To kill two birds with one stone Use of peer-learning in teaching of innovation and entrepreneurship at Akershus University College Learning by Developing New Ways to Learn Conference on Future Expertise in Higher Education Laurea University of Applied Sciences October 14 th and 15 th 2010 Knut Boge, Akershus University College, Norway
Can particular teaching methods improve the students learning? Surface vs. depth learning (Marton et al. 1977; Marton & Säljö 1986) How to promote the students depthlearning and development of metakognitive skills?
Reforms that have changed Norwegian higher education Reform 94 The 2000 Competence Reform (Realkompetansereformen) The 2001-2003 Quality Reform (Kvalitetsreformen)
The catch Formative assessments improve the students learning (Lauvås 2003; Dunbar-Goddet 2007) But increased use of formative assessments very often increase the teachers workload
Peer assessments (peer-learning) can make a difference The students are exposed to more formative assessments which usually improves the students learning outcomes The teachers workload does not increase or can be somewhat reduced Commonly used at Norwegian University Colleges for educating teacher, nursing and social worker students Cf. Topping 1998
Killing two birds with one stone? Peer-learning changes the teacher s role from traditional teacher and source of knowledge to planner, director, facilitator, moderator and referee, etc. Peer-learning can be of particular interest for business administration students, etc. Traning in providing feedback to others; i.e. on-site training in practical leadership Training in receiving feedback about their own work from others Improving or developing the students community of learning by involving each student in other students learning More concerted learning efforts among the students Sources: Topping 1998; Lauvås 2003
The study A longitudinal study of the students at Akershus University Colleges Bachelor in Facility and Service Management (BFSM) and Bachelor in Food and Catering Management (BFCM) who graduated from 2006-2010 and their exam results in Innovation and Entrepreneurship (N = 159)
The course in Innovation and Entrepreneurship A common 6 th term course for AUC s BFSM and BFCM (15 ECTS) 2006 traditional course (lectures) 2007 slightly modified (Individual paper, public conference, more counseling) 2008 (peer-learning, public conference, written mid-term evaluation, 4 x organized and systematic feedback in the plenary) 2009 (- - ) 2010 (peer-learning, public conference, written mid-term evaluation, 3 x organized and systematic feedback in the plenary) 66 students (41,5%) not exposed and 93 students (58,5%) exposed to peer learning (N = 159)
Methodology Quantitative study Statistical analysis of exam results and interaction effects The exam results in Managerial Economics used as a proxy for the students skills level
The students Female Male Total Bachelor in Facility and Service Mgt Bachelor in Food and Catering Mgt 79 26 105 (67%) 39 14 53 (33%) Total 118 40 158 (100%)
During the years Female Male N Average mark in I&E SD I&E Average mark in MgrEc SD MgrEc 2003-06 31 6 37 3,79 1,018 2,39 1,366 2004-07 17 11 28 3,68 0,548 2,96 1,347 2005-08 13 15 28 3,96 0,637 2,32 1,289 2006-09 26 4 30 4,07 0,651 1,72 1,279 2007-10 31 4 35 3,44 0,746 1,94 1.153 Total 118 40 158
Anecdotic evidence Most Facility and Service Management and Food and Catering Management students are so far positive to peer-learning Assumed weak students performed somewhat better in Innovation and Entrepreneurship in 2008, 2009 and 2010 than in 2006 and 2007 Thanks to peer learning? Assumed strong students performed well in Innovation and Entrepreneurship each year Even if a group of assumed strong students performed less than expected during spring 2010 (strategic behavior?)
Statistic evidence all students Average marks in the I&E course SD N Effect of peerlearning (B) Effect of gender (B) Effect of marks in Mgrl. Economics (B) R 2 BFSM and BFCM 3,78 0,781 156 0,106 (t = 0,817 Sign = 0,415) -0,074 (t = - 0,518; Sign = 0,605) 0,089 (t = - 1,883; Sign = 0,062) 0,025 BFSM 3,62 0,806 103 0,355 (t = 2,153; Sign = 0,034) * 0,033 (t = - 0,181; Sign = 0,856) 0,101 (t = 1,626; Sign = 0,107) 0,058 BFCM 4,09 0,628 53-0.203 (t = - 1,152; Sign = 0,255) -0,281 (t = - 1,441; Sign = 0,156) 0,081 (t = 1,314; Sign = 0,195) 0,104
Statistic evidence interaction Average marks in the I&E course SD N Interaction peerlearning * I&E (B) Interaction gender * peerlearning (B) Effect of marks in Mgrl. Economics (B) R 2 BFSM and BFCM 3,78 0,781 157 0,123 (t = 3,736 Sign = 0,000) ** -0,216 (t = - 1,203; Sign = 0,231) 0,115 (t = - 2,542; Sign = 0,012) * 0,102 BFSM 3,62 0,806 103 0,183 (t = 2,153; Sign = 0,034) * -0,071 (t = - 0,181; Sign = 0,856) 0,115(t = 1,626; Sign = 0,107) 0,192 BFCM 4,09 0,628 53 0.983 (t = - 1,152; Sign = 0,330) -0,558 (t = - 2,114; Sign = 0,040) * 0,109 (t = 1,817; Sign = 0,075) 0,120
Statistic evidence female students Average marks in the I&E course SD N Interaction peerlearning * I&E (B) Effect of marks in Mgrl. Economics (B) R 2 BFSM, Females 3,62 0,828 77 0,176 (t = 3,633 Sign = 0,001) ** 0,105(t = 1,465; Sign = 0,147) 0,153 BFCM, Females 4,15 0,587 39 0,038 (t = - 0,886; Sign = 0,381) 0,187 (t = 3,049; Sign = 0,004) * 0,205
Statistic evidence male students Average marks in the I&E course SD N Interaction peerlearning * I&E (B) Effect of marks in Mgrl. Economics (B) R 2 BFSM, males 3,62 0,752 26 0,172 (t = 2,536; Sign = 0,018) * 0,147(t = - 1,451; Sign = 0,160) 0,314 BFCM, males 3,93 0,730 14-0,058 (t = - 0,543; Sign = 0,598) -0,136 (t = - 0,905; Sign = 0,385) 0,081
Implications Business administration students benefit twice from peer-learning (two birds with one stone) Improved learning outcomes On site training in practical managerial skills Assumed strong and weak students seems to respond somewhat differently to peerlearning More research is needed
Further implications BFSM students, which often seem to have lower metakognitive skills than BFCM students, seem to benefit particularly from peer-learning Formal- and non-formal competence students also seem to respond somewhat differently on peer-learning More research is needed