A voluntary scheme of student support units which has been in existence since 1997 is subjected to an evaluation to assess its efficacy in supporting learning in the first year of a psychology degree. Students who join the scheme report mainly social but also pedagogical benefits, but also identify negative aspects of group interaction. Overall, the scheme is seen as providing an effective semiformal framework whose primary advantage appears to be in assisting students to embed themselves into the HE culture. It is also recommended that a level of staff support is desirable to reduce the potential for undesirable outcomes.
References
1.
BarrettR.CoxA. L. (2005). At least they're learning something: The hazy line between collaboration and collusion. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 107–122.
2.
BartonA.Van DuurenM.HaslamP. (2006). Voluntary peer learning groups: Do students want more structure, and are there any hard gains?Psychology Learning and Teaching, 5, 146–152.
3.
CohenR.SampsonJ. (2001). Implementing and managing peer learning. In BoudD.CohenR.SampsonJ. (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other (pp. 50–66). London: Kogan Page.
4.
DerryS. J. (1999). A fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In O'DonnellA.KingA. (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 197–212). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
GriffinB. W.GriffinM. M. (1997). The effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on graduate students' achievement, test anxiety, and academic self-efficacy. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 197–209.
6.
HoweC.McWilliamD.CrossG. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 67–93.
7.
KingA. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In O'DonnellA. M.KingA. (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
O'DonnellA. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In O'DonnellA. M.KingA. (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–212). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Over half ignore cheating. (2005, February 18). Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 4.
10.
RittschofK. A.GriffinB. W. (2001). Reciprocal peer tutoring: Re-examining the value of a co-operative learning technique to college students and instructors. Educational Psychology, 21, 313–33.
11.
SampsonJ.CohenR. (2001). Designing peer learning. In BoudD.CohenR.SampsonJ. (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other (pp. 21–34). London: Kogan Page.
12.
TangK. C. C. (1993). Spontaneous collaborative learning: A new dimension in student learning experience?Higher Education Research and Development, 12, 115–130.
13.
UnderwoodJ. D. M. (2003). Student attitudes towards socially acceptable and unacceptable group working practices. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 319–337.
