutorial".=20
"I'm more aware in regard to picking important sections from study=20 material. Much more organised."
"I have a better understanding and thus I can apply what I = have=20 learnt."=20Several students also = commented on the=20 value of discussing with others, as the following illustrate:=20"Asking and speaking to somebody who has recently sat the exam = enabled me=20 to discover which parts of the course were relevant. I wish I had peer = tutors=20 for all of my subjects."
"I needed to become more involved in cross student = discussion.=20 Exchanging ideas clarifies knowledge".=20Similar = results were=20 obtained with the next question on whether they thought their confidence = had=20 improved as a result of the sessions. Table 4(v) reveals that around 70% = in both=20 semesters thought that this was the case. Students were more confident = in their=20 thinking, in their ability to participate in tutorials, and their = preparedness=20 for examinations.=20"When I discuss with others, people may point out what I do not = see, so it=20 improves my knowledge of the subject".
"I was more confident to speak in tutors because I had a = better=20 understanding of the concepts"=20The most useful feature of the = sessions for the=20 students was the opportunity for discussion, to be able to clear their = doubts,=20 and have their questions and confusions answered with someone who was = not=20 threatening.=20"I'm not scared when I attend tutorial classes, I participate = actively."=20
"Before, my goal for final examination was a credit. Now, it has = changed to=20 a distinction."
"Having someone to be able to bounce ideas off."=20Another feature that was mentioned by many students was = the=20 working through of past examination papers and learning about the exam = and how=20 to tackle it. In both semesters, there were very few comments regarding = features=20 that were not very useful. In semester one a couple of students = commented on the=20 fact that there were not enough sessions and that was remedied in the = second=20 semester.=20"Knowing that I can ask questions that I couldn't ask in = tutorials."=20
Comments on how the scheme could be improved, in first semester = predictably=20 were largely about starting earlier and having more sessions. In second=20 semester, however, the comments centred on having more peer tutors and = the=20 possibility of one to one situations. In both semesters ninety percent = of the=20 students said that they would participate in future schemes. There were = several=20 gratuitous comments, such as "Definitely" and "I do enjoy exchanging = thoughts=20 with others". The additional comments asked for in Question 11 mostly = were=20 fulsome thanks for the scheme and often sincere thanks to the particular = tutor=20 who they had found to be very helpful and kind.=20
"X has been very helpful and obliging. I am most = appreciative of=20 his time."=20"Thanks very much for Y's help. She was very helpful and she showed = me a=20 great patience especially with my poor English. Thanks a lot." (sic)=20
"Good experience with other people especially in sharing of thought = and=20 different views". (sic)
For both tutors and tutees there was an increased awareness for a = number of=20 them of the value of discussing their views and ideas with their peers. = They,=20 therefore, appreciated more fully the value of the tutorial process, = with many=20 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:=20
"Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me = and I=20 understand".
Cornwall, M. (1980). Students as teachers: Peer teaching in higher = education. Amsterdam: COWO, University of Amsterdam.=20
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching (Learning styles and=20 preferences, pp. 185-192). Jossey Bass Publishers: San Francisco.=20
Entwistle, N. (1987). The teaching learning process. In J. Richardson = et al.=20 (eds.), Student learning research in Education and cognitive = Psychology.=20 Society for Research into Higher Education: UK.=20
Gardiner, R. (1996). Supplemental instruction (SI). Academic = Staff=20 Development Unit, Queensland University of Technology.=20
Hawkins, T. (1978). Personal checklist of tutoring skills. = Student=20 Learning Center, University of California/Berkeley.=20
Magin, D. J. & Churches, A. E. (1995). Peer tutoring in = Engineering=20 Design: A case study. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 73-85.=20
National Center for Supplemental Instruction, 1992. Supplemental=20 instruction: review of research concerning the effectiveness of SI from = the=20 University of Missouri-Kansas City and other institutions from across = the United=20 States. Kansas City: Centre for Academic Development.=20
| Please cite as: Beasley, C. (1997). Students as teachers: = The=20 benefits of peer tutoring. In Pospisil, R. and Willcoxson, L. = (Eds),=20 Learning Through Teaching, p21-30. Proceedings of the 6th = Annual=20 Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1997. Perth: = Murdoch=20 University.=20 http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1997/beasley.html |