Question

Option 2: Learning and Development Methods

Review the literature on learning and development methods that can be used in organisations for individual and group learning. Consider the effectiveness of these methods and the circumstances in which they are appropriate.summarize it to 10 lines

In this article, it is argued that the types of approach required in these two forms of implementation are very different and whilst the former is dealt with in the literature on peer learning, the latter has been largely unconsidered. The article reports how a review of the literature on organisational change was used to develop a model of how to implement peer learning across organisations. It describes how this model was used to guide the implementation of peer learning across a UK further education college. The results of a pilot study into the models effectiveness in this context are reported. These results suggest that the model appeared to be a useful guide to the implementation of peer learning across an organisation and, as such, is worthy of further investigation in other contexts.

There has been a good deal of writing on the implementation of peer learning. For example, two recent books (Boud et al., 2001; Falchikov, 2001) have considered the implementation, operation and effectiveness of peer learning schemes. This litera- ture considers the implementation of peer learning from the perspective of teachers who wish to implement peer learning on their courses. However, peer learning can also be implemented across organisations. This raises a different range of issues to be considered in implementing peer learning and it is these issues that are the focus of this study.

In this article the literature on implementing peer learning across organisations is reviewed and found to offer an oversimplied account of the implementation process. It is reported how a new model for the implementation of peer learning across organisations was developed through a review of the literature on organisation change. The results of a pilot study of this models effectiveness in a single educational setting are reported. It is concluded that the model was a useful guide

ISSN 1361-1267 print; 1469-9745 online/02/03022111 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1361126022000037051

222 P. Ashwin

to the implementation of peer learning in this context and is worthy of further

investigation in other contexts.

De ning Peer Learning

Peer learning is used here to refer to situations where students formally support each other in educational settings. Other authors have used terms such as peer tutoring (Goodlad & Hirst, 1989; Topping, 1996), and peer teaching (Goldschmid & Goldschmid, 1976; Whitman, 1988). The term peer learning is used to emphasise the experience of all students participating in peer learning.

The Literature on Implementing Peer Learning

Given the potential bene ts claimed for peer learning in terms of increased rates of student retention and achievement for a relatively low cost (e.g. see Topping, 1996; Boud et al., 1999; Packham & Miller, 2000), it is not surprising that some institutional managers are attracted to the idea of implementing peer learning across their organisations. However, whilst there has been a lot of consideration of the implementation of peer learning from the perspective of teachers who wish to implement peer learning on their courses in higher education if not in further education (see Boud et al., 2001; Falchikov, 2001 for two recent examples), there has been very little consideration of the implementation of peer learning across organisations.

Where the implementation of peer learning across organisations is considered (e.g. see Martin & Arendale, 1993; Ainsworth et al., 1994; Grif ths et al., 1995; Donaldson & Topping, 1996; Topping, 1996), the approach that is suggested is the setting up of a well structured pilot scheme along the lines of the literature designed to help teachers implement peer learning on the courses they teach, i.e. that a model of peer learning is identi ed, students are suitably prepared for their involvement in peer learning and systems are set up for evaluating peer learning. If the pilot scheme is successful, then the literature suggests that the data from this are used to convince others in the organisation of the bene ts of peer learning. This method re ects the way in which peer learning initiatives were set up in the UK; for example, the growth of Supplemental Instruction in the UK, which was heavily based on the money made available in the Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative (Rust & Wallace, 1994).

There are two problems with this approach. First, it fails to recognise the differences between implementing peer learning on a single course and implement- ing peer learning across organisations. When a decision is made to implement across an organisation this is by its nature a management decision and involves a central implementer or coordinator. This implementer needs to work with teachers and students who may be sceptical about the motives behind the implementation of peer learning and may feel that there are potentially institutional rewards for those who participate and sanctions for those who do not. This is a very different scenario to teachers choosing to use peer learning. Second, this approach to implementing peer

Implementing Peer Learning Across Organisations 223

learning represents the use of what Chin and Benne (1970) called an empirical-ra- tional strategy. This strategy is based on the assumption that those involved in, and affected by, changes will follow the rational choice once it is revealed to them, in this case choosing to become involved in peer learning. Elton and Cryer (1994) also criticise such strategies because they seek to change sympathetic individuals and then expect them to bring change throughout an institution. In seeking an alterna- tive approach to the implementation of peer learning across organisations it becomes clear that the process of organisational change needs to be considered in a more sophisticated way.

A Model for the Implementation of Educational Innovations

Organisational change, within this context, can be considered as a change in practice (Fullan, 1991), whether that is the practice of teachers, students, or managers. In order to consider the implementation of peer learning across an organisation, the literature on organisational change was reviewed, and building on a structure developed by Elton (1999) from the work of Lewin (1952), a model for the implementation of educational innovations was developed. The model follows Lewins (1952) three steps of change, which are considered in the following sections: unfreezing; changing (two sections); and refreezing.

Putting the Innovation into the Context of Current Con icts in the System

In order to gain support for the innovation, the implementers need to place it in the context of current con icts in the system. It needs to be presented as the answer to problems that have already been identi ed in the system (Berg & O stergren, 1977, 1979). However, if the innovation is presented as a potential solution to these con icts, then this will shape its aims and in turn the form of innovation that is used.

Involving those Affected by the Introduction of the Innovation

Those affected by the introduction of the innovation need to be involved in its implementation, as do those who are not affected but are in a position to block or encourage the development of the innovation (Elton, 1999). These groups do not only need to be consulted, but their ideas and experiences need to be used to change the approach to the implementation of the innovation so that it ts with the context in which it is introduced (Schein, 1972) and so is relevant to that context. This is because, as Fullan (1991) argues, Educational change is a learning experience for the adults involved (p. 66; emphasis in original). This emphasises the importance of allowing those involved in the innovation some control over its implementation. It also means that once any innovation is put more widely into practice, it will take on a different form than the initial well-structured pilot scheme (Parlett & Hamilton, 1972), as those involved in its implementation will reshape it according to their understanding of their context and the potential applications of the innovation.

224 P. Ashwin

Developing the Innovation in Response to the Quality of its Fit with the Environment in

which it is Implemented

Those involved in the implementation need to have the con dence to make any changes that become necessary to increase the chances of the schemes achieving their objectives during the implementation. Any model of the innovation that is used is only a guide and it should not prevent the implementer making individual innovation schemes t within the particular environment in which they are imple- mented (Berg & O stergren, 1977, 1979; Fullan, 1993). Those who are leading the implementation need to recognise that it will take time for the innovation schemes to be implemented and to work effectively (Ho rd, 1987).

Embedding the Innovation

Planning needs to begin early for the embedding of the innovation within the institution. If the innovation is not embedded in the institution, then it will be open to changes in priorities in that institution and may disappear when those involved in introducing them move on within, or leave, the institution (Schein, 1972; Elton, 1999). The approach to the innovation needs to be continually reviewed so that its t within the organisation is maintained.

Using the Model to Improve the Implementation of Peer Learning in Post- compulsory Education

The author acted as the implementer of peer learning in a further education institution in the UK from September 1993 to July 2000 and the research reported here concentrates on the development of the implementation strategy from Septem- ber 1993 until July 1998. Peer learning was initially introduced, in the form of Supplemental Instruction (SI), without using the implementation model. SI was rst established at the University of Missouri Kansas City in 1973. In its original form this scheme has the following characteristics (see Blanc et al., 1983; Martin & Arendale, 1993; Center for Supplemental Instruction, 1998):

SI targets high risk courses. These are de ned as courses that historically have a 30% or greater failure and withdrawal rate. These courses are de ned as concep- tually dif cult rather than the students being seen as dif cult or the teaching being seen as poor.

SI involves peer facilitators (SI leaders) who have completed a course, or elements of a course, offering support to all the students (SI users) who are studying that course, or the elements of that course.

The SI leaders receive an initial two-day training on learning theory and the SI approach, and ongoing support from a central SI coordinator, who supports and administers the scheme.

SI is offered in weekly sessions that take place outside of the mainstream curriculum. The SI users attendance at these sessions is voluntary.

The SI sessions begin at the same time as the course so that problems can be

Implementing Peer Learning Across Organisations 225

picked up as they occur, rather than providing support once problems have been

identi ed.

The SI leaders do not teach new course material, but instead structure the

sessions to facilitate the SI users sharing, processing, and restructuring course

material through group discussion and exercises.

The schemes are set up with the agreement of the academic teachers on the course

that is to be supported. They select the SI leaders and the SI leader feeds issues back to the teachers.

After three years of attempting to promote SI in the college and despite high levels of management support, there were low levels of student and teacher participation in SI. A new implementation strategy was developed in September 1996, by applying the model for implementing educational innovations to the implementation of peer learning. The existing SI implementation strategy was reviewed under each of the headings in the model and from this a new implementation strategy, the Peer Support implementation strategy, was developed.

Putting the Innovation into the Context of Current Con icts in the System

The main focus of SI was the improvement of retention and achievement on courses. This addressed the con ict between increasing retention and achievement within a context of reduced funding per student. However, this con ict re ected the concerns of management. Teachers did not see the need for SI and reported seeing it as representative of changes in the roles of teachers that they were trying to resist. Many of the students who were offered support did not attend the sessions, and so it would appear that they did not see it as addressing their needs. SI leaders reported gaining from their involvement in the schemes, but suggested that the SI approach prevented them from supporting as many students as they might have under an alternative approach.

In developing the new Peer Support implementation strategy, more of a bottom- up approach was adopted by deliberately presenting the strategy differently to managers and to teachers and students. To managers it was presented as a tool to aid retention and achievement. To teachers and students it was presented as a tool that they could shape to support their courses. These two presentations were linked, and indeed some of the teachers and students did think that Peer Support had improved academic performance on their courses. However, the presentations involved different emphases and not all schemes that teachers developed had a direct effect on retention. In this way, whilst under the SI implementation strategy managers decided which form of peer learning would be used, under the Peer Support implementation strategy teachers and students made this decision.

Involving those Affected by the Introduction of the Innovation

SI is a pre-designed peer learning scheme, which has a rigid structure that is implemented regardless of the context in which it operates. It was designed outside

226 P. Ashwin

of the college and implemented in the way that was presented in the literature on SI. Thus, those affected by the introduction of SI were not involved in its implemen- tation. They were not consulted and their ideas and experiences were not used to ensure a t between the form of peer learning and college environment. Many teachers and students did not participate in SI and this seemed to be because they did not see it as relevant to them.

In implementing Peer Support those affected by its introduction were involved in designing the schemes and shaping them to their course. Teachers and students had the option of designing their own peer learning schemes and Peer Supporters models of how to run peer learning sessions were used as a starting point for how their sessions would be run.

Developing the Innovation in Response to the Quality of its Fit with the Environment in which it is Implemented

SI was not changed in response to its shortcomings. The feedback from students, SI leaders and teachers about its lack of relevance was viewed, at rst, as being due to their lack of understanding of the scheme and what it was trying to achieve. The schemes were implemented by the SI coordinator acting alone using a single model for the schemes, and this made changing the schemes very dif cult.

In implementing Peer Support, schemes were changed in response to their shortcomings. The teachers and students acting with the Peer Support coordinator implemented the schemes. The design of a Peer Support scheme was recognised as a developmental process. Schemes were changed at the end of and during the year. Feedback from teachers and students was automatically used to alter the schemes because it was they who were partly responsible for designing the schemes.

Embedding the Innovation

SI was embedded in the institution in terms of the provision of a post to implement the schemes. However, it was not embedded into courses and the courses involved in SI changed from year to year.

In the Peer Support implementation strategy there was an attempt to embed peer learning in courses through developing teachers ownership of the schemes. If this were successful, then the existence of peer learning at the college would not be dependent on the continuing presence of the peer learning coordinator.

Research Methods

In order to assess the effectiveness of the new implementation strategy two measures were used. First, the number and diversity of peer learning schemes was examined. If the implementation strategy was successful then more teachers would have been willing to become involved in the scheme and equally students and teachers would have begun to develop schemes that re ected their views of how peer learning could be effective. Second, the number of students involved in peer learning, as well as the proportion of those who were offered peer learning who attended, were examined. If the schemes that were implemented were more relevant to the students, then the number and proportion of students who attended would have increased.

Results

Table I shows the number and diversity of schemes that were developed under Peer Support and SI in the college. It shows that the number of schemes operated rose with the introduction of the Peer Support implementation strategy. The number of schemes operated rose sharply in 199697, the year that the SI implementation strategy was replaced with the Peer Support implementation strategy. In the two years following the setting up of SI in 199394, the number of peer learning schemes had increased by 80%, whereas in the two years of Peer Support the number of schemes increased by 156%.

8

9 6 15/8

13/10 11/12

228 P. Ashwin

There was an increase in the diversity of schemes that were run under the auspices of Peer Support. Under the SI implementation strategy all of the schemes used the SI structure. This meant that students and staff could not design their own peer learning schemes, that all of the schemes operated outside of courses mainstream curricula on an ongoing weekly basis. Under Peer Support teachers and students began to design their own schemes of peer support. For example, in 199798 teachers designed nine of the 23 schemes that were run and six were designed by students. A third of all the schemes involved the running of occasional sessions for a particular purpose rather than operating on an ongoing basis. These schemes were designed either to support particular projects or assignments that students tradition- ally found dif cult or to support students during the process of induction into the college. In 199798, ten schemes were designed that operated inside the curriculum, during students timetabled lessons. Finally, whilst under SI the peer facilitators had supported students from the same course as they were studying, in 199798, peer facilitators helped students on different courses to themselves in eleven of the schemes. This involved students from more advanced courses supporting other students, for example GNVQ Advanced students supporting GNVQ Intermediate students, and through cross-college schemes where, for example, A-level students supported students from a range of courses with mathematics and English in a study centre. It is important to note that these schemes were not necessarily new forms of peer learning; in fact SI still operated on a number of courses and some of the others forms are discussed in Topping (1996). What was new was the process in which teachers and students, in discussion with the implementer of peer learning, designed schemes that they felt were most appropriate for their context.

Table II shows the involvement of students who were offered peer learning under the SI and Peer Support implementation strategies. As student attendance at most of the schemes was voluntary, the increases in the level of attendance and the percentage of students offered peer learning who attended suggest that the schemes were more relevant to the students to whom they were offered. Average attendance under the SI implementation strategy had been low. During the three years that SI ran average attendance only increased by 29%. When the Peer Support im- plementation strategy was introduced in 199697 the average attendance rose by 105%. Under the Peer Support implementation strategy there was also an increase in the number of students offered peer learning and the percentage of those who attended one or more and three or more sessions. In 199798, 54% of students offered peer learning attended at least one session compared to 23% in 199394. The percentage of students attending sessions under the Peer Support implemen- tation strategy were higher than has been reported in the SI literature (e.g. Center for Supplemental Instruction, 1998) where, on average, a third of students attend one session.

i need a summary