The integrated multiple process conceptual framework of peer assisted learning

learning

Topping and Ehly (2001) proposed a conceptual framework for peer assisted learning

constructivist perspective on learning based on Piaget’s (1959) and Vygotsky’s (1930- 1934/1978) theories (for a visual illustration of the framework see Topping & Ehly, 2001). Topping and Ehly postulated several theoretical assumptions about different processes that might be involved in PAL activities. Some of their assumptions, particularly those relevant to PA are summarized next.

According to Topping and Ehly’s (2001) framework, five socio-cognitive and affective sub-processes feed into the main knowledge building process which involves the PAL processes. The first of the five sub-processes concerns the organizational features of the learning environment, such as learning goals shared by the students, time spent to give feedback on the task, and the degree of interactivity and immediacy. This sub-process is related to the characteristics of the learning context (i.e., learning goals, type of learning task, time for PA activity) proposed by Narciss and Huth (2004), and can be regarded as a part of the learning context in PA activities. The second sub-process refers to cognitive conflict, which is induced by the PAL activity. The third sub-process is scaffolding and error management, as the less able student needs support and scaffolding from the more able student within the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1930-1934/1978). This sub-process can be supported through error detection, correction, questioning or through modeling depending on the type of PAL activity (Topping & Ehly, 2001). The fourth sub-process involves communication

between the peers as a skill to be practiced and learned and as a means to execute the PAL activity. In any PAL, students need to communicate one way or another, and therefore the development of good communication skills is also central to PA. Topping and Ehly (2001) proposed that this sub-process emphasizes the role of language in developing thoughts (in alignment with the Vygotskian theory) because in a PAL activity, students can engage in listening, explaining, questioning, clarifying, simplifying, summarizing, hypothesizing, etc. They further suggested that these skills are important for carrying out PAL, but they can also

enhance students’ learning with practice. The fifth sub-process is affect, which involves students’ motivation to engage in the task, having a sense of ownership, trust between peers, emotions triggered by assessing a peer or being assessed by a peer, etc. Some variables related to this sub-process investigated in PA research include psychological safety, value diversity, interdependence, and trust (see Van Gennip, Segers & Tillema, 2010).

According to Topping and Ehly (2001), all five sub-processes feed into the main process of extending each other’s knowledge (declarative, procedural, and conditional). Extending knowledge (i.e., knowledge building process) is assumed to be achieved through improving current capabilities, modifying current knowledge, or adding new knowledge and building completely new understanding (Topping & Ehly, 2001). The knowledge building processes are expected to help the assessor and the assessee becoming more similar in their understandings (inter-subjective cognitive co-construction), which coincides with their perceptions of their learning and might not represent the actual learning (Topping & Ehly, 2001). In PA activities, however, the development of assessment is also regarded as a main outcome. This skill is sometimes more likely to be acquired through and/or improved via PA activities (for the assessor) compared to domain knowledge as suggested by Sluijsmans, Brand- Gruwel, van Merriënboer, and Martens, 2004, although there is evidence that lab reports writing skills could also improve as a result of multiple PA provision activities (Cho & Cho, 2011).

Topping and Ehly (2001) suggested that with practice and a higher frequency of PAL activities students can gain automaticity and fluency in carrying out PAL activities. With experience and instructional support, students are expected to become consciously aware of what happens during their learning interactions and monitor and regulate their learning strategies. Students’ awareness then should optimally develop into metacognition which makes students more confident and self-assured that they can reach their learning goals (self-

attribution and self-esteem) (Topping & Ehly, 2001). This process is akin to internal feedback (Narciss, 2008) and self-feedback (Butler & Winne, 1995), which is considered as the optimal goal of involving students in PA activities. These higher order cognitive and affective processes are assumed to feed back into the five sub-processes as students practice the PAL activity (Topping & Ehly, 2001). As stated by Topping and Ehly (2001), the degree to which each process or sub-process is likely to be utilized or achieved by students depends on the type of the PAL as well as the nature of support provided by the teacher to foster the outcomes of the PAL activities. It is important to note that this framework seems an idealized conceptual framework based on literature review of PAL research, and testing whether empirical evidence supports each assumption is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

1.4.2.1. Applying the framework to peer assessment

Topping and Ehly (2001) suggested that all of the five sub-processes can play a role in PA to varying degrees, and different processes in the model may be utilized depending on the design of PA. For instance, in PA of complex learning tasks, in which students have to provide elaborated PF and the assessment is reciprocal, interactive and iterative, students are expected to (a) experience cognitive conflict (especially in heterogeneous pairing), (b) provide frequent PF to each other, (c) engage in cognitive co-construction through which they reach a common understanding of the learning task, and (d) improve/modify their current understanding of subject matter (or procedural, conditional knowledge). Conversely, Topping and Ehly (2001) claim that PA activities that involve merely scoring and no discussion of the learning product are expected to utilize very few processes in the framework, and might not lead to cognitive, metacognitive, and affective gains.