Promoting thinking through peer learning - This Issue

Theory Into Practice, Wntr, 2002 by Angela M. O'Donnell

THE TOPIC OF "COOPERATIVE" OR "PEER" learning is of great interest to many participants in public education, including administrators, teachers, special education personnel, parents, and students. Recent writings about peer learning center on ideas about collaboration, communities of practice, mentorship, and other descriptors of peer interaction. Initiatives to implement statewide standards in a variety of content areas include recommendations to use "collaborative" practices, although these standards rarely describe how to use collaboration. Yet despite the increased focus on peer learning and expectations to use it in classrooms, teacher preparation programs do not systematically address what peer learning is, how various forms of peer learning differ from one another, and how teachers might select such forms of interaction to fit their instructional goals. The variety and complexity of school tasks are such that a single model of peer learning is insufficient as an instructional strategy (i.e., the same strategy that works for a rehearsal task will not be appropriate for a complex problem-solving task). Strategic and effective use of peer learning in the classroom requires teachers to understand the implications of a variety of theoretical approaches so that they can adapt their use of peer learning to the demands of the task.

Much of the published work that examines the effects of peer learning stems from the social psychological construct of interdependence among members of a group. An interdependent group is one in which the outcomes of group members are linked. In a cooperatively interdependent group, no one can succeed unless everyone succeeds. Cooperative techniques vary in how they promote interdependence. Some focus on developing children's sense of caring for one another, whereas others focus on the use of rewards for joint success. Social-motivational approaches to cooperative learning provide little information about how to promote or manage the cognitive processing of students who are working together.

The focus of this issue is on promoting thinking by using peer learning. The articles collectively address the decisions needed when using peer learning with attention to who learns in a group, what changes as a result of interaction, and how we can assess learning from peer interaction.

A number of themes permeate the articles contributed for this issue. The first theme is a consideration of what cooperation/collaboration is. De Lisi distinguishes between relationships based on constraint and those based on cooperation, with the latter being more likely to lead to learning and the former to compliance. He raises an important issue: When students are assigned to work outside the classroom on cooperative projects, has the teacher inadvertently changed the basis of the activity from one of cooperation to one of constraint because of the necessary involvement of parents due to scheduling and other issues? Thus, the intended processes and outcomes may not be realized because of a fundamental change in the nature of the relationships that are linked to the work. Webb, Farivar, and Mastergeorge address an important aspect of how collaboration actually proceeds through the giving and receiving of help. They explore the responsibilities of both the help-giver and the help-seeker in promoting learning. The help given--in the form of explanations and the responses to help provided--can vary substantially in quality, and the teacher has an important role in developing a context in the classroom in which help-giving and responses to help are productive.

A second important theme in this issue's articles is the nature of the task as it interfaces with peer learning. For the students described by Donovan, the opportunity to express their preferences, likes and dislikes, was novel and valued. The selection of the task is a critical decision in the implementation of peer learning to promote thinking while maintaining positive affect. Palincsar and Herrenkohl describe two peer-learning approaches: reciprocal teaching, and cognitive tools and intellectual roles. The kinds of tasks for which these two approaches are appropriate differ in how interactive patterns of participants are supported by the task structure, the nature of the problem space, and how a shared social context is created in using the task. The authors also note that students bring to any learning task a history of experiences that influence how they will engage the new task. Hoffman illustrates clearly how different kinds of grouping are necessary for the varied tasks in a multiage classroom. Cooper delineates necessary features of a task for it to be suitable for use by a collaborating group.

Other articles in this issue describe how the cognitive processing of collaborating students is influenced by the task itself, the directions for how to complete the task, or by the specific processing instructions. The article by van Boxtel et al. illustrates clearly how elements of a task (e.g., concept mapping) can be altered to promote higher-level thinking. King points out that different tasks require different kinds of cognitive processing and illustrates how the provision of question stems and the structure of guided reciprocal questioning can promote higher-order thinking.