Introduction to Peer Learning in Science
Peer learning in science can take place in through two main processes. It can take place between peers as peer tutoring. In this process an older, or more able peer will tutor a younger peer (or a peer at an earlier stage of cognitive development). This leads to cognitive conflict and is the basis of Piagetian theories of cognitive constructivism. Peer learning can also take place as collaborative learning. In this context the peers will still be at different stages of development, but their relative levels will be closer together. This allows them to co-construct new meaning and cognitive structures from learning experiences. They combine and splice ideas together. This is the basis of Vygotskyan co-construction.
Piaget (1978) proposed that understanding developed in children through the processes of assimilation and accommodation, associated with the construction of internal schemas for understanding the world. This has been termed cognitive constructivism. Vygotsky (1978) placed greater emphasis on the role of social interaction, language and discourse in the development of understanding, to allow children to scaffold each other's learning and co-construct. This has been termed social constructivism.. Despite the apparent differences between Vygotskyan and Piagetian peer learning theories it has been reported that both require peer interaction (Blatchford, Kutnick, Baines & Galton,2003). Although peer-peer, rather than pupil-teacher are the dominant forms of interaction in the classroom (Galton, Simon & Croll,1980; Tizzard, Blatchford, Burke, Farquhar, & Plewis,1998) teachers often fail to plan effectively for peer-peer interactions (Kutnick, Blatchford & Baines,2002). Peer relationships can be a motivating context for pupils. In contrast to adult-peer relationships, power is distributed more horizontally and more likely to be shared (Blatchford et al,2003). Piaget (1932) noted that ‘the very nature of the relationship between child and adult places the child apart, so that his thought is isolated’ (p32).
Most students have concepts about science. These concepts can be a rich medium in which to engage in cognitive conflict or co-construction. In Vygotsyan (reciprocal role) peer learning learners will undertake joint investigations. This technique has been used successfully in primary school reading (Duran & Monereo,2005), mathematics (Fantuzzo, Davis & Ginsburg,1995) and it is reported that in peer learning initiative with 11-12 year old pupils that the level of constructive activity was the strongest predictor of raised attainment (Webb, Troper & Fall,1995). Fantuzzo and Ginsburg-Block (1998) reported that reciprocal role tutoring ‘Based on theories of sociocognitive development and research related to peer teaching, opportunities to explain concepts to peers and practice these academic skills contribute to academic achievement.’ Interactions in reciprocal role peer learning contexts will be cooperative with shared questioning, splicing together of the ideas and less hinting and guiding taking place. The peers work together to generate joint understanding (Hogan & Tudge,1999). When these patterns predominate then reciprocal role tutoring offers greatest gains to tutees. In Piagetian fixed tutoring techniques there is more tutor direction and support. This is more aligned with the cognitive conflict outlined by Piaget. In Piagetian peer learning the adaptation of cognitive structures takes place when assimilation and accommodation are in balance. This balance should be more easily established between peers than between child/teacher resulting in cognitive structures more open to adaptation and less prone to conservation (De Lisi & Golbeck,1999).
The benefits of peer interaction have been reported in science (Howe, Rogers &Tolmie,1990;Howe et al,1995; Howe, Tolmie, Thurston, Christie, Donaldson, Livingston et. al., 2007). These studies reported that cognitive gains did not necessarily take place during the learning activity, but up to 11 weeks afterwards. However, learning was a direct result of the interaction that took place during the lesson. The discourse acted as a catalyst for subsequent cognitive development. The important elements of discourse reported to facilitate these gains related to talk that took reasoning expressed during the activity by a peer and transformed it in some way. This transformation could include ‘splicing’ together of ideas, disagreement with a justification, clarification being sought or an idea being elaborated upon (Foot & Howe,1998; Rohrbeck et al,2003; Robinson et al,2005). A meta-analytic review of peer learning concluded that in nearly every instance of reported intervention in the primary school the technique was demonstrated to be effective at raising attainment (Rohrbeck et al,2003).
See the models (in layer 3):