This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 18:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of QualitativeStudies in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20
Peer relations in peer learningHanne Riese a , Akylina Samara a & Sølvi Lillejord ba Department of Education , University of Bergen , Bergen ,Norwayb Teacher Education , University of Oslo , Oslo , NorwayPublished online: 18 Oct 2011.
To cite this article: Hanne Riese , Akylina Samara & Sølvi Lillejord (2012) Peer relations inpeer learning, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25:5, 601-624, DOI:10.1080/09518398.2011.605078
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.605078
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Peer relations in peer learning
Hanne Riesea*, Akylina Samaraa and Sølvi Lillejordb
aDepartment of Education, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; bTeacher Education,University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
(Received 22 April 2010; final version received 8 July 2011)
Over the last decades, much research on peer learning practices has been con-ducted. Quantitative, experimental designs focusing on problems of cause andeffect dominate. Consequently, effects on achievement are well documented, asis the influence of different conditions on the effect rate. In spite of the generalacknowledgment of the importance of peer learning and a large amount ofresearch on collective learning practices, questions regarding the quality of peerinteraction, and how peer relations influence learning, are not well elaborated.This paper complements the discussion on effect focusing on the processes ofinteraction between peers, and relates these to theoretical perspectives on learn-ing as fundamentally social. Inspired by meta-ethnography an integrative analy-sis across seven qualitative studies was accomplished. The approach enabled aninvestigation of peer interactions in different educational settings. The analysiselaborates on how instructional designs and students’ relational knowledgemediate interaction in peer learning. The paper further discusses the potential ofapproaches synthesising qualitative studies as a tool in qualitative research.
Keywords: peer learning; peer relations; mediational means; meta-ethnography
Introduction
Peer learning practices are promoted at all levels of the educational system for theo-retical, empirical as well as policy reasons. Arguments fall into three broad catego-ries: First, positive effects on students’ achievement. Second, in the current masshigher education system peer learning activities can reduce the workload of theteaching staff. Third, the need for including the development of generic skillsrelated to future employment can be promoted by learning practices where studentswork together (Boud, Cohen, and Sampson 2001). Subsequently, research on peer-learning is extensive and has addressed both cognitive growth (O’Donnell and King1999) and social aspects of learning (Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne 2000; Resnick,Levine, and Teasley 1991).
We understand peer learning as activities where peers learn “from and with eachother in both formal and informal ways” (Boud, Cohen, and Sampson 2001, 4).Approaches that can fit under this broad definition of peer learning include peertutoring, peer assessment, small group learning, collaborative, and cooperativelearning (Cooperative learning methods: a meta-analysis, http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html [accessed 10 December 2007]). The plethora of concepts
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in EducationVol. 25, No. 5, August 2012, 601–624
ISSN 0951-8398 print/ISSN 1366-5898 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.605078http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
reflects the wide range of practical models for implementing peer learning. Mostresearch concentrates on identifying effects and conditions for effect, treating peerlearning as an instructional intervention, rather than as “enacted practice” (Kosch-mann 1996). Thus a number of meta-studies have documented positive effects onlearning outcome, in addition to social skills, self-esteem and cost-effectiveness.Research further shows that conditions for positive effects include group goals orinterdependence, student responsibility, and reward systems on the group as well asindividual level (Cohen 1994b; Falchikov and Goldfinch 2000; Hattie 2009; John-son, Johnson, and Smith 2007; Johnson et al. 2000; Lou et al. 1996; Prince 2004;Rohrbeck et al. 2003; Slavin 1996; Springer, Stanne, and Donovan 1999; Topping1996).
However, researchers call for more investigation into the complexity of interac-tions in peer learning (Hartup 1999; Kumpulainen and Kaartinen 2000; Lillejordand Dysthe 2008; Springer, Stanne, and Donovan 1999; Szymanski 2003), claimingthe need for knowledge regarding which aspects of interaction are conducive tolearning. This means that the study of peer learning should concentrate on under-standing what learners do when they work collaboratively. In this perspective learn-ing is investigated as changes in practice as well as cognitive development, and theanalytical focus should be on process as well as outcome.
Furthermore the meaning of the term “peer” in peer learning is seldom dis-cussed. Most often it refers to a student in the same cohort or learning situation(Boud and Lee 2005). Peer relations are addressed using terms like interdepen-dence, scaffolding, and tutoring, indicating that the relations are important but thesocial relationships between peers and their prior knowledge of each other, are notdiscussed as being of importance to the learning activity (Boud and Lee 2005;Johnson, Johnson, and Smith 2007; Topping 2005; Tosey and Gregory 1998).
In peer learning literature social relationships between peers are indirectlyaddressed, discussing problems related to status, ethnicity or gender (Cohen 1994b;Cohen and Lotan 1995; Salomon 1989; Slavin 1996; Springer, Stanne, andDonovan 1999). In contrast, if we turn to literature on social relations in education,peer relations are addressed in terms of friendship and acceptance (Berndt, Miller,and Perry 1988; Hamm and Faircloth 2005; Hanham and McCormick 2009; Kut-nick and Kington 2005; Swenson and Strough 2008; Zajac and Hartup 1997). Thisfield of research has documented that friends are an important motivation forschooling (Berndt and Keefe 1996), that social and academic development arerelated (Anderman and Anderman 1999; Wentzel 1996), and that friendship rela-tions may be significant with regard to the learning outcomes from peer learning(Riese 2010). These two traditions of research, one addressing learning, the othersocial relations in education, are seldom combined (Hanham and McCormick 2009;Swenson and Strough 2008).
Based on the identified gaps this study intends to address peer learning as anenacted practice, questioning how interaction proceeds and how social relationsbetween peers contribute to the interactional process in peer learning. Inspired bythe meta-ethnographic approach developed by Noblit and Hare (1988), we have car-ried out an interpretative synthesis of seven qualitative studies. We assume thatexisting qualitative research already but implicitly includes information on peerinteraction and how relations influence the process of peer learning. By synthesisingresults from several studies the understanding of peer learning practices can be
602 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
improved on a broader base than a single study may provide. Our results allowfuture research to pose more informed questions on peer relations in peer learning.
Theoretical context of the study
As the intention of this study is to investigate interaction in peer learning and the con-tribution of peer relations to the process, there is a need for an approach paying atten-tion to interactional patterns and to changes in practice. The theoretical assumptionsunderlying our synthesis are therefore a socio-cultural understanding of the relation-ship between knowledge, individuals and their context (Vygotsky 1978; Wertsch1991). Within this tradition, the assumption is that learning is situated in a material,social and cultural context and considered a joint symbolic activity. From this followsthat the attention is on how individuals produce meaning in interaction with eachother and the environment, and the learning process is considered as a contingentinteraction between individuals and their context (Lave and Wenger 1991; Säljø 2007;Wenger 1998). Interacting actors continuously reproduce and change the conditionsfor action and learning. Thus it is not only the individual, but also the context of inter-action that is changed. In socio cultural theory this interdependence between actors,and between actors and their context is theorized through constructs such as ‘commu-nities’ or ‘organisations’ or ‘institutions’ for interaction and discussions of their quali-ties, or in more general terms the qualities and roles played by ‘cultural’ ideas andpatterns, and ‘social’ norms in interactional processes.
The interdependency of actors, and actors and their contexts, leads to a thirdassumption in socio cultural theory that activity must be understood as mediated bymeans representing a link between individuals and the social, cultural and materialcontext (Vygotsky 1978). Mediational means can be understood as “cultural tools”used in interaction, facilitating the joint production of meaning. They are concreteobjects, procedures or signs, with language as the most important cultural tool, andthey derive from the social, cultural and material context.
This understanding of learning makes the foundation for our analysis, and thespecific research questions of the study are:
(1) What are the most prominent aspects of peer learning interaction asdescribed in the included studies?
(2) In what ways are peer relations described as contributing to the interactionalprocess in peer learning?
Methodology
Research design
The identified need for knowledge on the complexity of peer learning activities sug-gests a qualitative research design. Compared to a single qualitative study, a synthe-sis of a set of studies may contribute to a broader and more multi-facetedunderstanding of the micro-processes of peer-learning activity. As the main inten-tion in our study is to seek a deeper understanding of peer learning activities ratherthan to generalise across cases, we decided to apply an approach within theinterpretative tradition building on the meta-ethnographic approach outlined byNoblit and Hare (1988). The problem of investigating interactions and relationshipsbetween peers suggests, as stated in the theory section, an approach foregrounding
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 603
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
learning processes and taking the wider context of learning into account (Lillejordand Dysthe 2008). We therefore opted for a research design that could produce“thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973) of peer learning activities and their contexts.
Although syntheses of quantitative studies are common, qualitative research syn-theses are quite rare. Still, a range of review methods exists, differing with regardto intentions, to theoretical base, as well as to how rigid, widespread, and developedthey are (Davis 2000; Denyer and Tranfield 2006; Dixon-Woods et al. 2005;Murphy et al. 1998; Walsh and Downe 2004). Amongst the most widespread arenarrative review (Jones 2004), realist synthesis (Pawson et al. 2005), and meta-eth-nography (Noblit and Hare 1988).
Syntheses can also be sorted with regard to what they aspire to achieve. Dixon-Woods (2005) draws on Noblit and Hare (1988) to distinguish between integrativeand interpretative syntheses, concluding that most approaches to some extent mayinclude both integration and interpretation. This distinction does not necessarily fol-low a quantitative–qualitative distinction, however, whereas integrative approachesaim at generalising findings, an interpretative synthesis does not necessarily aspireto make claims about generalisability, but is concerned with the development ofconcepts and the theories integrating these concepts.
The included studies are analysed as texts representing the scientific discourseon peer learning. Through an interpretation of findings across the included studieswe will highlight the characteristic aspects of the peer-learning processes and con-tribute with reflections grounded in theory of learning in order to bring the field for-ward.
Selection of studies
The following criteria were applied to identify which set of studies to include in ameta-ethnographic approach to synthesising knowledge on peer learning processes:
(1) Studies included should be of educational practices where peers worktogether on a common task, where the teacher has a guiding and facilitatingrole, and where the collaboration between peers lasts for a significant periodof time, allowing for relations to form and develop.
(2) Studies included should describe how processes and relations in the studentgroups develop over time.
(3) The included studies should use qualitative methods in a way that producesthick descriptions (Geertz 1973). Details on the data generated and the con-text in which they were generated should be provided so that they can becompared with data from other studies.
Identification of studies
We searched for studies conducted up to 2009. The following electronic databaseswere searched; ERIC (OCLC), ISI Web of Science, ProQuest Academic ResearchLibrary, ProQuest Education Journals (scholarly journals), Education JStore andIdunn. Search strategies were developed in collaboration with a librarian. Allretrieved titles and abstracts were assessed by two of the authors and the studiesthat appeared to fulfil the described criteria for inclusion were selected for further
604 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
reading by the two authors. Despite a search filter on qualitative studies, a largenumber of the retrieved studies were by and large quantitative and thereforeexcluded. Studies were excluded if the focus of the study differed significantly fromthe objective of our study (for instance focusing too much on outcome and lackinginformation on process) and if the goal was a discussion of practical implementationrather than a report of research results. We also chose to delimit our study byexcluding learning schemes using electronic media, regarding this as a separateresearch field.
An important aspect of synthesising research is assessing the quality ofincluded studies. This issue is widely discussed and closely connected to episte-mological debates. Conventional criteria for conducting research in general(Hammersley 1990) and specific criteria for qualitative approaches (Eisner 1983;Guba and Lincoln 1989) are used in the assessment of the studies. Differentchecklists have been developed for use in studies carrying out syntheses (Maysand Pope 2000; Murphy et al. 1998) even though the use of checklists is alsodebated (Elliott, Fischer, and Rennie 1999; Murphy et al. 1998). This study hasused a set of guidelines made for publication of qualitative research developedby Elliott, Fischer, and Rennie (1999) (see Appendix 1). These guidelines putan emphasis on reflexivity with regard to the researcher’s role as well as tohow data is produced and handled.
The guidelines were applied to systematically scrutinise both the way methodsand procedures are described in the included studies, as well as the transparencyof the presentation of the data. This secures the quality in the interpretative analy-sis involved in a meta-ethnography. From an initial recovery of 727 studies, theselection process ended with the inclusion of seven studies that met our criteria(Allsup 2003; Bianchini 1997; Donath et al. 2005; Elbers and Streefland 2000;Hogan, Nastasi, and Pressley 1999; Kobayashi 2003; Szymanski 2003). They alldescribe long-term conducting of peer learning; include descriptions of the processand of the relations between students; and they use qualitative methods that pro-duce descriptions of the processes, relations and the context of interactions inways that allow for comparison with other studies. All studies included are tosome extent applying perspectives that are within or affiliated with a socio cul-tural theory of learning. This was not a criterion of inclusion initially, but theresult may be explained by the other criteria. Thus no studies were excluded onthe grounds of not applying these kinds of perspectives. Seven studies included isneither high nor low with regard to the analytical procedures to be applied, butsufficient to expect the generation of insights. They represent a spectrum of differ-ent educational settings and levels and come from different countries, although allare from a western cultural context. This represents a challenge in analysis andinterpretation. However given that the context of the data is considered in inter-pretation, the diversity also represents an opportunity of gaining a broader set ofaspects shedding light over the problems addressed. The included studies aredescribed in the next section.
Summary of included studies
A summary of the included studies is provided in Table 1. In order to further famil-iarise the reader with the studies and provide transparency of the analysis, an addi-tional description of the included studies is included in Appendix 2.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 605
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Table1.
The
included
studies.
Studies
Metho
dsandsetting
Analysis
Sam
ple
Settin
gDatacollectionandmetho
dTheoretical
fram
ework
Mainfind
ing
Allsup
(200
3):Mutual
learning
and
democratic
actio
nin
instrumentalmusic
education
9high
scho
olstud
entsage
14–1
7with
interm
ediate/
advanced
level
ofexperience
onmusical
instrument
Musical
project,2grou
psin
4mon
ths2,
5ho
ursaweekwith
collabo
ratio
n.Creatingmusic
with
indifferent,freely
chosen
genres,USA
Participantob
servation,
collabo
rativ
einqu
iry.
Analytical
workdepend
ingon
theory.Emerging
them
esdiscussedandvalid
ated
during
research
process
Dem
ocratic
education
(Dew
ey),constructio
nof
know
ledg
ethroug
hcoop
eration(Vyg
otsky)
Working
incommun
ities
couldbe
describedas
actio
nsof
discov
ery
Bianchini
(199
7):Where
know
ledg
econstructio
n,equity,
andcontextintersect:
stud
entlearning
ofsciencein
small
grou
ps
18grou
psof
threeto
five
stud
ents6th
grade
Science
class,twoun
itsof
4–5
weeks’du
ratio
n,biolog
ywith
inacomplex
instruction
mod
elprog
ramme(Coh
en19
94a),USA
Mixed
metho
dsinclud
ing
participantob
servationand
interviews.Analysisthroug
hiterativ
eprocessof
revising
codesandrepeatingcoding
process
Kno
wledg
eissocially
constructed(Latou
rand
Woo
lgar),un
equally
accessed
(Harding
)anddistribu
ted
(Brown,
Collin
sandDug
uid)
Discussions
seldom
mov
edbeyo
ndprod
ucts
andprocedures
and
social
status
differences
persistdu
eto
shortcom
ings
inim
plem
entatio
nDon
athet
al.(200
5):
Characterizing
discou
rseam
ong
undergradu
ate-
research
inan
inqu
iry-based
commun
ityof
practice
Three
under-
graduate
university
stud
ents,1
faculty
mem
ber,
1PhD
,1
session
Eng
ineering
education.
Studentsworking
onresearch
projectsin
aRCS(research
commun
icationstud
io),USA
Lon
gterm
ethn
ograph
icstud
yandvideo-tapedanalysisof
onegrou
psession.
Speech
eventsandrolesidentified
throug
hiterativ
ecoding
incollabo
ratio
nwith
research
team
Com
mun
ityof
practice(Lave),
activ
elearning
indistribu
ted
cogn
ition
environm
ent
(Bransford,Brown,
Cocking
),lin
guistic
performativity
(Austin
),speech
acts/events
(Searle,
Flowerdew)
Multip
lealignm
ents
betweenmem
bers
ofgrou
pincrease
grou
pcohesion
andbreak
grou
ndforincipient
commun
ityties
ElbersandStreefland
(200
0):Collabo
rativ
e-learning
andthe
constructio
nof
common
know
ledg
e
Aclassof
8th
gradepu
pils,
grou
psof
4–5,
age11–1
3
Mathematicsproject,
“com
mun
ityof
researchers”.
Maths
ineveryd
ayissues,4
mon
ths1,
5lesson
saweek
with
inacommun
ityof
inqu
iry
mod
el.The
Netherlands
Casestud
y,participant
observation,
audioandvideo
recordings
ofdiscussion
sin
class/grou
ps.Identificatio
nof
repeatingdiscursive
patterns
throug
hiterativ
ecoding
Learningcommun
ities/
commun
ityof
inqu
iry(Brown
andCam
pion
e,Rog
off,
Scardam
alia
andBereiter).
Scientificresearch
commun
ities
(Latou
rand
Woo
lgar)
New
patternsof
talk
are
developedthroug
hcontinuo
uscycles
ofdiscussion
(Contin
ued)
606 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Table1.
(Con
tinued).
Studies
Metho
dsandsetting
Analysis
Sam
ple
Settin
gDatacollectionandmetho
dTheoretical
fram
ework
Mainfind
ing
Kob
ayashi
(200
3):The
role
ofpeer
supp
ort
inESLstud
ents’
accomplishm
entof
oral
academ
ictasks
11 undergradu
ate
stud
ents(4
boys,7girls)
–3specialfocus
3mon
thprojecton
presentin
gexperiencesfrom
previous
practical
projecton
peer
tutoring
inlang
uage.Japanese
stud
entsqu
alifying
inEng
lish
forCanadianun
iversity
stud
ies
Casestud
y:ob
servations,
semi-structured
interviews,
stud
ents’journals,e-mail
interviews,audio,
videorecordings.
Identificatio
nof
speech
events,
valid
ated
throug
htriang
ulation
with
otherdata
Vyg
otskiansocioculturaland
activ
itytheory,lang
uage
socialisation,
task
interpretatio
nandpreparation
(Ochs,Wertsch,Cou
ghlanand
Duff).Speecheventor
activ
ity(H
ymes,Scollo
nandScollo
n,Schriffin)
The
grou
pprocessis
shaped
byperson
alhistoriesandbeliefs
aswellas
thesocio-
educationalcontext
Hog
an,Nastasi,and
Pressley(199
9):
Discourse
patterns
andcollabo
rativ
escientificreason
ingin
peer
andteacher-
guided
discussion
s
Twelve
8th
gradestud
ents
infour
different
collabo
rativ
egrou
ps
12weekscienceprojectun
ites
constructio
nof
mentalmod
els
onnature
matterin
aWIG
(with
outtheinform
ationgiven)
pedago
gy(Perkins
1992
).New
Yorkstate.
Participantob
servation,
videoandaudiorecordings.
Groun
dedtheory
approach
toanalysisof
discou
rse.
Interactiveprotocols.Data
prod
uced
throug
hdiscou
rse
maps(Frederiksen,Roy
and
Chen),conceptual
prop
osition
maps(N
owak)
Cog
nitio
nas
situated
ininterpersonalinteractions.
Focus
ongrou
pprocessesand
prod
ucts.Und
erstanding
grow
thin
scientificreason
ing
interm
sof
both
cogn
itive
and
social
process(Coleand
Thagard).Transactiv
edialog
ues(A
zmitiaand
Mon
tgom
ery)
Different
discourses
developwith
and
with
outteacherpresence.
Students’
discou
rsewas
morevaried
whenon
theirow
n
Szymanski(200
3):
Produ
cing
text
throug
htalk:
questio
n-answ
ering
activ
ityin
classroo
mpeer
grou
ps
Seven
grou
psof
four
3rd
graders,nativ
eSpanish
speakers
Eng
lishliteracyun
itof
three
weeks.Working
with
prod
uctio
nof
writtenansw
ers
afterreadings
inaCIRC
prog
ramme(Coo
perativ
eIntegrated
Reading
and
Com
positio
n(M
adden,
Slavin,
andStevens
1986
)).California,
USA
(Participant)ob
servation,
audio
andvideotaped.
Com
puter
indexedactiv
itycoding
.Con
versationanalysis(G
ail
Jefferson),coding
and
describing
conv
ersatio
nand
relatin
gconv
ersatio
nto
activ
itypatterns.
Socio
lingu
istic
approach;
participantsin
interaction
orient
toprecedingtalk
and
actio
ns(G
arfink
el),talk
inactiv
ity(G
oodw
inand
Goo
dwin,Gum
pertz)
Talkin
activ
itycreates
oppo
rtun
ities
toengage
incollabo
rativ
elearning
activ
ities,this
encourages
stud
ents’
participation
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 607
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Analysis, synthesis and interpretation
When introducing the meta-ethnographic approach in 1998, the main argument ofNoblit and Hare was that qualitative studies could be treated as cases to be com-pared with other cases in an interpretative analysis (Noblit and Hare 1988). Recentapplications in meta-ethnographic studies (Britten et al. 2002; Dixon-Woods et al.2005; Savin-Baden 2007; Smith, Pope, and Botha 2005) have developed andrefined Noblit and Hare’s procedures, and we continue in this tradition.
Rather than considering the included studies as cases to be compared, we regardthem as texts in a scientific discourse on peer learning. By analysing how the topicis presented in the analysed studies, and working across texts, we reinterpret thefindings and conclusions in the seven studies. This implies an understanding of the-ory as identification of social rules that underlie and govern social patterns, ratherthan as law-like expressions of the nature of social behaviour (Popkewitz 1981). Interms with this, we consider the second order constructs (Schutz 1962), or interpre-tations made by the researchers, as our study object. This position enables us todescribe and discuss the interactional processes of peer learning as well as the waysin which this relates to theory and previous research. This way, a meta-ethnographicinterpretation escapes the potentially problematic assumptions about the commensu-rability of the studies as well as the problem of the context-bound character of data(Britten et al. 2002).
Our approach can be described as involving inductive interpretative comparisonof the reported findings in the included studies. This implies several readings andre-readings of each article, comparing findings across the seven studies. A constantawareness is paid to the meaning of the finding in the original study. Extensive useof tables and grids is important at each stage of the interpretative process. Two ofthese are included in the text (Tables 1 and 2), showing categories describing simi-lar phenomena across the seven studies.
Three stages of analyses
The analytic process proceeds through three stages. Each stage of the analysis wascarried out by two researchers first individually, and then discussed and agreedupon by all authors. In the first stage each researcher searched the included studiesfor themes, concepts and descriptions related to the research question and examinedhow concepts used in different studies could be said to describe the same phenom-ena across the studies. This remains close to the original analysis of the studies andis termed the first order interpretation.
The second stage is to analyse data across studies by comparing results from theincluded studies. We identified seven themes that characterized the interactional pro-cess in peer learning situations (see Table 2). These themes represent the secondorder interpretation of the studies and are identified as relevant for all includedstudies. As the themes derive from the analysis across studies, they do not directlymirror the way the issues are described in every included article. The validity ofconcepts and themes has been constantly checked in the analytical process byreturning to the original contexts of the data. As can be seen in Table 2, not allthemes appear in all seven studies, as the initial problem and focus of each studydiffers. The six themes that emerged are shown in the table below: negotiation oftask, pattern of talk, role of disagreement, trust or inclusion, teacher’s role andmediational means.
608 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Table
2.Emerging
them
esin
analysis.
Themes
Negotiatio
nof
task
Patternsof
talk
Roleof
disagreement
Trustor
inclusion
Teacher’srole
Mediatio
nal
means
Studies
Log
istical
(how
)Meaning
(what)
Allsup
(200
3)Equ
alcontribu
tion
Genre
demands
Musical
expression
sfunctio
nas
ideasthat
areelaborated
incommun
ication,
lingu
istic
andmusical
Inequalitya
challeng
e,prov
iding
room
for
contribu
tions,vo
icing
disagreement
Trustandinclusionare
fore-groun
dedas
impo
rtantto
process
Teachingwith
implies
change
inroles.
Dem
ocratic
education
Musical
genre,
instruments,
democratic
ideals
Bianchini
(199
7)Distribution
ofwork,
use
of equipm
ent
Intend
edachievem
ent
andlevelof
ambitio
n
–Disagreem
ent
accordingto
status
inequality
Seemslow,status
inequalitiespersist
Focus
onqu
estio
ning
toencouragereason
ing,
and
explanations
Social
relatio
ns,ideas
abou
tscho
ol,
task
Don
athet
al.
(200
5)–
Level
ofam
bitio
nSeven
speech
events
identified
ininteraction,
workto
commun
icate
know
ledg
eandrelatio
ns
Elicitatio
nof
critiqu
eisinstitu
tionalised,
critiqu
epartof
process
Speecheventscontribu
teto
form
ingof
commun
itythroug
hmultip
lealignm
ents
Mod
ellin
gpracticeand
contextualising
Structure
ofacadem
icdiscou
rse,
roles
Elbersand
Streefland
(200
0)
Participant
contribu
tion
Intend
edachievem
ent
Cyclesof
inqu
iry
contribu
teto
know
ledg
ebu
ilding
Critiq
ueand
disagreementop
enforelaborationand
diffusion
Collectiveidea
ofresearch
collectiveun
derlined,roles
andidentitynego
tiated
Mod
ellin
gpractice,
secure
integration,
reconstruct
andsing
leou
texpression
s
Roles,toolsfor
writin
g,task,
teacheras
mod
el
Hog
an,Nastasi,
andPressley
(199
9)
Distribution
ofwork,
use
of equipm
ent
Locatetask
with
regard
totim
e,competence,
goals
Patternsof
verbal
interactionidentified
andclassified
with
regard
tokn
owledg
e-bu
ildingfunctio
n(statementun
its)and
with
regard
tointeraction(interactio
npatterns)
Elicitatio
nof
critiqu
eanddiscussion
son
alternatives
Acceptanceof
others’
ideasandwillingn
essto
askforclarificatio
nsare
impo
rtantprecon
ditio
nsforsuccess
Questioning
,controlling
with
outdo
mination,
encourageexpand
ingand
clarificatio
n,no
explicit
evaluatio
n
Writin
gtools,
roles,social
relatio
ns
(Contin
ued)
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 609
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Table2.
(Contin
ued).
Themes
Negotiatio
nof
task
Patternsof
talk
Roleof
disagreement
Trustor
inclusion
Teacher’srole
Mediatio
nal
means
Studies
Log
istical
(how
)Meaning
(what)
Kob
ayashi
(200
3)Distribution
ofwork
Con
tent
and
ambitio
nsNegotiatio
nof
task,
performance
and
experiencescontinues
throug
hwho
leprocess
with
interrelations
betweenwrittenand
spok
enlang
uage
Elabo
ratio
nas
pattern
ofinteraction
includ
esevaluatio
nof
ideas
Use
ofvo
icingstrategies
andperson
alhistoriesto
conv
eymessagesin
“non
-threateningways”
–Native
lang
uage,
written
material,Pow
erPoint,social
relatio
ns
Szymanski
(200
3)–
Genre
demands
Talkin
actio
ncontribu
testo
organising
learning
activ
ity.
Identifies
adjacency
pairsthat
prom
ote
interactionin
prod
ucing
writtenansw
ers
Questions
are
follo
wed
byansw
ers
which
arecontested
andnego
tiatedun
tilagreem
ent
Roo
mfordisagreement
sign
ifies
trust
Mod
ellin
gandscaffolding
Teacher
asmod
el,task,
text,vo
icing
strategy,nativ
elang
uage
610 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
In the third stage the relationship between the themes in all studies is examinedand discussed to identify potential new insights from the comparison across studies.This third order interpretation and synthesis goes beyond the conclusions of the ori-ginal studies and emerges through discussions of the syntheses with reference to theincluded studies and existing knowledge and theory. In our study we identified oneparticular third order interpretation that is discussed in the concluding session.
Presenting the analysis: peer relations and activities in peer-learning
In this section we present the characteristic aspects of peer learning activities asdescribed in the included studies. Five of the six themes or second order interpreta-tions (see Table 2) structure the presentation. In our analysis we focus primarily onthe interaction between peers and draw on the research focusing on student–teacherinteraction only when relevant. In the final discussion we present our third orderinterpretation from the analysis. This is how the seven studies complement theexisting discussion on peer learning. Before turning to the presentation of themes,we will comment briefly on the studies.
All the included studies describe environments in which the major part of theinteraction is between students. Spanning from primary till undergraduate studentsand within a wide range of subjects, the peer learning situations in the includedstudies use a set of means to promote student autonomy and agency in learning(assignment, roles, rules). Four studies from primary education weave the threeaspects closely together, and instructions are overt and detailed. The remaining threestudies from higher levels also include the three constituents. However, as the par-ticipants are older, the frames are characterised by voluntariness and implicitnessrather than role-play as in the lower age groups. Further details on the models forpeer learning implemented in the different studies are presented in Table 1.
Negotiating task
The first theme identified through the analysis is negotiation of task. Discussing ornegotiating a task is central to peer interaction in all studies. The importance of taskas a determinant of group interaction is discussed in literature on peer learning (Cohen1994a; Derry 1999), and task is formulated differently according to the theoreticalunderpinnings and learning goals of a program. As a consequence, programs varywith regard to how much information and details on procedure the tasks need.
As can be seen from Table 1, this also varies in the included studies. As all theincluded studies are within a theoretical paradigm where education is regarded as acomplex, multifaceted activity, we did not expect the analysis to reveal regularitiesregarding the nature of the task and the interaction in the peer groups. However, wefound that all studies included in their analysis some common themes regardinghow students engaged with the task.
Most of them describe negotiating task as involving both a negotiation of whatthe group of peers is going to do, and a discussion of how this should be done. Thehow-questions typically address logistical decisions regarding the practicalperformance. These could be issues such as the presentation outline (Hogan, Kobay-ashi) or the relationships between participants (Elbers, Allsup, Bianchini). Thewhat-questions address the interpretation of task intention for instance goal, thegroups’ ambitions, and the need for additional knowledge or information.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 611
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Negotiation of task is not simply something that appears in the beginning of anactivity, but is described as reappearing throughout the peer learning activity. In thestudy by Elbers, task negotiation is described as cyclic and productive. New ideasderive from specifying task, in this instance how shadow may be used to measureheight. The discussion of task prompts new cycles, bringing the discussion forward.The same pattern of productive interaction is seen amongst the students in Szy-manski’s study when they negotiate the answer to a question from an English textand its linguistic framing. In this activity students use formulations from the writtentask and in combination with competences such as the ability to switch betweenquestion-answering and answer-framing in dialogue to collaboratively fuel the inter-action. The discussions are described as a kind of genre discussion that spring fromtask specifications. The same genre discussions are found in the Kobayashi studywhen the students discuss how their presentation should be framed in order to com-municate to their audience. In some instances, recurring negotiations are, however,described as unproductive. Bianchini presents a case where the discussion betweenpeers centres round procedures and products rather than the big ideas that make upthe content of the task. One of the two groups in the Allsup study also spends a lotof time discussing genre demands and ends up dividing work into individual tasks.
Patterns of talk
The negotiation of task constitutes part of “the pattern of talk” in the peer groups.All studies, except for Bianchini’s, describe patterns of communicative action thatestablish social relations and contribute to knowledge building in the group. Thereare, however, significant differences with respect to how the process is described ineach study. This may be explained by two conditions: First, the seven included stud-ies describe peer interaction in primary up till undergraduate education and withinsubjects spanning from music to science. The span in level and topic is reflected incategories emerging from the studies. Second, the studies adopt different analyticalconcepts and frameworks. Even though all studies partly share theoretical perspec-tives, this does not imply that they apply similar concepts in their analysis of conver-sation and interaction (see Table 1). This variation in use of concepts is of course achallenge in the synthesis. Because of the multitude of analytical tools, and becauselinguistic analysis is a specified field of research, the present study will not providedetailed conclusions regarding how patterns of talk are described across the includedstudies. Instead we will outline how the studies present what can be seen to consti-tute common themes in their descriptions of the communicative activity (despite thevariation). This serves as a background for analysing the role of disagreement andtrust (the two subsequent themes) in the interaction between peers.
Four of the studies apply detailed linguistic analyses. Szymanski conducts aconversational analysis of speech and identifies different ways in which languagepromotes interaction through conventions communicated through adjacency pairs(words or phrases that semantically follow from each other). Both Donath et al. andHogan et al. analyse how language functions in communication and identify broadsets of “speech events” or “statement units”. Donath et al. categorize the speechevents with regard to how they convey knowledge as well as how they facilitaterelations. Hogan et al. demonstrate how language functions to convey knowledgeonly, and analyse interaction separately. The three other studies are less elaboratewith regard to their analysis of speech or statement units (Elbers, Kobayashi, and
612 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Allsup), and concentrate on identifying patterns of communication described as“cycles of inquiry” (Elbers), “acts of discovery” (Allsup) and “negotiation of mean-ing” (Kobayashi). Through descriptions of how ideas are suggested, elaborated andnegotiated, criticised, renegotiated and agreed upon, these three studies all integrateknowledge building and social interactional activities in their analyses.
Drawing on these different ways of describing communication, the interactionalprocess in the peer groups can – across the seven studies – be described as continu-ous cycles of inquiry or meaning making where meaning is built and refinedthrough cyclic processes. The cycles are further described as consisting of work onideas through a set of speech events (the number and naming of these vary, and notevery study describes them in detail, but the following categorisation is an outlineof what can be identified across the seven studies): suggestions, elaborations, cri-tique and agreements. The involvement of peers in each speech event varies – theymay be carried out by one peer alone, or by peers in collaboration.
The role of disagreement and of trust
All the included studies describe room for disagreement as an important aspect ofthe peer learning activity. If interaction, as argued in the previous section, may begenerally portrayed as cycles of meaning making, each cycle is introduced throughcontributions described as a kind of disagreement. While the influence of disagree-ment in the learning process is debated in existing theory, recent contributions tothe sociocultural discussion on learning suggest that room for disagreement is pro-ductive in the learning process (Lillejord and Dysthe 2008). Six of the studiesreflect this standpoint. Allsup, Bianchini, Donath et al., Elbers and Streefland,Hogan et al. and Szymanski describe disagreement as an institutionalised part of theinteraction between peers, encouraged through teacher modelling, roles, interactionalrules, etc. Kobayashi’s study transcends the school setting and carries fewer instruc-tional components.
All but one study ascribe disagreement a generative role in interaction: byproviding room for contributions (Allsup, Hogan), and by evaluating statements andproducts (Elbers and Streefland, Kobayashi, Szymanski, Donath et al.). In contrast,Bianchini describes an instructional programme (the Complex instruction scheme)where the aim is promotion of equity, and finds that disagreement is counterproduc-tive. Social status (understood as composed of perceived academic ability and per-ceived popularity) is expected to interfere with group functioning. In order tocounteract conceived social status the teacher is expected to use dialogical tech-niques to demonstrate that there are alternative ways of being smart than demon-strated by academic achievement. Furthermore, different roles are assigned todifferent participants in the groups. Despite its explicit goal of counteracting nega-tive effects of social relations this study reports that disagreement is disruptive andthat status differences persist. Low-status students were not allowed to participateon equal terms with high-status students, and discussions on procedure and contentwere disturbed by discussions on status.
In addition to discussing how disagreement functions in interaction, the includedstudies also discuss how disagreement is addressed. Allsup and Kobayashi bothstate that disagreement must be voiced in ways that attend to the social relationsbetween the peers. In these two studies the students are older and more individuallyresponsible for interaction in their groups, compared to the other studies. Donath
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 613
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
et al., dealing with older students, do not directly comment upon how critique isconveyed (however, if one turns to the data from the study provided in the appen-dix of the article, it seems that the students use humour to mediate the social rela-tions when dealing with critique). Trust is an aspect that is dealt with more or lessexplicitly in the included studies (see Table 2). Based on these studies it is fair tosay that voicing of disagreement depends on a safe social atmosphere or trustwithin the social relations. In order to explore the importance of trust it is interest-ing to look to studies where the processes are reported as less successful.
When describing situations where disagreement exists, Bianchini reports thatdisagreement or critique seems to follow pre-defined status hierarchies. Studentswith high status are free to voice disagreement, whilst students with low status arenot. Bianchini also describes interaction that undermines the safe social atmosphere.In the case reported in Hogan et al., three groups are described as functioning well,allowing disagreement and fostering productive dialogue. The fourth group needsexcessive help from the teacher in order to discuss subject matter. This group isreported to have more instances of irrelevant discussions as well as more episodesof scornful remarks to peers. Thus trust seems to be more difficult to establish inthis group. Also in Kobayashi and in Allsup instances of less well functioninggroups are reported. However, information on processes in these groups is lacking.If the description of these negative cases is added to the picture of how peer learn-ing activities are portrayed in the included studies, interaction between peers seemsto be understood with reference both to the design of the peer learning programmebut also to how the existing social relations between peers interfere with programmeintentions.
The role of mediational means
This leads to the last theme identified in the analysis, the described role of “tools”in the peer learning activity. As recorded in Table 1, all the included studies arereported to have an instructional design consisting of a combination of a concretetask, roles for participants and rules for interaction, as well as relying on traditionaltools such as blackboard, paper, pens, etc. When elements in the programme designare described as significant for interaction, they can be regarded as means mediatingthe interaction between individuals and between individuals and their environment.
All seven studies describe interaction as facilitated or organised in differentways through the use of language, procedures, concrete tools or ideas or conceptualtools. As stated in the theory section, socio cultural analysis understands humanaction and its social, cultural and historical context as linked through mediationaltools or means (Wertsch 1998). All studies describe mediated action; two of themuse the expression “tools” (Elbers and Kobayashi). In order to synthesise how med-iated action is described we use the term mediational means. Both terms are usedwithin socio cultural theory, but the term “means” gives a broader association andsuits describing a wide range of observed aids for action and interaction.
The mediational means described as most important and profound to interactionis, in line with socio cultural theory, language (Wertsch 1998). The analyses of lan-guage show that students’ ways of communicating, and the ways in which differentkinds of dialogues emerge in the groups, are central to how activity in peer learningis understood. This is particularly thematised in the two studies of students workingwith English as a second language (Kobayashi 2003; Szymanski 2003).
614 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
The most central mediating means in peer learning, besides language, is thetask. All studies report that task is communicated through written instructions orquestions. These instructions are said to have a central position in interaction andmay serve several functions. They are described as coordinating peers in interactionwhen task is negotiated. They also serve to orient peers towards the subject matterby providing information or questions. Last, they are described as providing instruc-tions informing peers on how to set up experiments in order to explore the topic inquestion. Thus they constitute the element giving direction to the content, the“what”, of the interaction.
Rules for how to play roles in the peer group are also described as media-tional means, and are important for the structuring of interaction, the “how” ininteraction. The instructional designs vary with regard to the degree roles arespecified: students are directly (Elbers, Hogan, Szymanski, Bianchini) or indirectly(Donath, Kobayashi, Allsup) assigned roles to play in interaction. In some studiesthe roles are specified with explicit interactional rules on how they are to beenacted (Elbers, Bianchini, Szymanski). In others the students are instructed todevelop rules through interaction according to democratic and cooperative ideals(Allsup), in yet others there are implicit shared expectations for how roles are tobe enacted in a research community (Donath). These roles and the rules for howto enact them also function as mediating means as they provide patterns ofbehaviour (providing authority, sharing of responsibility, etc.), and ways of relat-ing to the subject matter (exploring and non conclusive, critical, etc.).
Concrete, material means, such as blackboards, pen and paper, PowerPoint andexperimental instruments, do not structure the “whats” and “hows” of interaction.However they are described as facilitating interaction through providing opportuni-ties for visualising thoughts and opinions and thus opening space for discussions,and by structuring communication or contributions to communication.
Relational knowledge as a mediating means
In addition to the more apparent means mentioned so far, the studies describeinstances where students’ relational competence functions as a mediational means.The included studies in different ways describe how students’ knowledge of eachother influences interaction. We have chosen to term these as descriptions of ‘rela-tional knowledge’ to indicate the way in which knowledge is applied in interaction.Relational knowledge is knowledge of fellow peers’ background or personality, orshared history regarding status and interactional patterns in the peer group. Itincludes typical ways of acting in different situations based on and learned throughinteraction over time. One example is found in the Bianchini study that shows howexisting status hierarchies provide rules regarding voicing of opinions as well ashow voiced opinions should be received and acted upon. Students who score lowon status are not listened to and rarely voice their opinions. With regard to interac-tion in the groups, students’ knowledge of own and others’ status therefore func-tions as mediational means.
Another example of how relational knowledge is applied to mediate action isfound in the Kobayashi study on how students use voicing strategies and role-play.Students’ knowledge of each other and of each other’s history is called upon inorder to convey critique in a non-confronting way. For example this knowledgeenables the students to imitate the teacher when voicing critique, signalling that this
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 615
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
is not to be taken personally. Yet another example of how students make use oftheir knowledge of each other in interaction can be seen in Hogan’s study, wherestudents are described as reflecting upon how their presentation might be critiquedby other students in class. As part of their task they are expected to present anddefend a model of physical matter in front of their class. In preparing for this pre-sentation, they draw upon knowledge of how interaction with peers might proceed;they anticipate objections and refine their argument and presentation. In the extract ofdata provided in the Donath et al. study, a group conversation where students ask forassistance from their seniors in order to improve a poster, students communicateawareness of their supervisors’ expectations through use of self-irony and humour.The Allsup study provides a last example of the importance of relational knowledgethrough emphasising how students’ knowledge of each other’s musical competence aswell as knowledge on how to interact with others in order to encourage participationand to make them feel valuable, is crucial to productivity in interaction.
Discussion
The meta-ethnography has identified a number of similarities in how the includedstudies describe peer learning activities. Turning to the research questions, our anal-ysis shows that the peer learning activity is described as a communicative processcharacterised by three distinct features: (a) it relies on mediational means; (b) itneeds trust and a safe social environment; and (c) it allows disagreement. Applyingsociocultural theory in the analyses of peer learning across studies entails a changedperspective and thus contributes to the research field of peer learning. Rather thanexamining how models of peer learning function and how different parts of themodel can be refined in order to improve the output, we have in this study con-ceived of peer learning as guided interaction where actors make use of variousavailable cultural means. Our synthesis shows that this foregrounds the interdepen-dency of the involved actors in addition to the instructional design. In research onpeer learning, interdependency is a recurring topic. It is, however, frequently pre-sented as something that has to be arranged for through elements of the instruc-tional design such as characteristics of the task, roles, rewards, and instructions.Our synthesis shows that there is a potential productiveness in interdependency –independently of the instructional design. The presence of interdependency appearsin the findings on the importance of the quality of the peer relations ensuring trustand allowing disagreement.
In sociocultural theory the issue of interdependency is discussed using constructssuch as community of learners and intersubjectivity in education. It has been con-cretized as shared focus of attention, respectful disagreement and human actionthrough caring (Matusov 2001). We find, however, in the presented synthesis, thatsuch a theorising does not include direct reference to the breadth of students’ exist-ing social relationships in time and space. Discussing relationships in education ithas, as stated initially, been delimited to how characteristics such as gender, status,roles, etc., interfere with learning. Other aspects of relationships such as friendshipare addressed mainly with reference to how they contribute to the social aspects ofschooling. However there are also studies showing that friendship has an impact onthe learning processes or conditions for learning (George 2007; Riese 2010),indicating that the interdependence from relationships may be of relevance whenresearching learning processes.
616 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
A second contribution relating to the description of the process is therefore thefinding that students draw upon relational knowledge in interaction, and the relevanceof their relations outside the educational context for the peer learning activity. We willelaborate on this third order interpretation of our synthesis by interrogating into thedescriptions of situations where peer learning is considered as less successful.
When things do not proceed according to plan
The analyses of peer learning in the seven included studies show that peer learningactivities do not always proceed according to plan. Four of the studies includedescription of “negative cases”, i.e. descriptions of situations where interactionbetween peers did not proceed as planned, did not produce expected outcomes ordid not work as productively as in other cases.
In the Kobayashi study the analysis is based on one group that is particularly suc-cessful compared to other groups. The group’s success is primarily explained as aresult of positive social interaction rooted in the history and competence of the partici-pating students. In the Hogan et al. study, four groups of students are included. Theanalysis of statement types within discussions where peers construct knowledge,builds on material from three groups described as well-functioning. The fourth groupis not included in this part of the analysis reportedly because the data on knowledgebuilding was insufficient. Hogan et al. report that this group had more scornfulremarks amongst peers but also less subject-related discussions. The study concludesby referring to Rogoff (1998) in saying that: “A satisfactory explanation [of variationof success both within and between groups] would have to integrate personal, inter-personal and cultural planes of analysis” (Hogan, Nastasi, and Pressley 1999, 427).This leads us to a brief reflection on the less successful parts of the studies.
Two studies explain the negative cases by referring to the instructional design orframing conditions. The Bianchini study reports for example that discussion seldommoves beyond products and procedures and that the programme fails to succeed inreducing existing status differences amongst peers. Shortcomings in design andinstructions are mentioned as reasons for lack of success. However it is interestingto note that this study discusses how existing peer relations influence interaction,but from a negative perspective, a plausible perspective given the project’sintentions in combating status differences. The Allsup study compares the work intwo groups where one group works well, interacting and building on productivepeer relations. The other group is described as solving the problems it encountersby dividing the task into individual subtasks rather than cooperating. Allsup arguesthat the group’s (self-dependent) choice of musical genre may explain the less inter-dependent cooperation in this group whereas the success of the other group isexplained with reference to the attention paid to the social relations in the group,involving peers’ relational knowledge.
The information on the so-called negative cases is insufficient since neither ofthe studies was designed to describe and explain why interaction is more successfulin some groups than in others. However, the difference in activity between groupswithin some of the studies underlines that peer learning activity must be understoodas depending on more than the implementation of the instructional design. Thenoted differences in the social relationships between groups functioning well asopposed to those that are not successful, suggest that the issue of interdependenceor intersubjectivity is a relevant criterion for productivity.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 617
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
From the analysis the interaction within peer learning can be understood asmediated by tools such as language as well as material means (pens and paper,PowerPoint, etc.) and socially instituted means (tasks and roles). But, the analysissimilarly shows that peers’ relational knowledge mediates interaction. Relationalknowledge can originate both inside and outside of the classroom. It may consist ofconventionalised patterns of interaction, concrete shared history, as well as concep-tions of peers’ characteristics, and their relations to self and others; in short: socialpatterns. The descriptions of how this mediational means works indicate that it medi-ates the process in less intended and planned-for ways. Relational knowledge might,as in the Allsup and Kobayashi case, contribute to the productivity of the process or,as in the cases of Bianchini and Hogan et al., interfere with and hamper the instruc-tional design and thus influence negatively the peer learning process.
Based on the results from our synthesis we argue that relational knowledge canbe understood as a mediational means in analysis. As the topic relational knowledgeemerges as a third order interpretation from the synthesis, the varying extent towhich it is elaborated in the individual studies restricts more specific conclusionsregarding how different forms of relational knowledge shape interactional processes.In order to understand nuances in the productivity of peer learning processes, futureresearch should investigate the importance of peer knowledge. The synthesis alsoindicates that it might be fruitful to compare groups working well to those that donot function according to norms of instructional designs. Future research exploringthe impact of relational knowledge should consider research designs where differentgroups are compared regarding composition and functioning, and focus on how rela-tional knowledge interacts with instructional design in creating interdependency.
Applying a sociocultural perspective on a synthesis of existing research haselaborated the understanding of peer learning and identified important issues for fur-ther research. How to present the data supporting the analysis is a challenge in thisapproach given the amount of data and restrictions on space. It is, however, ourbelief that this methodological approach adds rigour to the work on generating newresearch questions based on existing research literature, and that it has proved valu-able as an additional way of building knowledge in qualitative research.
The sociocultural perspective used in the synthesis added the analytical conceptmediational means to the investigation of peer learning. This concept enabled us todescribe ways in which peer relations influence interaction in peer learning. A fur-ther exploration into the relationship between relational knowledge and instructionaldesign might generate more analytical tools. As noted, the challenge in applying asociocultural framework will be the incorporation of the socially and historicallyextended relations of students when analysing interaction in the classroom.
As to the relevance of our results to practitioners, the most important conclusionfrom this meta-study of peer learning practices is that in order to make peer learningwork, it is of crucial importance to pay attention to the social relations that existbetween members of a group prior to the design of the peer learning programme andin the development of the programme. In peer group interaction, peer relations mustbe perceived as integral to the design and instructional practices of the peer learningprogramme as they mediate action in both productive and less productive manners.
Notes on contributorsHanne Riese PhD is a Post-doctoral fellow at the Department of Education, University of Bergen,Norway. Her research interests are in entrepreneurship in education, the role of friendship in
618 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
learning and qualitative methodology. Her latest article, “Enacting entrepreneurship education.The interaction of personal and professional interests in mini-enterprises”, is due to be publishedin Cambridge Journal of Education.
Akylina Samara is a regional leader of the Educational Psychology Services in uppersecondary education, region Nord/Hardanger/Voss, County of Hordaland, Norway. She haspublished recently in Issues in Educational Research, UNIPED and Higher EducationResearch and Development.
Sølvi Lillejord is the head of the Department of Teacher Education and School ResearchFaculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Oslo. Her research interests are inleadership, individual and organisational learning, instruction, assessment and learning. Shehas published recently in International Journal of Web Based Communities, Perspectives ofEducation and Journal of Education and Work.
ReferencesAllsup, R.E. 2003. Mutual learning and democratic action in instrumental music education.
Journal of Research in Music Education 51, no. 1: 24–37.Anderman, L.H., and E.M. Anderman. 1999. Social predictors of changes in students’
achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology 24, no. 1: 31–7.Berndt, T.J., and K. Keefe. 1996. Friends’ influence on school adjustment: A motivational
analysis. In Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment, ed. J. Juvonenand K.R. Wentzel, 248–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berndt, T.J., K.E. Miller, and T.B. Perry. 1988. Friends’ and classmates’ interactions on aca-demic tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology 80, no. 4: 506–13.
Bianchini, J.A. 1997. Where knowledge construction, equity and context intersect: Studentlearning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34, no. 10:1039–65.
Boud, D., R. Cohen, and J. Sampson. 2001. Peer learning in higher education: Learningfrom and with each other. London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D., and A. Lee. 2005. ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education.Studies in Higher Education 30, no. 5: 501–16.
Britten, N., R. Campbell, C. Pope, J. Donovan, M. Morgan, and R. Pill. 2002. Using metaethnography to synthesise qualitative research: A worked example. Journal of HealthServices Research and Policy 7, no. 4: 209–15.
Cohen, E.G. 1994a. Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogenous classroom. NewYork, NY: Teacher College Press.
Cohen, E.G. 1994b. Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.Review of Educational Research 64, no. 1: 1–35.
Cohen, E.G., and R.A. Lotan. 1995. Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneousclassroom. American Educational Research Journal 32, no. 1: 99–120.
Davis, P. 2000. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice.Oxford Review of Education 26, nos. 3–4: 365–78.
Denyer, D., and D. Tranfield. 2006. Using qualitative research synthesis to build an action-able knowledge base. Management Decisions 44, no. 2: 213–27.
Derry, S.J. 1999. A fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In Cognitiveperspectives on peer learning, ed. A.M. O’Donnell and A. King, 197–211. New York:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dixon-Woods, M., S. Agarwal, D. Jones, B. Young, and A. Sutton. 2005. Synthesising qual-itative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Ser-vices Research and Policy 10, no. 1: 45–53.
Donath, L., R. Spray, N.S. Thompson, E.M. Alford, N. Craig, and M.A. Matthews. 2005.Characterizing discourse among undergraduate researchers in an inquiry-based commu-nity of practice. Journal of Engineering Education 94, no. 4: 403–17.
Eisner, E. 1983. Anastasia might still be alive, but the monarchy is dead. EducationalResearcher 12, no. 5: 13–4, 23–4.
Elbers, E., and L. Streefland. 2000. Collaborative learning and the construction of commonknowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education 15, no. 4: 479–90.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 619
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Elliott, R., C.T. Fischer, and D.L. Rennie. 1999. Evolving guidelines for publication of qual-itative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psy-chology 38, no. 3: 215–29.
Falchikov, N., and J. Goldfinch. 2000. Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research 70, no. 3:287–320.
Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of culture. Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.George, R. 2007. Urban girls’ “race” friendship and school choice: Changing schools,
changing friendships. Race Ethnicity and Education 10, no. 2: 115–29.Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.Hamm, J.V., and B.S. Faircloth. 2005. The role of friendship in adolescents’ sense of school
belonging. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, no. 107: 61–78.Hammersley, M. 1990. Reading ethnographic research: A critical guide. London. Longman.Hanham, J., and J. Mccormick. 2009. Group work in schools with close friends and acquain-
tances: Linking self-processes with group processes. Learning and Instruction 19, no. 3:214–27.
Hartup, W.W. 1999. Constraints on peer socialization: Let me count the ways. Merrill–PalmerQuarterly 45, no. 1: 172–83.
Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achieve-ment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hogan, K., B.K. Nastasi, and M. Pressley. 1999. Discourse patterns and collaborative scien-tific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction 17, no.4: 379–432.
Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K. Smith. 2007. The state of cooperative learning in post-secondary and professional settings. Educational Psychological Review 19, no. 1: 15–29.
Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and M.B. Stanne. 2000. Cooperative learning methods: Ameta-analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. http://www.tablelearning.com/Uploads/File/EXHIBIT-B.pdf.
Jones, K. 2004. Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic reviewof qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review. The Qualita-tive Report 9, no. 1: 95–112.
Kobayashi, M. 2003. The role of peer support in ESL students’ accomplishment of oral aca-demic tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review-Revue Canadienne Des LanguesVivantes 59, no. 3: 337–68.
Koschmann, T. 1996. Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. An introduction. In Cscl:Theory, practice of an emerging paradigm, ed. T. Koschmann, 1–23. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Kumpulainen, K., and S. Kaartinen. 2000. Situational mechanisms of peer group interactionin collaborative meaning-making: Processes and conditions for learning. European Jour-nal of Psychology of Education XV, no. 4: 431–54.
Kutnick, P., and A. Kington. 2005. Children’s friendships and learning in school: Cognitiveenhancement through social interaction? British Journal of Educational Psychology 75,no. 4: 521–38.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lillejord, S., and O. Dysthe. 2008. Productive learning practice – A theoretical discussionbased on two cases. Journal of Education and Work 21, no. 1: 75–89.
Lou, Y., P.C. Abrami, J.C. Spence, C. Poulsen, B. Chambers, and S. D’Apollonia. 1996.Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 66, no. 4:423–58.
Madden, N.A., R.E. Slaving, and R.J. Stevens. 1986. Cooperative integrated reading andcomposition: Teacher’s manual. Baltimore, MD: Centre for Research on Elementary andMiddle Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
Matusov, E. 2001. Intersubjectivity as a way of informing teaching design for a communityof learners classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, no. 4: 383–402.
Mays, N., and C. Pope. 2000. Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in quali-tative research. British Medical Journal 320, no. 7226: 50–2.
620 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Murphy, E., R. Dingwall, D. Greatbatch, S. Parker, and P. Watson. 1998. Qualitativeresearch methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. HealthTechnology Assessment 2, no. 16: 1–209.
Noblit, G.W., and R.D. Hare. 1988. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
O’Donnell, A.M., and A. King, eds. 1999. Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. London:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pawson, R., T. Greenhalgh, G. Harvey, and K. Walshe. 2005. Realist review – A newmethod of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal ofHealth Services Research and Policy 10, no. 1: 21–34.
Perkins, D.N. 1992. Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marrige? In Construc-tivism, the technology of instruction: A conversation, ed. T.M. Duffy and D.H. Jonassen,45–56. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Popkewitz, T.S. 1981. The study of schooling: Paradigms and field-based methodologies ineducational research and evaluation. In The study of schooling. Field based methodolo-gies in educational research and evaluation, ed. T.S. Popkewitz and B.R. Tabachnick,1–26. New York: Praeger.
Prince, M. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineer-ing Education 93, no. 3: 223–31.
Resnick, L.B., J.M. Levine, and S.D. Teasley. 1991. Perspectives on socially shared cogni-tion. American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Learning Research andDevelopment Centre, University of Pittsburg.
Riese, H. 2010. Friendship and learning. Entrepreneurship education through mini-enter-prises. PhD diss., University of Bergen.
Rogoff, B. 1998. Cognition as a collaborative process. In Handbook of child psychology, ed.W. Damon, D. Kuhn, and R.S. Siegler, 679–744. New York: Wiley.
Rohrbeck, C.A., M.D. Ginsburg-Block, J.W. Fantuzzo, and T.R. Miller. 2003. Peer-assistedlearning interventions with elementary school studies: A meta-analytic review. Journal ofEducational Psychology 95, no. 2: 240–57.
Salomon, G. 1989. When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Jour-nal of Educational Research 13, no. 1: 89.
Savin-Baden, M. 2007. Fractured pedagogies and shattered worlds: Using interpretativemeta-ethnography to explore the relationship between innovative approaches to learningand their influence on faculty understanding of teaching. Higher Education 54, no. 6:833–52.
Schutz, A. 1962. Collected papers, Vol. 1, Studies in social theory. The Hague: Nijhoff.Slavin, R.E. 1996. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what
we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, no. 1: 43–69.Smith, L.C., C. Pope, and J.L. Botha. 2005. Patients’ help-seeking experiences and delay in
cancer presentation: A qualitative synthesis. The Lancet 366, no. 9488: 825–31.Springer, L., M.E. Stanne, and S.S. Donovan. 1999. Effects of small-group learning on
undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.Review of Educational Research 69, no. 1: 21–51.
Swenson, L.M., and J. Strough. 2008. Adolescents’ collaboration in the classroom: Do peerrelationships or gender matter? Psychology in the Schools 45, no. 8: 715–28.
Szymanski, M.H. 2003. Producing text through talk: Question-answering activity in class-room peer groups. Linguistics and Education 13, no. 4: 533–63.
Säljø, R. 2007. Learning, technologies and social memory. Transformation of learning prac-tices and units of analysis in research. Keynote address at the EARLI Conference,August 30, in Budapest.
Topping, K.J. 1996. The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: Atypology and review of the literature. Higher Education 32, no. 2: 321–45.
Topping, K.J. 2005. Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology 25, no. 6: 631–45.Tosey, P., and J. Gregory. 1998. The peer learning community in higher education: Reflec-
tions on practice. Innovations in Education and Training International 35, no. 1: 74–81.Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society: The devlopment of higher pshychological processes.
London: Harvard University Press.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 621
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Walsh, D., and S. Downe. 2004. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literaturereview. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50, no. 2: 204–11.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Wentzel, K.R. 1996. Introduction: New perspectives on motivation in school. In Social moti-vation: Understanding children’s school adjustment, ed. J. Juvonen and K.R. Wentzel,1–8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. 1991. Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. 1998. Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Zajac, R.J., and W.W. Hartup. 1997. Friends as coworkers: Research review and classroom
implications. The Elementary School Journal 98, no. 1: 3–13.
Appendix 1. Guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies inpsychology and related fields (Elliott, Fischer, and Rennie 1999)
A. Publishability Guidelines Shared by Both Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches
(1) Explicit scientific context and purpose(2) Appropriate methods(3) Respect for participants(4) Specification of methods(5) Appropriate discussion(6) Clarity of presentation(7) Contribution to knowledge
B. Publishability Guidelines Especially Pertinent to Qualitative Research(1) Owning one’s perspective(2) Situating the sample(3) Grounding in examples(4) Providing credibility checks(5) Coherence(6) Accomplishing general vs. specific research tasks(7) Resonating with readers
Appendix 2. Description of the included studies
The first study by Allsup (2003) is an ethnographic study of a four-month ‘bandprogram’ in the USA. Two groups of students aged 14–17 were recruited to theprogram through school but attended outside school hours. The program wasdesigned to promote small group music making in the form of learning communi-ties and built on participants’ own interests. The study addresses the question ofhow groups evolve and define themselves through the practice of composing andanalysing music. The research was conducted as participant observation and philo-sophical inquiry, with the researcher acting in the role of the program instructor.Data were validated through constant reflection upon the process of data production,and through discussions with students involved (membership validation). The theo-retical approach of the study was sociocultural theory. The study’s main finding isthat working in communities could be described as actions of discovery. This meansthat new (musical) ‘concepts’ are discovered and worked upon, through a material
622 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
process of democracy strongly associated with freedom, community, caring andfriendship.
The second study by Bianchini (1997) addresses the strengths and limitations ofthe “Complex Instruction” model, a model using group work in small groups, inpromoting excellence and equity in science education. A range of methods, quanti-tative and qualitative including participant observation and qualitative interviews,were applied in the study of a class of sixth graders in the USA. Specifically thequestion of how issues of equity and context influence student construction of sci-entific knowledge in group interaction was addressed. The main conclusion of thestudy is that due to shortcomings in task, instructions, and use of instructional ele-ments, students’ discussions were primarily logistical and technical and seldom gen-erated new ideas or revealed differences in understanding of the subject. Statusdifferences remained and students’ conceptions of equity did not change.
The study by Donath et al. (2005) is part of a project investigating how under-graduate students in the USA learn by communicating their research to one anotherin small groups consisting of other students, as well as faculty members, in weeklysessions. The study addresses the problem of understanding the process of activelearning (in terms of learners’ control and awareness of their own learning) andhow participants bring the process about through language. Research was conductedthrough participant observation and one specific session is presented in the paper.This session was analysed within the context of the total project using socioculturaltheory. The main finding is that multiple alignments between group membersincrease group cohesion and break ground for incipient community ties beneficial tolearning.
The fourth study by Elbers and Streefland (2000) investigates how ideas‘migrate’ in a classroom of 11–13-year-olds in the Netherlands. Following a classthat works on a longitudinal maths project, where students are attributed the rolesof researchers in a research community, the problem addressed is: How is jointunderstanding created, how are ideas shared between participants and what discur-sive tools are used for achieving this? A project lasting 4–5 months is studiedthrough participant observation, video and audio recordings. The data were analysedand discussed within sociocultural theory. The main finding of the study is that newpatterns of talk are developed through continuous cycles of discussion.
Hogan, Nastasi, and Pressley (1999) examine the interaction of four smallgroups of eighth grade students the USA to find out how students worked with andwithout teacher support in dealing with ill-defined science problems. The studyapplies participant observation and analyses data in a combined constructivist andsociocultural theoretical framework. The study concludes that there were substantialdifferences in discourse when the teacher guided the discourse compared to whenthe students worked alone. Students’ discourse was more varied when they workedon their own, the teacher was important in eliciting conclusions but some groupsdid attain higher levels of reasoning within peer group.
The sixth study by Kobayashi (2003) investigates how the extended context oflearning, i.e. cooperation within and outside the classroom, functions within the per-spective of learning communities. A group of Japanese students in Canada startingtheir preparatory studies in English were followed throughout a semester by usingparticipant observation. They prepared for a presentation of a collaborative taskboth inside and outside school, and specific attention was devoted to a group ofthree students. Interactional and conversational data were analysed within a
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 623
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
sociocultural perspective. The main finding is that the group process is shaped bypersonal histories and beliefs as well as by the socio-educational context.
The study by Szymanski (2003) examines how students in peer groups interactand organise their literacy learning activity when producing written answers toquestions from given stories. Participant observation in a Californian school wasused to study interaction of native Spanish-speaking 3rd graders in an English liter-acy class. The study shows how talk in activity creates opportunities to engage incollaborative learning activities, and how this encourages students’ participation inthe peer group.
624 H. Riese et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nip
issi
ng U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
25 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Recommended
