Can Peer to Peer Interaction (PPI) be a Global Theme to Promote Engagement in Students of Diverse Characteristics and Country Contexts?

Authors

  • Nazlee Siddiqui
  • Khasro Miah
  • Afreen Ahmad Hasnain
  • David Greenfield

Keywords:

Peer-to-peer interaction; Diversity of students; Pupils engagement; Student engagement; Developed country

Abstract

Investigating postgraduate students’ experience of peer-to-peer interaction (PPI) to promote engagement, across diverse student characteristics and country contexts, is rare, but a task necessary to improve outcomes for increasingly diverse students in higher education. This study implemented a questionnaire survey in an Asian developing (i.e. Bangladesh; n=65) and a Western developed country (i.e., Australia; n=28) to address two research questions: first, is student experience of PPI to promote engagement consistent across developing and developed country contexts? Second, do characteristics of students influence their experience of PPI? In both contexts, PPI facilitated students’ discussion of readings from different viewpoints, cognition to apply classroom learning to work and teamwork and practical problem-solving skills. In the developed country, students’ age negatively correlated to engagement with readings (r=-.644) and cognition of applying classroom learning to work (r=-.649). In the developing country, age did not impact on the experience of PPI, whereas a lack of adequate technology had a negative impact. Working students in the developed country, unlike that of the developing country, were critical of relying on peers, reflecting the influence of individualism cultural orientation. The study implies PPIs can be a global theme to promote student engagement if developed in alignment with the pedagogy of social constructivism and academic and cognitive student engagement themes. Furthermore, academics should design PPIs in partnership with students, accommodating the PPIs to the characteristics of relevant student cohorts and contexts. Future studies of a greater sample size will facilitate the agenda for effective PPIs for all students.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.8.7

References

Ahrens, A., & Zascerinska, J. (2014). A framework for selecting sample size in educational research on E-Business application. 2014 11th International Conference on e-Business (ICE-B), 39-46.

Andrew, P. (2019). The Quest for Diversity in Higher Education. Pepperdine Policy Review, 11(4). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/ppr/vol11/iss1/4

Astin, A. (1984). Student Involvement: A Development Theory for Higher Education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.

Beaumont, T., Mannion, A., & Shen, B. (2012). From the Campus to the Cloud: The Online Peer Assisted Learning Scheme. Journal of Peer Learning, 5(6), 20-31.

Bodily, R., Leary, H., & West, R. E. (2019). Research trends in instructional design and technology journals. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 64-79. doi:10.1111/bjet.12712

Bowden, J. L.-H., Tickle, L., & Naumann, K. (2019). The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: a holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher Education, 1-18. doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Broer, M., Bai, Y., & Fonseca, F. (2019). A Review of the Literature on Socioeconomic Status and Educational Achievement. In M. Broer, Y. Bai, & F. Fonseca (Eds.), Socioeconomic Inequality and Educational Outcomes: Evidence from Twenty Years of TIMSS (pp. 7-17). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Coates, H. (2010). Development of the Australasian survey of student engagement (AUSSE). Higher Education, 60(1), 1-17. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9281-2

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic

Creed, P. A., French, J., & Hood, M. (2015). Working while studying at university: The relationship between work benefits and demands and engagement and well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86(Supplement C), 48-57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.11.002

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Higgins, D., Dennis, A., Stoddard, A., Maier, A. G., & Howitt, S. (2019). 'Power to empower': conceptions of teaching and learning in a pedagogical co-design partnership. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(6).

Hofstede Insights. (2020). Country Comparison. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede- insights.com /country-comparison/

Hoidn, S. (2016). Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education Classrooms. New York, United States: Palgrave Macmillan.

Holmes, N. (2018). Engaging with assessment: Increasing student engagement through continuous assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 23-34. doi:10.1177/1469787417723230

Holzweiss, P. C., Joyner, S. A., Fuller, M. B., Henderson, S., & Young, R. (2014). Online graduate students’ perceptions of best learning experiences. Distance Education, 35(3), 311-323. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.955262

Horvath, D., Stirling, E., Bevacqua, J., Coldrey, M., Buultjens, P., Buultjens, M., & Larsen, A. (2019). Plan, prepare and connect : How investing in understanding and tracking the evolving needs of online students informs the development of targeted programs for transition and success. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 16(1).

Jawhar, S., & Subahi, A. (2020). The Impact of Specialty, Sex, Qualification, and Experience on Teachers’ Assessment Literacy at Saudi Higher Education. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19, 200-216. doi:10.26803/ijlter.19.5.12

Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58-71. doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197

Lam, S.-f., Jimerson, S., Shin, H., Cefai, C., Veiga, F. H., Hatzichristou, C., . . . Zollneritsch, J. (2016). Cultural universality and specificity of student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 137-153. doi:10.1111/bjep.12079

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Lawrie, G., Marquis, E., Fuller, E., Newman, T., Qiu, M., Nomikoudis, M., . . . van Dam, L. (2017). Moving Towards Inclusive Learning and Teaching: A Synthesis of Recent Literature. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 5(1), 1-13. doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.3

MacNeill, H., Telner, D., Sparaggis-Agaliotis, A., & Hanna, E. (2014). All for One and One for All: Understanding Health Professionals’ Experience in Individual Versus Collaborative Online Learning. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 34(2), 102-111. doi:10.1002/chp.21226

Ming Ming, C., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2011). Classroom Discipline Across Forty-One Countries: School, Economic, and Cultural Differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(3), 516-533. doi:10.1177/0022022110381115

Morera, I. & Galván, C. (2019). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions In The Educational Context. VIII International conference on intercultural education and International conference on transcultural health: The value of education and health for a global,transcultural world. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences Retrived from https://www.europeanproceedings.com/files/data/article/85/5276/article_85_5276_pdf_100.pdf

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2019). NSSE 2019 overview. Retrieved from https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/resources/national-survey-student-engagement-2019-overview

Neves, J. (2019). UK Engagement Survey 2019. Retrieved from https://www.advance- he.ac.uk /knowledge-hub /uk-engagement-survey-2019

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281.

Perez, R. J., Robbins, C., Harris, L., & Montgomery, C. (2020). Exploring Graduate Students' Socialization to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13, 133-145. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000115

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and Social Constructivism: Developing Tools for an Effective Classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250. Retrieved from /login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ871658&site=eds-livehttp://www.projectinnovation.biz/education_2006.html

Power, M., & Vaughan, N. (2010). Redesigning Online Learning for International Graduate Seminar Delivery. The Journal of Distance Education / Revue de l'ducation Distance, 24(2), 19-38.

QS World University Rankings. (2020). QS Top Universities. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/north-south-university#923555

Quality indicators for learning and teaching. (2020). 2019 Student Experience Survey. Retrieved from https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/ses/ses-2019/2019-ses-national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=6486ec3c_10

Sanger, C. S. (2020). Diversity, Inclusion, and Context in Asian Higher Education. In C. S. Sanger & N. W. Gleason (Eds.), Diversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education: Lessons from Across Asia (pp. 1-28). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

Shelly, B., Ooi, C.-S., & Brown, N. (2019). Playful learning? An extreme comparison of the Children’s University in Malaysia and in Australia. Journal of Apllied Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 16-23. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ Playful-learning-An-extreme-comparison-of-the-in-in-Shelley Ooi/ec66ffefbe4779f504a749f84b210e430f4b0d4f

Siddiqui, N., Miah, K., & Ahmad, A. (2019). Peer to Peer Synchronous Interaction and Student Engagement: A Perspective of Postgraduate Management Students in a Developing Country. American Journal of Educational Research, 7(7), 491-498. Retrieved from http://pubs.sciepub.com/

Stigmar, M. (2016). Peer-to-peer Teaching in Higher Education: A Critical Literature Review. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24, 1-13. doi:10.1080/13611267.2016.1178963

Swain, G. (2013). Diversity Education Goals in Higher Education: A Policy Discourse Analysis. (Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)). University of Maine, Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/1957

Tanaka, M. (2019). The international diversity of student engagement. In M. Tanaka (Ed.), Student Engagement and Quality Assurance in Higher Education,1, (. London: Rutledge.

United Nations. (2014). World economic situation prospects. Retrieved from https://www.un.org /en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf

Universities Australia. (2019). Higher education: facts and figures. Retrieved from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au /wp-content/uploads/2019/08/190716-Facts-and-Figures-2019-Final-v2.pdf

University of the Free State. (2019). Creating pathwy for student success. Retrieved from https://www.ufs.ac.za/sasse/sasse-home

Van Bergen, P., & Parsell, M. (2019). Comparing radical, social and psychological constructivism in Australian higher education: a psycho-philosophical perspective. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(1), 41-58. doi:10.1007/s13384-018-0285-8

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

World Bank. (2019). Bangladesh Tertiary Education Sector Review: Skills and Innovation for Growth. Retrieved from Washington DC 20433 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/303961553747212653/pdf/Bangladesh-Tertiary-Education-Sector-Review-Skills-and-Innovation-for-Growth.pdf

Zhoc, K., Webster, B., Li, J., & Chung, T. (2018). Higher Education Student Engagement Scale (HESES): Development and Psychometric Evidence. Research in Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s11162-018-9510-6

Downloads

Published

2020-08-31