A typology of approaches to peer tutoring.

Unraveling peer tutors' behavioural

strategies
Author(s): Inneke Berghmans, Fanny Neckebroeck, Filip Dochy and Katrien Struyven
Source: European Journal of Psychology of Education , September 2013, Vol. 28, No. 3
(September 2013), pp. 703-723
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23581518

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European
Journal of Psychology of Education

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eur J Psychol Educ (2013) 28:703-723
DOI 10.1007/s 10212-012-0136-3

A typology of approaches to peer tutoring.

Unraveling peer tutors' behavioural strategies

Inneke Berghmans • Fanny Neckebroeck • Filip Dochy • Katrien Struyven

Received: 29 February 2012 /Revised: 24 May 2012 /Accepted: 27 May 2012 /

Published online: 27 June 2012
© Instituto Superior de Psicología Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Sciencc t Business Media BV 2012

Abstract Peer tutors' behaviour has been stated to have the power to create and increase
learning opportunities within peer tutoring programs. However, previous studies have shown
that peer tutors struggle to adopt facilitative and constructivist-oriented strategies, as they lean
more towards directive and knowledge-telling strategies. This study aims to explore a typology
of approaches to peer tutoring by unraveling peer tutors' behavioural strategies and related
approaches. Furthermore, it aims to grasp peer tutors' behavioural repertoire in-depth by
shedding light on the concerns and challenges they experience while tutoring. Results showed
that peer tutors used a variety of strategies but were mainly inclined to adopt answering and
directive actions. Their questioning behaviour remained relatively low level in terms of quality.
Moreover, three types of peer tutors could be discerned, i.e. questioners, informers and
motivational organisers. Finally, although all peer tutors reported diverse organisational, social
and didactical concerns and challenges, results showed that different types of tutors struggled
with different approach-specific issues and experienced tutoring in a slightly different manner.
Taking these issues into account seems crucial for peer tutoring to reach its potential. Implica
tions for peer tutoring programs and training of peer tutors are discussed.

Keywords Peer-assisted learning • Approaches to peer tutoring • Typology • Peer tutors'

experiences • Mixed methods research

1. Berghmans (E3) • F. Neckebroeck • F. Dochy

Centre for Research on Professional Learning and Development, Corporate Training and Lifelong
Learning, University of Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, Box 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
e-mail: inneke.berghmans@ppw.kuleuven.be
F. Neckebroeck
e-mail: fanny.neekebroeck@law.kuleuven.be

F. Dochy
e-mail: filip.dochy@ppw.kuleuven.be

K. Struyven
Educational Sciences Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinstraat 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: katrien.struyven@vub.ac.be

Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 704 1. Bcrghmans et al.

Many educators have star

environments, which assig
Among others, an increas
considered to be an umbre
active and interactive med
teachers'. (Topping and Eh
formats of PAL. Its distinc
specific roles taken by p
available in different areas
1997; Weidner and Popp 2
student involvement hav
Topping 1996). PAL appear
such stimulating students
1989; Weidner and Popp
learning with peers, they

Effect studies

While effect studies tend to dominate the research field, process-oriented studies are less
prevalent (Roscoe and Chi 2007). However, we cannot claim that implementing PAL will have
a beneficial effect in itself since PAL does not always operate as intended or lead to the required
results (e.g. Capstick and Fleming 2004). Ashwin (2003) found for example that the quality of
learning dropped as students tended to act more strategically as a result of their attendance at peer
support sessions. Over the years, the idea has been postulated that it is not so much as the social
constructivist learning environment, such as PAL, that fosters or inhibits students' learning, but
the interactions occurring within this learning environment. Different kinds of interaction do
promote different kinds of learning (King 1999). For instance, Roscoe and Chi (2007) and Chi
et al. (2001) claim that some of the variation and ambiguity in tutoring outcomes can be
attributed to the actual strategies that peer tutors adopt while tutoring. Graesser et al. (1995)
indicate that it is not so much tutors' expertise or experience that drives learning, but the
interactional patterns that occur during tutoring. More specifically, a question-response dialogue
was found to be more beneficial for students' performance than tutor's use of directives (Sorsana
2005 in Olry-Louis 2009). Studies in the context of approaches to teaching support this as they
showed that the approaches to teaching adopted by educators strongly influence students'
approaches to learning (e.g. Trigwell et al. 1999). Although there is ample descriptive literature
about the different roles and responsibilities of peer tutors (e.g. McLuckie and Topping 2004), a
limited number of studies has adopted a thorough approach to the investigation of peer tutors'
behaviour. An additional complexity results from the fact that the vast majority of peer tutors are
generally unskilled or do not have a lot of didactical experience (Chi et al. 2005). However, if
effective learning is to result from peer tutoring, high-quality interactions need to be established
(Webb and Mastergeoige 2003). Thus the question arises whether unskilled peer tutors are
capable of adopting high-quality strategies that constitute effective interaction.

Tutoring strategies and actions of peer tutors

Peer tutors are required to perform a complex spectrum of diverse activities, such as
explaining, questioning and assessing (Roscoe and Chi 2007). In general, scaffolding the

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 705

learning process of fellow students becomes one of tut

has been defined as assisting other learners within the
attaining a higher level of development (Masters a
scaffolding behaviour of peer tutors, Graesser et al. (19
to steer the tutoring sessions rather than that they acted
They rarely managed to stimulate deep-level reasonin
students' understanding by questioning or confrontin
et al. 1995; Roscoe and Chi 2007). These findings are c
et al. (2008) who found a high proportion of exchangin
supplied students with specific solutions, explained cer
opinion. Furthermore, no significant evolution was
talk to contributions eliciting cognitive processing and
sessions.
More specifically, scaffolding implies effective quest
has created a pessimistic picture, stating that peer tuto
while questioning (Graesser et al. 1995). High-quality
were lacking, as well as questions of a sufficient leve
1994). Roscoe and Chi's (2007) study supported these f
questions tended to prompt more for knowledge-tellin
when peer tutors were trained. In addition, tutors do
engage in explaining. In this respect, a predominance of
found to do the bulk of explaining while tutoring (Kin
be barely interactive. They were more focused on d
explicating the required knowledge than on being res
need for explanation exhibited by students (Chi et al.
The above literature overview generates the question w
quality didactical strategies from students acting as pee
more crucial when one considers that even teachers, w
training, do not always manage to approach their teach
manner or report related struggles (e.g. Graesser and P
and Mastergeorge 2003).

Present study

As teachers develop their own teaching (e.g. Kember and Kwan 2000), and students their
own learning (e.g. Entwistle et al. 2001) approach, it is likely that peer tutors also develop
their own specific approach to peer tutoring. Despite the interest in tutor styles and
approaches in general (e.g. Pata et al. 2005; Rosé et al. 2001), specific research on peer
tutor's tutoring approaches remains rather limited. An exception is the empirical work of De
Smet et al. (2008) who generated evidence for the existence of three types of peer tutors
within the context of online peer tutoring using the e-moderating framework of Salmon
(2000), i.e. access and motivation, online socialisation, information exchange, knowledge
construction, and personal development. While 'motivators' were focused on stimulating
and motivating students to participate, 'informers' tended to be merely transmitting and
illustrating knowledge. 'Knowledge constructors' were more concentrated on stimulating
and facilitating tutees' learning, and allocated a greater responsibility to tutees. This study
aims to explore whether it is possible to discern a similar typology in a face-to-face peer
tutoring setting. Furthermore, over the years, more educational studies have started to

£) Springe:

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 706 I. Berghmans et al.

explore the thoughts and

educational actions. The curr
on the behavioural strategie
by aiming to understand th
certain strategies and to avo
not unlikely that peer tuto
about their role. Moreover
neously adopt knowledge-
rationale that motivates b
demanding tutoring behavio
effective training and coach
Accordingly, the present s

1. Which approaches to tut

peer tutors?
2. Which challenges and co
behavioural strategies?

Methodology

Setting

An empirical case study was set up in a naturalistic peer tutoring setting. Within the scope of
their tutorial services, the Faculty of Science of the University of Leuven organises multiple
sessions on a weekly basis for different courses each semester, in which more advanced
students act as peer tutors for first year students (i.e. tutees). The tutoring sessions last 1.5 h
and are voluntarily organised after regular class time. In general, there is a participation rate
of 20 to 25 tutees per session. More specifically, tutees carry out exercises in small peer
groups of approximately five tutees while being supported by peer tutors. Depending on the
number of enrolled tutees, two or three peer tutors are present in each session.

Naturalistic design

This study took place during two consecutive academic years and followed 14 peer tutors
during their tutoring activities. Peer tutors were older year students from the second and third
year of the Bachelor program in Science. They were responsible for tutoring the compulsory
freshman mathematical course Analysis I, which aimed for mathematical reasoning. Although a
script was developed by the faculty on the basis of the course book indicating which chapters
needed to be discussed in each session, peer tutors were given a great deal of freedom in
designing the conduct of the sessions. This programme was rather closely followed by peer
tutors since this generated clear goals and objectives for each session. Also tutored students
appreciated this script as this yielded specific information on what to expect from every session
in terms of chapters or content that would be discussed.
To ensure high-quality tutoring, a training programme was organised, which entailed
three parts. A first part concerned a 1.5-h lasting formal training in which the goals of the
tutoring sessions were presented, and useful tutoring strategies were discussed. A video on
good tutoring practices visualised the strategies that were expected from peer tutors. More
specifically, peer tutors were encouraged to adopt facilitative strategies, such as asking

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 707

questions and giving hints, and were asked to stimulate t

learning. They were encouraged to promote knowledge
among tutees. These strategies were practiced through
given. The second part of the training focused on the c
with the lecturer of the course in which the learning g
discussed in detail. The third and final part of the trai
which peer tutors could discuss their tutoring experie
nator, both individually and in group. In addition, p
elaborated their role and responsibilities, listed general
more specific types of questions and other related dida

Mixed method study

As this study not only aimed to shed light on peer tutors

but also intended to grasp the rationale behind these be
approach was chosen. In this approach, which is often refe
(Johnson et al. 2007), both quantitative and qualitative d
as the combination of both approaches provides a better u
at hand than either approach alone (Creswell and Pia
overview is presented of the collection and analysis of b

Observational data To gain insight into the behavioura

video-observations were conducted. In total, 34.5 h of
subsequently analysed. In order to obtain a fine-grained
processes occurring, researchers turned to content
technique builds on procedures that '(...) make valid
culminates in descriptive or inferential conclusions about
2001, p. 10). More specifically, the qualitative variant o
study (Morgan 1993). This variant uses the data as a sourc
categories that represent the specificity of the data. M
generates numerical results, which mainly present a basis
data in order to produce a theory that explains why thes

Coding scheme To analyse peer tutors' actions, a codi

thorough literature review (e.g. Graesser et al. 1995;
Roscoe and Chi 2007; Van Keer 2004). Subsequently,
studies (Symons 2010; Berghmans et al. 2010) and refin
the data. This procedure led to the final scheme, whi
strategies: structural-organisational support, social-m
directive behaviour, questioning and facilitative beha
category of indefinable actions. Every category com
as a category-specific rest category to comprise units t
five main categories but failed to find their place in on

Coding procedure In order to meet standards of quality

ent coding procedure was developed. First, the trans
analysis before the coding and content analysis wer
Rourke et al. (2001) state that working with complet
segmentation method since this creates units which are i

Í) Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 708 I. Berghmans et al.

messages themselves. In thi

by others was seen as
un a
comprise several sentence
coding the units by mean
and therefore diverse actio
only receive a certain codi
number of specific coding
Two coders were assigned
the coding scheme since th
2010). To get acquainted w
which coders explored th
discussion. After this train
sample of units. This was f
discussed in-depth. If nece
and to align both coders i
coding agreement was resum
first independently, second
to result in unanimous agr
qualitative research (Armst

Analysis In order to explo

performed. This technique
within themselves while be
of variables to decide on (
instance, an exploratory hie
cluster analysis to investig
The five main behavioural
clustering was executed.

Interviews In order to exp

interviews were administe

Interview protocol An inte

Loke and Chow 2007; Myn
2001) was developed to ensu
tional aspects, session cont
adopted, as well as tutors' b
challenges while tutoring. S
the tutoring sessions?', 'Wh
adopt these specific strateg
semi-structured character o
to go deeper into the story

Coding scheme and analys

First, all interviews were
units of analysis were cod
developed on the basis of
nodes were added when th
node structure. Hence, bo

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 709

Results

Peer tutors' behaviour

Since this study dealt with meaningful actions of peer tutors, the sixth category which
comprised indefinable units was not admitted in the calculation of frequencies. A total of
2,388 codings from 14 tutors was taken up.
The vast majority of tutors' actions in general concerned giving answers or explicit
directions (45.31 %). These answering and directive strategies could be mainly typed
both as deep level, as peer tutors tended to elaborate on, and explain their answers, and
as of a general-level, i.e. informative without providing an extensive elaboration.
Superficial-level answers, which were limited to basic confirmation or judging the
(in-)correctness of tutees' reasoning without further feedback, occurred less often,
although they were still prevalent in 9.76 % of the time. In contrast to this large
number of directive actions, 19.44 % of actions were labelled as questioning or
facilitative behaviour. The main questions concerned general process-supportive ques
tions (8.24 %), which guided tutees in their reasoning process and led them in the right
direction. Deep-level learning questions, which stimulated tutees to think about explan
ations or to presume a critical view, were only present in 3.79 % of the observed
actions. While hinting (3.10 %) or probing (2.15 %) questions occurred less often,
metacognitive questions were practically non-existing (0.07 %). Furthermore, 13.95 %
of coding concerned structural-organisational actions. While the vast majority of these
actions were undertaken in order to clarify issues (7.92 %), planning (1.84 %) and
moderating (2.75 %) actions covered relatively less of peer tutors' actions. Social and
motivational strategies accounted for 19.21 % of peer tutors' behavioural actions.
Although signs of active listening behaviour were most frequently observed (6.39 %),
making informal comments and jokes (3.45 %), checking if all the tutees understood
(3.25 %) and motivating tutees (2.26 %) were also observable. Despite this having been
widely reported to be a specific asset of peer tutoring, tutors did not often share their
own experiences with tutees (0.82 %). Finally, strategic actions in terms of giving tips
and tricks were least represented (2.09 %) (Table 1).
However, since an exploratory look at the descriptive results for every peer tutor individually
suggests that interindividual differences in the behavioural repertoire of peer tutors exist, an in
depth investigation of peer tutor-dependent approaches to tutoring is urged. First, the hierar
chical cluster technique was applied. Both the dendogram and the increase of the distance
coefficients in the agglomeration matrix supported a three-cluster solution. Except for strategic
actions, the four main behavioural categories allowed for significant discrimination between
clusters. Subsequently, a K-means analysis was performed, which proposed a three-cluster
solution beforehand based on both the hierarchical three-cluster solution and the three-cluster
typology of De Smet et al. (2008).
Although the descriptive results of the behavioural classification measures per cluster
suggested meaningful clusters and generated an insight into the particular actions adopted by
every cluster, multivariate analyses of variance were performed in order to test the differ
ences between the three clusters in terms of the five behavioural classification measures.
Using Wilks' lambda criterion, a significant cluster effect was found, F(10, 14)=3,932,
/?=0.010, partial rf=0.737. The partial squared eta measures showed that the clusters mainly
explained the proportion of answering and directive behaviour (71.2 %) and questioning and
facilitative behaviour (64.0 %). Concerning the proportion of social-motivational (55.8 %)
and structural-organisational (49.6 %) behaviour, the explanatory power was relatively

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 710 I. Berghmans et al.

CD
ob S
•S .£ J
i g s
•s 2 O
8 2 M
i "S 2
•a 3
■s § §
O ^ W3
* ~ 2P
S *. " <s <
% * - s K o

«■■ 1-8 s i § i e
* op-sS
2 I i i § <u
b z.
C I
>
§
'cc
* s
.c « c--
& . !- -S^S
8 2 -o o "S
c <5 1 ^ g £ -I S fe P.
8 1 e § ® ! %
•2 2 '% S I •Z _
"2 - „ - 5 S fld
ar-sa-s- « j= £
c 5 « p

1 1.? | a & jj 1 I § -1 i s !
i « v I "I 1 M S o. S * "r; 1 si"
111 I'lsf-lc" •" § £ •§ 1 ~ 2 a
t/3

g 2 5 -g -3 § 2 o. £• g .2 g g _ T3.2|u
•1 * -If ? w 3 1 S 1 £ -i « 1 ! ^ I
o | S "■ 2 g= % .2 * o § o
•" Z. « P i? *0 . *3 r \ J2 O 3 C *S O O "q^.C/3 X
= - ' H J5 X o w O £ W3 c_> *" > O £ C ^

!5 II «?i 1? « II s 111*
o O C
5 ^ >> § & J $ u ° E g« w 2 o
^ 3 c == *s XI .5 "33 8
if o .e ^ ,u $ 3S e £- b 2 i!> •- g
0«,p~J>^</i<23 — i i — >" z- is

n© xO N© xO sO X© x© X© X© X© xO X© X© X© X© X© X©
0s ox 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s s? 0s ©X ©X
"*t -o- Os Csl SO
8
•n <N *Ti V-> CO OO OO SO so OS
8 3
«o
On 00 fN rt «T) fC, •^r
00 ■*T CO
C-j — r> oo OO so
—' <N —1 SO o <N d o rn ~ o o o Os rf CO —'

5>
O . —
00 G 'Eg
o •-e
ao
C
£P o S -So

11 I 8 I i 111 . I f I i If
'3
'2 is

Ml lit §
nil i n it ill8
itimn lit i fri vjirsfi
I
*2
a

8
B
i
sg)^a.sg'g>^2 = B Jigs s-a»B oo 2
- - 5 2 c M*2 I13 2 £ .5 c 1 I » ! ;s » 5 2? 11 2 f.
c

ff BI ?1 11! III! i s II Hi!if

!|l vliai ft J I. is |« §•! if n e
c
<2 o

2 c

z-*"N ^ Z^"X Z"^« /*"X X z*""X Z*X Q Z""X z~v ffj ^ z"*V
Tf
"11^^*". cn
f?uto,r!'o vo
"-", *~*z r™z r"z
ci <NHz H <N. <S_ <N cn r-i rj ri n w w cn d d

ts
a
g
0
§•
So
'£ —
8
3 g •5
1
ao
•£
co
-o

o 00
c
c S -c =
lt i 11
.11
>
s
C/5
s t/3
§« OD
z—-. Z- v
< JD
•§
Table1Codingschemandrelatdfrequncysore fpertuos'behaviour

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 711

S3
a o

1 S
o Ç w
-s 8. ©
. o CO
« J2
13 * • "S .s s a~
SE ^ S ».
So JT 1s - S fe M
= 1 y § £; £ a Si
<2c
C ü-S * s
.-*5 > g 8 o
<£5 a
«í B H 3 2 ®
Il t¡ .5i 8 X 2 | |
O -S ^
3 CX .3 ^ _ <*- C^- ^ o o

£>■§ i&^cl-2 s" ? S

u g -C O ~ o 'S fi S » -g -o
C .9 Ç 3 2 "X3 2 - o .52 ;P

Il S&J II 3 1|! s
u »- P G «3 g- P„ -s ^ ^ -r Ç«
b« g « : e I s t« '5 g
S s s u | a « £ g i g |
I s § s s I « f sa °
- ?l «Il
ô |;ïK« *
® s- «* ^
OX) g -Û xi ■= XI 3 °X) 2 V 03 iá
.s
a " 5
™? _ =
■&-sca «
0 c»-g
.s3 «i s s.
Il i 1 m -S, I § I 1
|l I E g|§ § Il
s g .1 J g 8 SEg .g
J § ^ 3 — >> "g "3 ~ 2
J;J l^lll l|f !
il I I i 1 ! 1 § 1 ! 1
£ * ifppXX^^^" < O

•c

m'sûiOTfOt^-Or^Ov
\0 \0 \o sO s© \y \p
8s. 0s 0s 0s-

O
0s

© O
I
OfN-— Csj—-Ot^oOV) i/->
5 Oû O*-<N0Óf0Or^)OO — O O
a.g
I-g
b o

u< t.
3 cO « S3
*T3 S
j§ O
g 52 > «3
.S■«So 'fi
•s -G 9 8
-p e-
^ S -a g
& § f 111 * r i 1 r
« » I ?! 'i s s1 % i s
S .5
59 ¡"ë1112
ia F -s 55 jtji 2
1 §s?.S | $8sr
S ts
££x2QaáOMÜ«le i'S'Ç-c
/—s . /-V y—s /—s / v /—s /—s /—s — ,<—s "P /—s S3
00«NM'tiOVOW-.9,(S|w,2
^¿¿¿¿¿¿ÓíCl ¿ í¿D

>

-a ça
§ I S
S1 3 js
| h .a -3
Il S 1
Il g |
1 Si s s

ô Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 712 1. Berghmans et al.

Table 2 Multivariate analysis of

M SD df
df F
F p
p Partial
Partial rf
if

Structural-organisational
Structural-organisational support
support
n=4 Questioner 11.35 4.88 2,11 5.411 0.023* 0.496
n=4
«=4 Informer
Informer 8.92
8.92 5.14

n=6 Motivational organiser 19.04 5.25

Social-motivational support
n=4 Questioner 10.66 3.95 2,11 6.934 0.011* 0.558
n=4 Informer 19.37 8.74

n=6 Motivational organiser 24.81 4.59

Answering and directive behaviour
n=4 Questioner 42.99 3.16 2,11 13.608 0.001** 0.712
n=4 Informer 59.63 7.71

n=6 Motivational organiser 37.31 7.57

Questioning and facilitative behaviour
n=4 Questioner 31.94 6.22 2,11 9.771 0.004** 0.640
n=4 Informer 9.41 7.08

n=6 Motivational organiser 17.79 8.01

Strategic support
n=4 Questioner 3.07 4.85 2,11 0.723 0.507 0.116
n=4 Informer 9.41 7.08

n=6 Motivational organiser 1.05 1.01

*/)<0.05; *><0.01, significance

smaller though still significant. Only strategic actions turned out to be not signif
different between the three clusters (Table 2).
Bonferroni analyses were performed to test the behavioural differences between the
cluster groups in detail (Table 3). Both questioning and facilitative actions (i.e. cluste

Table
Table33Bonferroni
Bonferronipost-hoc
post-hoc
Clusters
Clusters Mean SE P
analyses
analyseswith
withregard
regard
to significant
to significant
differences
differences between
between
the the
clusters
clusters difference

per
per behavioural
behaviouralmeasure
measure
Structural 3-1 7.69 3.30 0.120
organisational 3-2 10.12 3.30 0.032*
support
1-2 2.43 3.62 1.000

Social-motivational 3-1 14.16 3.80 0.010**

support 3-2 5.45 3.80 0.539

2-1 8.71 4.16 0.182

Answering and 2-1 16.65 4.75 0.015*

directive behaviour 2-3 22.32 4.33 0.001**
1-3 5.67 4.33 0.651

Questioning and 1-3 14.15 4.72 0.036*

facilitative behaviour 1-2 22.53 5.17 0.003**
><0.05; *><0.01, 3-2 8.38 4.72 0.310
significance

Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 713

1.
1.Structural-
Structural-
2 Social-motivational
2 Social-motivational
3. Answeringand 4. Questioning
3. Answeringand
and 5. Strategic support4. Que
organisational sup port support directivebehaviour facilitativebehaviour
cluster 1: Questioners ........ Cluster 2: Informers —Cluster 3 Motivational organisers

Fig. 1 Mean scores of the five behavioural measures

answering and directive behaviour (i.e. cluster 2) were cluster-unique features. Structural
organisational and social-motivational support turned out to be also cluster unique (i.e.
cluster 3) but to a more limited extent since clusters 1 and 2 also partly comprised
respectively structural-organisational and social-motivational strategies (Table 3).
Of the tutors, 28.57 % (n=4) could be labelled as 'questioners'. This first group of peer
tutors turned out to be mainly focused on questioning tutees, i.e. stimulating them to think
for themselves while supporting them by means of questions. The second cluster comprised
also 28.57 % of the tutors (n=4) and could be typed as 'informers'. These peer tutors mainly
gave information and steered tutees in a directive manner by providing specific answers to
their questions. Finally, the third cluster comprised the majority of tutors (n=6, 42.86 %),
'motivational organisers'. These peer tutors were combining structural-organisational strat
egies with giving social-motivational support in order to safeguard the social and informal
atmosphere (Fig. 1).

Challenges and concerns experienced by peer tutors

The second goal of this study was to grasp the rationale behind the aforementioned
behavioural tendencies and tutor-specific approaches. Below, an overview of peer tutors'
experienced challenges is presented, which can be defined as didactical, organisational, and
social in essence. Besides paying attention to cluster-specific nuances, the following para
graph also includes peer tutors' quotes to exemplify some of the main challenges reported.
Moreover, attention is paid to diverse features on the level of the tutee, peer tutor and context
that were reported to underlie the four main challenges. An overview of all challenges and
underlying features is provided in Table 4.

Defining and planning interventions The foremost challenge reported by peer tutors
concerned intervening. Knowing what to ask and deciding on which questions or hints were
good enough to stimulate tutees towards the right path of reasoning were experienced as
difficult. In addition, not only deciding on how to intervene but also when to intervene was
experienced as difficult. 'It sometimes happened that I intervened when it was not necessary.
The tutees had not even start thinking or they were just processing information. (...) I
shouldn't have disturbed their thinking by intervening', (motivational organiser A). In other
words, finding a balance between respecting tutees' initiative and appealing to their

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 714 I. Berghmans et al.

responsibility for their ow

other hand, was experience
Although peer tutors men
ematical reasoning) asked
especially difficult when t
'When I noticed that tute
feeling the tendency to i
respect, also tutees' lack of
Although both 'questioner
stressed the importance of
their facilitative questionin
no background information
'You cannot get something
this group of 'questioners
questions on their tutorin
approach to tutoring of t
posed by tutees.

If it concerns a definition
the information. (...) If it
asking certain questions, b
before you even can start

On the other hand, tutors

respect to interventions.
interventions and to come
still use a lot, but some mo
you really need to think
organiser B). In addition,

Table 4 Overview of underlying

Tutee
Tutee Peer Peer tutor
tutor Context
Context

Defining
Definingand planning and
Not
Not planning
knowing the
knowing
Preparation
Preparationthe
and and
Specificity
Specificity
of the course of
interventions
interventions
answer/stuck
answer/stuck
in ready
ready in
knowledge knowledge
learning
learning
process process
Preparation Mood and concentration Difficulty of
course content

Posed questions Automatism and/or prior Teaching schedule

tutoring experience of didactical team

Dealing with tutees' Different types of questions

heterogeneity
Different paces
Different abilities

Familiarity tutees
Structural-organisational Familiarity tutees Size of the group
challenges (i.e. whole class
versus subgroups)
Number of peer tutors
assigned to session
Group dynamics and Expectations Role and status
expectations and attitudes of peer tutor

£) Springe:

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 715

processing of peer tutors, these strategies were also repo

on peer tutor's mood and concentration.

In some sessions, you can be really concentrated in a

ing challenging prompts, but some days you are just t
[not to give them promptly the answers they want]. (Q

Furthermore, an automatism or general inclination to

from personal beliefs about tutoring, as well as prior tu
sphere were also reported to be responsible for adopting
While this made some peer tutors act from a self-evide
which tutees' questions were immediately provided with
meant that they were inclined to ask questions and to ad
really would not have liked it when I would just have g
them with cut-and-dried directions since I personally f
effect in these cases', (questioner B).
Finally, also context-related features challenged peer
example, 'questioners' added that the course content bec
semester, which generated more complex questions a
tutoring demands. 'The last sessions the course content
points we had to be more directive (...) since students h
group of 'motivational organisers in particular, the tigh
team boosted pressure on them. More specifically, a lo
time, which induced content and time pressures and
tutoring actions (i.e. limited time spent on certain issues
all peer tutors reported that the specificity of the course
strategies, in order for students to be well-prepared for

Dealing with tutees' heterogeneity A second tutor challe

among tutees, who had different kinds of questions or
related issues at different paces. Finding a format and a
i.e. differentiating, was perceived to be a major challe
abilities of tutees were also a matter of concern, althoug
dissenting views on this. 'Questioners' in particular expe
questions or generating specific hints when interacting wi
to answer my questions or failed to understand where I
hints, I didn't know what to ask anymore', (questioner
tional organisers' stated that he liked working with lo
tutees, I see myself more as a coach (...). I believe that I
as a coach, to feel for their problems and to provide
organiser A).
With regard to stimulating tutees to think more criticall
also depended on tutees' ability level. They mainly confr
level questioning actions and spared low-ability tutees, beli
to handle. However, high-ability tutees were not troubl
demands on peer tutors' cognitive reasoning and question
tions. "When high-ability students start thinking, it am lik
thinking hard", (motivational organiser A).
On the other hand, peer tutors' familiarity with tutees i
and personalities was mentioned as helping peer tutors to a

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 716 I. Berghmans et al.

different tutees in the pee

this as being a positive aspe
a difficult call, but after s
decide on', (motivational o

Structural-organisational c
ating diverse organisationa
up discussions and monitor
tutees, a potential pitfall c
with whole-class tutoring,
to know exactly which gro
omnipresent. Moreover, s
stressful, as they had to w
group.

I prefer that one tutor

immediately what that gr
out what they have alread
tional organiser D).

Also, the number of pee

challenge in terms of ens
Interestingly, the importan
by 'motivational organisers

I think it would be better

(...) Being on the same line
crucial. (...) This remains a

Furthermore, it was mai

organisational issues, while
briefly or not at all. Starti
closure of the sessions were
didactical variety. 'I would
creating a game or quiz or
previous paragraph showed
tutees in regards to differ
the downside of this familia
are familiar with and, as s

One point of attention is th

same students, but that evo
more often end up with th
(motivational organiser C

Group dynamics and expec

dealing with group dynam
difficult to maintain or pr
back to work or making ne
"I just don't find it my pla
'come on guys, start workin

Í) Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 717

status, as it placed students on both sides of the educat

tutoring as a tutor and being a student themselves.

It is the world upside down. You are used to sitting in

listening to the professor, but now you are on the other
rather challenging experience, (informer A).

Furthermore, tutees' expectations and attitudes had the p

tactics and caused tutors to adopt certain strategies. 'Inform
specific expectations, i.e. getting verification of their an
really wanted me to explain things to them', (informer
other hand, experienced this mainly in terms of tutees' cr
accept peer tutor's authority or expertise. 'Some student
doing here', as if they distrusted me or perceived me as arr
These were mainly high-ability students'. (Motivational o
To summarise, the aforementioned paragraph presente
peer tutors, i.e. 'questioners', 'informers' and 'motivatio
distinctive behavioural measures. Furthermore, four
which some were more pronounced for certain cluste
planning interventions, dealing with tutees' heterogen
lenges, and group dynamics and expectations. In the n
and conclusions will be discussed more in-depth.

Conclusions and discussion

In an effort to explain the mechanisms responsible for the success of peer tutoring, this study
aimed to portray the tutoring behaviour of peer tutors, while exploring the existence of a
typology of approaches to peer tutoring. Results showed that although peer tutors tended to use
a wide variety of strategies, they turned out to be far more inclined to adopt answering or
directive strategies. This is in line with the previously presented studies that defined peer tutors'
behaviour as rather knowledge-telling in nature (e.g. Chi et al. 2001; Graesser et al. 1995).
Furthermore, the current findings are in line with statements that peer tutors' questioning
behaviour remains low-level and shallow (Graesser et al. 1995; Roscoe and Chi 2007). More
specifically, peer tutors in this study asked primarily basic process-supportive questions, while
deep-level questions and hinting questions occurred less frequently. However, in contrast to the
aforementioned studies, this study shed a more optimistic picture with regard to peer tutor's
directive contributions and explanations. The majority of these contributions in this study often
went beyond merely verifying tutees' answers. The relatively high occurrence of more elabo
rated answers and directions might be explained by the specificity of this setting. Since the
undergraduate course of Analysis I required complex reasoning, tutors' directive contributions
could not go without additional information and elaboration. Future research should investigate
whether this also applies to other types of courses or curricula.
Similar as to the study by De Smet et al. (2008), a three-cluster typology was found.
While 'informers' are named similarly in both studies, and 'questioners' can be related to the
group of knowledge constructors, 'motivational organisers' can to some degree be compared
with the third cluster of De Smet et al. (2008), i.e. motivators, although our cluster combined
both structural-organisational and social-motivational support. Furthermore, the three clus
ters found in the study of De Smet et al. did not differ from one another in terms of providing
social support ('online socialisation'). In contrast, social-motivational support emerged as a

Ê Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 718 I. Bcrghmans et al.

more distinctive measure in

beheld accountable for the
more explicitly between s
defined a more elaborated
Although structural-organ
ent among 'motivational or
repertoire of respectively
that the specific strategies
attention to, respectively,
tionalsupport. More specif
among tutees, which coul
keeping track of time. On t
answering tutees' question
tutees' understanding of th
support categories.
Interestingly, although th
directive strategies in gene
did not dominate the sampl
observed. This is in contr
majority of their peer tu
compared with the online
face tutoring in small grou
For example, group manag
needed, as well as more opp
have stimulated more social-motivational comments.
Additionally, this study reported four main challenges that underpin tutors'
approaches. Previous studies yielded similar or related challenges (e.g. De Smet et
al. 2010b; Solomon and Crowe 2001). Moreover, the results seemed to indicate that
peer tutors' behaviour is not only person dependent but is also influenced by and
generated within the interaction between the peer tutor and his environment. More
specifically, numerous features on the level of the tutees (e.g. ability and lack of
preparation) and the learning environment (e.g. group size and course content) were
reported to stimulate or hamper peer tutors' strategies. This yields the implication that
interactional and contextual features should be taken into account when studying peer
tutors' behavioural strategies, as well as when aiming to change them by means of
training. In general, these challenges did not come as a surprise since this study dealt
with inexperienced peer tutors. Competent tutorship requires diverse complex compe
tences, such as asking clear and challenging questions, and moderating discussions. In
addition, results showed that the double role and status of peer tutors seemed to
generate extra difficulties, for example in terms of group management or dealing with
certain superficial expectations of tutees. This is in line with the concept of impres
sion management, as defined by Colvin (2007), which states that peer tutors are
challenged to define their specific role while also dealing with the perceptions and
expectations of their tutees. Interestingly, it were mainly motivational organisers who
reported struggling with this.
This brings this study to a remarkable conclusion, namely that different types of tutors
seemed to experience the journey of tutoring in a slightly different manner. More specifi
cally, counterparts of tutors' concerns could be found in the specific strategies they adopted.

â Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 719

For instance, 'questioners' cognitive-demanding tuto

mentary to their higher demands for tutees (i.e. str
mental prerequisite for successful tutoring). In cont
be requesting basic verification, while at the same
answered and steered to the highest degree. Finally,
with structuring and organising sessions, while they
variety into the sessions. It might be that these specif
points of attention which the tutors formulated for
might also be that because of their focus on these
challenges were more noticeable.
Some limitations need to be acknowledged. First, thi
educational setting and tutoring format. For instance,
created a specific atmosphere in which structural-
attention as compared with one-on-one tutoring. Henc
other tutoring formats is encouraged. Furthermore, a
level of analysis in this study, only a limited numb
interviewed. However, this exploratory study could be
research in which the exploration of behavioural actio
approach-specific conceptualisation of concerns and p
peer tutor. Finally, this study addressed peer tutors' b
peer tutor). However, results showed that informers e
ations from tutees, whereas motivators experienced a c
tutors. It might be that these specific tutee behaviou
specific strategies to compensate for them. Future rese
well as take into account who solicited the interaction or
(Graesser et al. 1995).
Several implications for successful tutoring to occur c
in this study were encouraged to adopt facilitative
engaged in answering and explaining, and generated ra
deep-level questioning strategies (i.e. Socratic questi
rately in novice peer tutors. Furthermore, helping peer t
emerges as a priority on the training agenda, as well as s
double role. In this respect, peer coaching or monitori
aged, as Topping and Ehly (2001) also proposed. By bein
peer tutors who do manage to adopt certain other strat
overcome their own specific difficulties and learn to b
tutors who are able to flexibly combine different s
research has started investigating which ways are most
become more 'effective' tutors (e.g. De Smet et al. 2
More evidence in this respect is, however, needed. F
tutees should be informed about the goals of tutoring
sibilities since their behaviour or attitudes came freque
tutoring strategies.
To conclude, this study showed that peer tutors both
differently. Taking this diversity into account while, ho
preferences for certain approaches is one step in sti
inexperienced peer tutors. Process-based research, su
process.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 720 i. Berghmans et al.

References

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer
conference context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 1-17.
Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in
qualitative research: an empirical study. Sociology, 5/(3), 597-606.
Ashwin, P. (2003). Peer support: relations between the context, process and outcomes for the students who are
supported. Instructional Science, 31, 159-173.
Berghmans, I., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010, April 30 - May 4). Peer Assisted Learning: Unraveling
approaches to peer tutoring. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Denver, Colorado.
Capstick, S., & Fleming, H. (2004). The learning environment of peer assisted learning. Paper presented at the
Peer Assisted Learning conference.
Chi, M., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive
Science, 25, 471-533.
Chi, M., Siler, S., & Jeong, H. (2005). Can tutors monitor students' understanding accurately. Cognition and
Instruction, 22(3), 363-387.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th cd.). Oxford: Routledgc.
Col vin, J. W. (2007). Peer tutoring and social dynamics in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(2),
165-181.
Creswell, J. W., & Piano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2008). Blending asynchronous discussion groups and peer tutoring
in higher education: An exploratory study of online peer tutoring behaviour. Computers in Education, 50,
207-223.
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2009). Cross-age peer tutors in asynchronous discussion groups: a
study of the evolution in tutor support. Instructional Science, 37(1), 87-105.
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010a). Cross-age peer tutors in asynchronous
discussion groups: exploring the impact of three types of tutor training on patterns in tutor support and on
tutor characteristics. Computers in Education, 54(4), 1167-1181.
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010b). Studying thought processes of online peer
tutors through stimulated-recall interviews. Higher Education, 59(5), 645-661.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze
transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Computers in Education, 46(1), 6
28.
Ensergueix, P. J., & Lafont, L. (2010). Reciprocal peer tutoring in a physical education setting: influence of
peer tutor training and gender on motor performance and self-efficacy outcomes. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 25, 222—242.
Entwistle, N. J., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher
education: analytical abstractions and everyday experience. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.),
Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 85-114). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together. Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Fantuzzo, J., Dimeflf, L., & Fox, S. (1989). Reciprocal peer tutoring: a multimodal assessment of effectiveness
with college students. Teaching of Psychology, 16, 133-135.
Garson, G. D. (2010). Cluster analysis. Statnotes: topics in multivariate analysis. Available from: http://
faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm. Accessed 7 July 2011
Graesser, A., & Person, N. ( 1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal,
3/(1), 104-137.
Graesser, A., Person, N., & Magliano, J. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one
tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 495-522.
Graesser, A., Baggett, W., & Williams, K. (1996). Question-driven explanatory reasoning. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 10, 517-531.
Haist, S., Wilson, J., Fosson, S., & Brigham, N. (1997). Are fourth-year medical students effective teachers of
the physical examination to first-year medical students. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12, 177—
181.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 721

Kember, D., & Kwan, P. K. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teachin

good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490.
King, A. ( 1997). ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: a model of transactive p
complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221-235.
King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learni
Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87-115). Mahwah:
Loke, A., & Chow, F. (2007). Learning partnership. The experience o
qualitative study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44,
Masters, J., & Yelland, N. (2002). Teacher scaffolding: an explorati
Information Technologies, 7(4), 313-321.
McLuckie, J., & Topping, K. (2004). Transferable skills for online p
Higher Education, 29(5), 563-584.
Morgan, D. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: a guide to paths no
112-121.
Mynard, J., & Almarzouqi, I. (2006). Investigating peer tutoring. ELT Journal, 60(1), 13-22.
Olry-Louis, I. (2009). Effects of different forms of tutor action in a conditional reasoning task: an experimental
approach to the tutorial dialogue. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(2), 169-180.
Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). Tutor scaffolding styles of dilemma solving in network-based
role-play. Learning and Instruction, 15, 571-587.
Roscoe, R., & Chi, M. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in
peer tutors' explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534-574.
Rosé, C. P., Moore, J. D., VanLehn, K., & Allbritton, D. (2001). A comparative evaluation of Socratic versus
didactic tutoring. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 897-902). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content
analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, 12, 8-22.
Salmon, G. (2000). A model for CMC in education and training. E-moderating. The key to teaching and
learning online. London: Kogan Page.
Santee, J., & Garavalia, L. (2006). Peer tutoring programs in health professions schools. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 70(3), 1-10.
Schramm, C., Brown, S., & Street, D. (2009, October 18-21). Peer tutors' perceptions of the in-class peer
tutoring program in mechanics of materials. Paper presented at the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in
Education Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
Secomb, J. (2007). A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education. Journal of Clinical
Nursing, 17, 703-716.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. Hobokcn: Wiley.
Solomon, P., & Crowe, J. (2001). Perceptions of student peer tutors in a problem-based learning programme.
Medical Teacher, 23(2), 181-186.
Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: what are they
talking about. Computers in Education, 46, 29-48.
Symons, D. (2010). The black of peer tutoring. Unpublished Master thesis, University of Leuven, Faculty of
Psychology and Educational Sciences, Centre for Professional Learning and Development, Corporate
Training, and Lifelong Learning.
Topping, K. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in higher and further education: a typology and review
of literature. Higher Education, 32, 321-345.
Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (2001). Peer assisted learning: a framework for consultation. Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 12(2), 113-132.
Trigwell, K., Presser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches and students'
approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
Van Keer, H. (2004, April 12-16). Video-based analysis of interaction in 2nd and 5th grade peer tutoring
dyads. In M. Valcke (Chair), Analysis of interactions in various collaborative learning environments:
dissecting dazzling data. Symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behaviour in peer- directed groups.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73-97.
Weidner, T., & Popp, J. (2007). Peer-assisted learning and orthopaedic evaluation pyschomotor skills. Journal
of Athletic Training, 42(1), 113-119.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 722 I. Berghmans et al.

Inneke Berghmans. Centre for

Lifelong Learning (Universit
inneke.berghmans@ppw. kuleu ve

Current themes of research:

Her research focuses on peer-a

investigate peer tutors' approach
focus is on the investigation of
performance, approaches to lear
them.

Relevant publications:

Dochy, F., Berghmans, I., Kyndt, E., Baeten, M. (2011). Contributions to innovative learning and teaching?
Effective research-based pedagogy—a response to TLRP's principles from a European perspective.
Research Papers in Education, 26(3), 345-356.
Berghmans, I., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2011). Door de ogen van de peer tutor. Een blik op de ervaren
uitdagingen en factoren van invloed tijdens PAL. [Through the eyes of the peer tutor. A look at the experienced
challenges and factors of influence during PAL] Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs, 29(4), 257-273.
Berghmans, I., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2012, submitted). Directive versus Facilitative Peer Tutoring? A
View on Students' Experiences. Interactive Learning Environments.
Berghmans, I., Druine, N., Dochy, F„ & Struyven, K. (2012). A facilitative versus directive approach in training
clinical skills? Investigating students' clinical performance and perceptions. Perspectives on Medical
Education, doi: 10.1007/s40037-012-0018-z.

Fanny Neckebroeck. Centre for Research on Professional Learning & Development, Corporate Training and
Lifelong Learning (University of Leuven), Dekenstraat 2 Box 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail:
fanny.neckebroeck@student.kuleuven.be

Current themes of research:

Her Master thesis research aimed to unravel approaches to peer tutoring within a face-to-face peer tutoring
setting in higher education. Currently, she works as an educational developer at the Faculty of Law (University
of Leuven).

Relevant publications'.

Neckebroeck, F. (2011). The black box of peer tutoring. Master thesis, University of Leuven, Faculty of
Psychology and Educational Sciences.

Filip Dochy. Centre for Research on Professional Learning and Development, Corporate Training and
Lifelong Learning (University of Leuven), Dekenstraat 2 Box 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail:
filip.dochy@ppw.kuleuven.be

Current themes of research:

His research interests lie in the field of training and development within higher education and corporate settings.
More specifically, team learning and workplace learning are of interest.

Relevant publications:

Dochy, F., Moerketke, G., De Corte, E., & Segers, M. (2001). The assessment of quantitative problem-solving
skills with 'none of the above'-items (NOTA items). European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16,
163-177.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A typology of approaches to peer tutoring 723

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). E
analysis. Learning and instruction, 13, 533-568.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Stmyven, K. (2005)
learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 8, 41

Katrien Struyven. Educational Sciences Department (Vrije Univer

Belgium. E-mail: katrien.struyven@vub.ac.be

Current themes of research:

Her research concerns student-activating teaching and assessment

Relevant publications'.

Struyven, K., & De Meyst, M. (2010). Competence-based teache

ment of the implementation status in Flanders from teachers' a
Teacher Education, 26, 1495-1510.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students' perce
higher education: a review. Assessment and Evaluation in Hig
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2008). Students' likes an
lecture-based educational settings: consequences for students' p
student learning and performance. European Journal of Psych
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2010). Teach as you preach: t
based teaching on student teachers' approaches to teaching. Eur
43-64.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students' approaches to
learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 279-294.

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

103.37.50.194 on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:23:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms