peer learning

1. Satu Öystilä 2015
Peer Learning and Ethical Principles of a Teacher
Eduta Oy
Tel. +35850 564 4887
satu.oystila@eduta.fi
www.eduta.fi

2. Peer learning
The human being
needs a reclection
(a mirror)
in order to learn

3. Learning

4. Dales pyramid
• Dales pyramid shows, how active learning processes
and methods create best circumstances and
environments to learning.
• Panadero, C. F., Román, J. V. & Kloos, C. D. 2010.
Impact of learning experiences using LEGO
Mindstorms in engineering courses, IEEE Education
Engineering (EDUCON), 503–512.

6. The Elements of Collaborative Learning
• Peer learning
• To take care of the stages of group development
• Dialogue
• Teacher as an authority (not authoritarian)
• The development of self-confidence and self-
knowledge
• Interpersonal skills

7. Peer learning
• Peer learning means using of such learning
strategies, where students can learn from and
with each other. Teachers have to organize the
process and create a structure for it, but
otherwise they keep on the background and do
not controll the process.

8. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning
Please, list the barries of peer learning!

9. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning I
 Fear of losing control
 Fear, that there is no time to handle all content
 Teachers don´t have the ability to use collaborative
methods
 Lack of suitable learning material
 Difficulty to assess peer learning

10. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning II
 Students’ resistance to change (it is so easy to listen
to lectures)
 Experiences of the non-functional groups
 Students experience peer assessment too
challenging and unpleasant
 According to students peer assessment can be
unreliable
 Fear that interpersonal relationships in the group
affect too much.

11. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning III
 Students are not used to peer learning and peer
assessment
 Many students are not used to give feedback with their
own names. You think in many universities, that the
feedback has to be given anonymously.
 The students are loyal to each other and don´t want to
give criticisism.
 Also teachers may think, that they lose the reliability of
assessment.

12. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning IV
 ”The teachers don´t do their teaching work”
 Group size is too large
 Unsuitable classrooms

13. Liabilities of peer and collaborative learning V
 Teachers are too careful with students assuming that
learning atmosphere gets worse
 Teachers can not use transparent criteria for peer
assessment, and the target of assessment might
obscure (right measures).

14. Assets of peer and collaborative learning
Please, list assets of peer and
collaborative learning!

15. Assets of peer and collaborative learning I
Development of:
Full understanding of the substance
Metakognitive skills
Self-directed learning
Interpesonal skills
Self-knowledge and self-confidence
Critical reflection
To feel comfort and safe during studies

16. • Generic skills
• Acting later in working life
• Motivation
• Ability to tolarate diversity
• Argumenting skills
• Creating new ideas
Assets of peer and collaborative learning II

17. Teachers’ activities as a facilitator of peer learning
How teachers can promote
peer learning?

18. Teachers have to take care of I
• The aim of the learning process
• Group cohesion
• Ground rules
• The safe atmosphere
• Getting to know each other

19. Teachers have to take care of II
• The presentation of him-/herself, practices,
agenda…
• The own aims of students
• Use time to teach peer learning processes
• Transparent assessment criteria (assessment
matrix)

20. Teachers have to take care of III
• Authority, but shared leadership
• The assessment of ground rules
• Solidarity and dialogue
• Openness

21. Which are suitable peer learning methods?
Eduta Oy
Puh. +35850 564 4887
info@eduta.fi
www.eduta.fi

22. Ethical Principles of teaching

23. The Values lying behind Ethical Principles (OAJ)
• Human Worth: every student is unique and capable of
thinking and learning
• Truthfulness: search for the truth and honesty to oneself
and to others and mutual respect in all interactions with
other people
• Fairness: promotion of equality and the avoidance of
discrimination and favouritism, also in the handling of
conflicts and in the evaluation of learners
• Rights and Responsibilities: teachers are entitled to their
own values and opinions, but are bound by the norms,
legislation and the curriculum.

24. Ethical Principles of a teacher (OAJ)
Teacher and student
•The teacher accepts the student as an unique human
being
•The teacher respects students´ rights and treats
students fairly and humanely
•The teacher tries to understand students´ thinking and
opinions
•The teacher behaves with discretion concerning
students´personality and privacy.

25. Ethical Principles of a teacher
A teachers´s relationship to his or her work
•Teachers perform their task in a responsible manner,
develop their work and professional skills and reflect
their own activities. They realize that their own
personality plays an important part in their teaching
and they have both a right and a duty to develop that
personality.

26. Ethical Principles of a teacher
The working community
Teachers value the work they are doing and show
respect for their colleagues.
Teachers and other interest groups
Teachers collaborate with others who are responsible
Teachers and society
Teachers promote the growth and upbringing of
learners and defend their rights
Teachers in a pluralistic world

27. Kirjallisuus I
• Anderson, H. 1999. Collaborative Learning Communities. Teoksessa S. McNamee & K.
J. Gergen. 1999. Relational Responsibilty. Resources for Sustainable Dialogie. London:
SAGE Publications.
• Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. 1993. Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature
and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
• Bonk, C. J. & Cunningham, D, J. 1998. Searching for Learner-Centered, Constructivist,
and Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educational Learning Tools.
• Boud, D. 2007. Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In Boud, D. &
Falchikov. 2007. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. London and New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 14-25.
• Brew, A. 2003. Teaching and Research: New relationships and their implications for
inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research
& development, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1-13.
• Divarahan, S. & Atputhamasy, L. 2002. An attempt to enhance the quality of
cooperative learning through peer assessment. Journal of Educational Inquiry Vol. 3,
No. 2, 72-83.

28. Kirjallisuus II
• Exley, K. & Dennick, R. 2004. Small Group Teaching. Tutorials, seminars and beyond.
Key Guides for effective Teaching in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.
• Falchikov, N. 2007. The place of peers in learning and assessment. In Boud, D. &
Falchikov. 2007. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. London and New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 128-143.
• Falchikov, N. & Goldfinch, J. 2000. Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A
Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks. Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 70, No. 3, 287-322.
• Hanrahan, S. J. & Isaacs, G. 2001. Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students´
view. Higher Education Research and Development Vol. 20, No. 1, 53-70.
• Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Light, G. & Cox, R. 2001. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The Reflective
Professional. London: Sage Publication.
• Papinczak, T., Young, L. & Groves, M. 2007. Peer Assessment in Problem-Based
Learning: A Qualitative Study. Advances in Health Sciences, Education 12, 169-186.

29. Kirjallisuus III
• Poikela, E. & Vuorinen, H. 2008. Yliopisto-opiskelun laatu. Arviointi oppimisen ja
opettamisen kehittäjänä. Teoksessa E. Poikela & S. Poikela. Laatua opiskeluun.
Oppiminen ja opetus yliopistossa. Rovaniemi: Lapin yliopistokustannus.
• Reiter, H. I., Eva, K. W., Hatala, R. M. & Norman, G. R. 2002. Self and peer assessment
in tutorials: Applications of a relative-ranking model. Academic Medicine Vol. 77, No.
11, 1134-1139.
• Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. 1996. Adaptation and understanding: A case for new
cultures of schooling. Teoksessa S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser & H. Mandi (Eds.)
International Perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning
environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Segers, M. & Dochy, F. 2001. New assessment forms in problem-based learning. The
value-added of the students´ perspective. Studies in Higher Education Vol. 26, No. 3,
327-343.
• Seppänen-Järvelä, R. 2005. Johdanto: Vertaisuuteen perustuvat kehittämis- ja
arviointimenetelmät: innovatiivisia ratkaisuja. Teoksessa R. Seppänen - Järvelä (toim.)
Vertaismenetelmät kehittävän arvioinnin välineinä. 2/2005. Hyvät käytännöt.
Helsinki: Stakes.

30. Kirjallisuus IV
• Sluijmans, D. M. A., Moerkerke, G. Merrienboer, J. J. G. van & Dochy, F.J. R. C. 2001.
Peer assessment in problem-based learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation Vol. 27,
No. 2, 153-173.
• Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. & Elliot, A. 2000. Formative peer assessment of
academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education Vol. 25, No. 2, 146-169.
• Vygotskij, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 90