Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 4 no. 8 (2023)

The Applicability of Peer Teaching in a Post-Graduate Business Course

Ma. Joycelyn Banlasan | Vicente E. Montaño

 

Abstract:

This study demonstrates the interrelation between peer teaching and six grading criteria used in a graduate business program. Twenty (20) enrolled post-graduate students in the Advanced Statistics course were assigned to five (5) peer groups participating in the study. The quantitative graphical method was used. Specifically, the Correspondence Analysis (CA) two-way contingency table describes the association between the level of peer-teaching and its applicability to the six grading criteria. Based on the CA result, there was a clear separation among the peer groupings and the six grading criteria. Peer group D find peer teaching applicable to written content and exam. Peer group B considered peer-teaching moderately applicable to research while highly applicable in language content. For students in peer group C, moderate peer teaching is highly applicable to oral content. However, peer group A regarded peer teaching as not applicable to written skills. The correspondence analysis provided valuable insights into the relationships between peer teaching and six grading criteria. This study confirms that the level of peer teaching possesses a specific level of applicability in the six grading criteria, with the peer groupings exhibiting distinct patterns.



References:

  1. Alem, F., Plaisent, M., Bernard, P., & Chitu, O. (2014). Student online readiness as-sessment tools: A systematic review ap-proach. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(4), pp376-384.
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall. Beaulieu, R. J. (2013). Ac-tion research: Trends and varia-tions. The Canadian Journal of Action Re-search, 14(3), 29-39.
  3. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International society for technology in education.
  4. Bester, L., Muller, G., Munge, B., Morse, M., & Meyers, N. (2017). Those who teach learn: Near-peer teaching as outdoor environmental education curriculum and pedagogy. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 20, 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03401001
  5. Boud, D., & Prosser, M. (2002). Appraising new technologies for learning: A frame-work for development. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources: A sus-tainable approach to e-learning (pp. 37-49). Kogan Page.
  6. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer learning and assessment. Assess-ment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 369-386.
  7. Bridges, C., & Frazier, W. L. (2018). Teaching across settings. In Preparing the Educa-tor in Counselor Education (pp. 190-212). Routledge.
  8. Campbell, M., & Mayer, D. (2009). Question-naire development and use: A reflection. International Journal for Academic De-velopment, 14(3), 269-276.
  9. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revi-sion with peer and expert review-ing. Learning and instruction, 20(4), 328-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
  10. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2015). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teach-ers College Press.
  11. Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2016). Action re-search. In Research methods for opera-tions management (pp. 249-283). Routledge.
  12. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer in-struction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
  13. Di Benedetti, M., Plumb, S., & Beck, S. B. (2023). Effective use of peer teaching and self-reflection for the pedagogical training of graduate teaching assistants in engineering. European Journal of En-gineering Education, 48(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2054313
  14. Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. Psychology Press.
  15. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of educational re-search, 70(3), 287-322. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003287
  16. Gottlieb, Z., Epstein, S., & Richards, J. (2017). Near‐peer teaching programme for med-ical students. The clinical teacher, 14(3), 164-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12540
  17. Halligan, C. (2014). Hands On, Minds On-Active Learning Strategies:(Engaging the Student in Learning).
  18. Herreid, C. F. (Ed.). (2007). Start with a story: The case study method of teaching col-lege science. NSTA press.
  19. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational psychology re-view, 16, 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  20. Hyland, K. (2019). The role of the student writer: Motivation, expectation, and en-gagement in writing for university. Stud-ies in Higher Education, 44(9), 1630-1642.
  21. Kalaian, H. A., & Kasim, R. M. (2017). The ef-fectiveness of reciprocal peer teaching: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 21, 33-57.
  22. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2014). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 227-248). Routledge.
  23. Leki, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second lan-guage writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 221-234). Cambridge University Press.
  24. Lundeberg, M. A., Moch, S. D., & Birkett, M. (2011). Learning through teaching: A comparison of three approaches to promoting conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 77-101.
  25. Martin, S. N., & Hand, L. (2019). Peer teaching as a pedagogical strategy in undergrad-uate nursing education: A systematic re-view. Nurse Education Today, 77, 33-40.
  26. McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  27. Niemiec, R. P., & Sikorski, T. (2017). The ef-fect of peer teaching on learning out-comes in a statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 44(2), 110-115.
  28. Patrucco, A. S., Alarcon, R. B., & Medina, R. L. (2019). Peer-led learning in research methodology: Exploring peer-to-peer research and students' perspectives. Journal of Further and Higher Educa-tion, 43(2), 159-173.
  29. Pazo, V. C., Frankl, S., Ramani, S., & Katz, J. (2018). Peer teaching of the physical ex-am: a pilot study. The Clinical Teach-er, 15(5), 393-397. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12708
  30. Pharis, T. J., Wu, E., Sullivan, S., & Moore, L. (2019). Improving teacher quality: Pro-fessional development implications from teacher professional growth and effec-tiveness system implementation in rural Kentucky high schools. Educational re-search quarterly, 42(3), 29-48.
  31. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Grossman.
  32. Rai, D. (2018). A review of peer-teaching in medical student research. International Journal of Medical Education, 9, 280-283.
  33. Rees, E. L., Quinn, P. J., Davies, B., & Fother-ingham, V. (2016). How does peer teach-ing compare to faculty teaching? A sys-tematic review and meta analy-sis. Medical teacher, 38(8), 829-837. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1112888
  34. Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem‐based learning: what works and why. Medical education, 45(8), 792-806.
  35. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta‐analytic exami-nation of the instructional effectiveness of computer‐based simulation games. Personnel psychology, 64(2), 489-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
  36. Stigmar, M. (2016). Peer-to-peer teaching in higher education: A critical literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring: partner-ship in learning, 24(2), 124-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2016.1178963
  37. Sutton, R. E. (2018). Learning from written education materials: Some issues to con-sider. American Journal of Pharmaceuti-cal Education, 82(8), 6372.
  38. Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645.
  39. Topping, K. J. (2017). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher edu-cation: A typology and review of the lit-erature. Higher Education, 73(5), 741-757.
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  41. Wang, S., Shao, L., Huang, X., & Xu, X. (2021). The effect of using traditional learning resources and e-learning resources on learning: A comparative study. Educa-tion Sciences, 11(1), 37.
  42. Wang, T., Wang, M. C., & Yang, J. (2019). Pro-moting EFL learners' speaking skills through peer-teaching activities. English Language Teaching, 12(11), 9-19.
  43. Xu, M., Chen, X., & Xu, M. (2021). Peer teach-ing in oral English classrooms: A case study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(2), 305-315.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic