Developing an Embedded Peer Tutor Program in Design Studio to Support First Year Design Students.

An improved first year student experience is a strategic focus for higher education in an increasingly competitive marketplace. A successful peer tutoring program creates a visible community of practice, supports the student learning experience, elevates senior students as ambassadors of the program, and reinforces an emphasis on learning through collaborative exchange. The Interior Architecture program at the Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, has supported a peer mentor program for several years, predominantly based on an anecdotal understanding of student needs. Using an action research framework, this study reviews the current peer mentor program and develops a best practice model of peer tutoring in the first year design studio setting. This review is based on current scholarship on peer learning particularly in relation to design studio, the student voice from focus groups and exemplars from design programs in higher education. THE VALUE OF PEER LEARNING IN DESIGN EDUCATION This paper critically reviews best practice in peer learning and mentorship in design education as a platform for developing a relevant and sustainable peer tutor program in the studio setting. This is achieved by: reviewing recent literature on the role and value of peer mentoring in design education, reviewing publically available models of peer mentoring in design studio, evaluating the current peer mentor program offered in the Bachelor of Interior Architecture (BIA) at The University of New South Wales (UNSW), and developing an enhanced model for implementation in 2015. An action research framework has been used to underpin this study, as the review cycle offers an opportunity for continued reflection and improvement. This paper reports on the first three phases of the action research cycle: identifying the problem through analysis, devising a plan, and implementing the plan. Further funding was sought to continue the research, and this will allow a formal evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of the new program. In this sense, the current paper focuses on the evaluation of the current program and its subsequent redesign, while future research will focus on the evaluation and further refinement of the new program. This initiative complements recent changes to the first year curriculum in the BIA program that place greater emphasis on collaborative exchange amongst students, industry, and academic staff in an extended community of practice (Zamberlan & Wilson, in press). There are a number of student learning issues Developing an embedded peer tutor program in design studio to support first year design students: 6 that underpin its development. In the BIA program, design educators teaching first year often experience cohorts accustomed to more didactic models of teaching rather than experiential learning environments. Students, the majority of whom transition directly from high school, are more familiar with being rewarded for their ability to reiterate information rather than demonstrate a “deeper” learning that results from more exploratory research processes. Student learning in the design studio is often impacted by a fear of failure, an aversion to risk and ambiguity and a lack of familiarity with processes of enquiry. Further, first year design students tend to view creativity as something that is innate rather than something that can be advanced through exposure to exploration and collaboration. As a result, students are often reluctant to take self-motivated risks to explore avenues of design interest, thereby limiting their capacity to engage broadly with the community of creative practices and to critically participate in their own learning. In assessment-led learning (Harris & James, 2006), the source of expertise is focussed on the studio leader for knowledge transmission, a construct often reinforced by assessment in design studio due to a focus on product above process. This issue is perpetuated by the atelier tradition of design studio, which reflects the expert/novice approach to learning. Learning in the design studio within this traditional model can be considered a rite of passage rather than a transparent, constructive, and collaborative exchange. This research initiative into the BIA peer mentor program was to support a strategic re-emphasis on the development of a community of creative practice in the first year studio and to facilitate the first year transition experience into the culture of collaborative learning in design studio. In particular, the development of a revised peer tutor program was driven by the recognition that interdisciplinary and collaborative skills and processes, such as co-creation, are becoming increasingly prominent in contemporary design practice (Wilson & Zamberlan, 2015) and rely heavily on effective peer relationships. This study recognises that there is a genuine opportunity to target the development of these emerging skills through effective peer mentor processes in design education. Boud, Cohen and Sampson (2002) define peer learning as a reciprocal learning activity involving “the sharing of knowledge, ideas and experience between the participants” (p. 3). They identify key benefits for students in the following areas: working with others; critical enquiry and reflection; communication and articulation of knowledge, understanding, and skills; managing learning how to learn; and self and peer assessment (p. 3). The importance of these skills in design education is clear. Students need to be able to work with their peers, clearly articulate their design ideas, and critically reflect on their own work and the work of others. In this paper, peer learning is discussed through the mechanisms of peer mentoring and peer tutoring programs. There are a number of different peer learning models described in the literature in the context of higher education (Boud et al., 2002; Falchikov, 2001; Goodlad & Hirst, 1989; Topping, 2005). The aim of some programs is primarily to foster social connections between students. For others, the emphasis is more on providing academic support for learning or support for the development of particular skills. Many programs incorporate a number of 7 Zamberlan and Wilson these aims. These distinctions are often reflected in the language used to describe programs and approaches. For example, programs focusing on socialisation often use the term peer mentoring, while those focused more on academic learning within a course or discipline are often referred to as peer tutoring or peer learning. As suggested by Chester et al. (2010), programs can also be shaped by the particular cohort of interest, such as international students, at risk, or mature-age students. Peer tutoring programs may involve senior students tutoring junior students or students tutoring or partnering other students from the same year (for example the “innovative learning cells” referred to in Boud et al., 2002, p. 3), and sessions with mentors can be conducted one-on-one or in groups. Supplemental programs such as Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) and Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) are often add-on programs that students can volunteer to participate in outside of class time if they need additional support for their learning, while other models are embedded into the curriculum. As recognised by Kinniburgh (2013), the value of peer mentoring and peer tutoring is comprehensively demonstrated in the literature. There is significant evidence to suggest that such programs benefit both peer mentors and mentees in terms of factors such as educational experience, sense of belonging, and students’ transition to university (Boud, et al., 2002; Coe & Keeling, 2000; Falchikov, 2001; Goodlad & Hirst, 1989; Price & Rust, 1995; Topping, 1996a, 1996b, 2005). In a study at Oxford Brookes University, Price & Rust (1995) noted that students who received supplemental instruction from peers, which involved the sharing of ideas and approaches, became more confident in a range of areas, such as approaching coursework, presenting the coursework, taking part in seminars and answering questions, oral skills, and working with people. Topping (2005) identifies additional potential benefits for peer tutors including the ability to critically analyse the work of peers, enhanced leadership and interpersonal skills, and importantly, an enriched understanding of the process of learning in the discipline. A study at Curtin University of 858 mentors participating in a range of peer mentoring programs across the institution revealed benefits for mentors that fell into four major categories including altruistic, cognitive, social, and personal growth (Beltman & Schaeben, 2012). These kinds of studies emphasise that peer mentoring and peer learning opportunities can benefit everyone involved. The challenge is to maximise these benefits in the design of such programs. The higher education literature on assessment has often reported that assessment can limit creativity and exploration (e.g. Amabile, 1998), capacities that are central to design learning and practice and therefore central in the promotion of peer learning in this project. The first year experience literature offers an important perspective on peer learning. Studies focusing on the first year student experience in Australia have highlighted the importance of balancing two key factors: academic challenge and supportive interactions with staff and other students. Attention to these factors has been linked to positive student experience, increased retention, and academic success (Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER], 2009; Kinniburgh, 2013, p. 1). This research resonates with the work of Tinto (2009) who has shown that students who are engaged in learning communities are more involved in their learning. Structured peer learning programs are one way to embed learning communities in the curriculum and foster supportive interactio