Hong Kong University Grants Committee
Teaching Development Grants
‘The Integration of Peer Tutoring Schemes into Academic Programmes/Subjects
to Enhance Learning and Teaching in Universities in Hong Kong’
Report by External Adviser, Russell Elsegood, Murdoch University
Director, STAR Peer Tutoring Programme
July, 2003
Project Involvement:
The external adviser’s role will cover the duration of the project (September
2002 to August 2004. This may be amended to mid-2005 subject to an approved
extension to compensate for the unfortunate, enforced suspension during the SARS
outbreak).
In early October 2002 a series of presentations was made at the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University for university staff involved in the sub-projects. The
presentations were designed to provide a background to the history, growth, principles
and practise of peer tutoring, and offered a variety of models for consideration.
Each session emphasised several key fundamentals, as well as the practical
procedures, and these points were reinforced in personal interviews with the
proponent(s) of each sub-project.
The fundamentals are: that before introducing peer tutoring there has to be a
clear objective (or objectives) agreed and understood by the proponents – and those
they recruit as peer tutors; benefits need to accrue to both the tutors and the tutees; the
commitment needed for success has to be understood and agreed by all involved: the
proponents/co-ordinators, the peer tutors, faculty, sponsors etc.; sustainability must be
a priority and, to ensure credibility, evaluation must be a built-in component, not an
after-thought.
In the following months sub-project proponents have submitted draft project
proposals which have been commented on, in detail, using a pro-forma comment
document developed by the Project Leader Dr Patrick Lai and the sub-project teams.
This method of sub-project ‘assessment’ has allowed for general comment and
specific advice on various key issues that, in the view of the adviser, needed
addressing.
Peer tutor training, communication and reporting lines (between peer tutors
and co-ordinators) and clearly defined strategies for evaluating and sustaining the
projects have been the key issues that have needed inclusion, clarification or
expansion. Proponents have re-submitted their sub-projects -- with necessary
amendments and/or additions. In some cases more than one re-draft was necessary
before the external adviser was satisfied and Dr Lai could be formally advised that the
first phase of the sub-project was ready to proceed.
1
However, there is concern about the ability to achieve the ambitious objectives
set for those sub-projects that do not have clearly-defined strategies for long-term
sustainability.
The adviser has remained available for consultation by e-mail during the
period the draft proposals were under consideration – and since -- and several subproject co-ordinators have taken the opportunity to seek supplementary advice before
re-drafting.
Due to several factors – timetabling of courses and SARS being the main
factors – it has not been possible for all eleven sub-projects to start or, at least, to
achieve the milestones set in the approved proposals.
However, written progress reports and video interviews with the sub-project
co-ordinators (provided on CD-ROMs) , student tutors and tutees have been provided.
1. Overview
The project is distinguished by
(a)
the large number of sub-projects to be introduced over the study period;
(b)
the ambitious objectives (refer previous comment);
(c)
the wide range of academic fields involved;
(d)
the equally-wide range of peer tutoring models employed.
1.1. Having reviewed the progress reports and interviews it is clear that some coordinators still perceive the peer tutors as de facto ‘teachers’ of subject content –
supporting over-stretched staff, especially in courses with large classes.
1.2
Expectations and responsibilities of peer tutors (the majority of whom are
paid) are much higher than in peer tutoring models this adviser is familiar with – to
the point that some peer tutors are required to arrange bookings for the scarce rooms
available for tutoring sessions.
1.3
That said, it also is apparent that most of the co-ordinators – ie those who have
so far been able to launch their projects -- believe students recruited as peer tutors are
properly trained and able to offer student tutees ‘learning support’.
1.4
For their part, peer tutors and tutees, generally, see advantages in being
involved. However, in cases where co-ordinators have identified peer tutors who lack
necessary skills, or need to improve their performance, it is imperative that remedial
action be implemented promptly, through extra (or revised) training, to ensure that the
peer tutors can feel confident in retaining credibility with their tutees. This is why
good lines of communication and regular meetings between co-ordinators and peer
tutors are strongly advocated.
1.5
There are varying degrees of supervision provided by the co-ordinators and, in
some cases, this is neither regular nor always face-to-face. Peer tutors need to have
easy access to a co-ordinator who will deal promptly with problems – whether they
are tutees’ issues or the peer tutors’ motivation.
2
1.6
Reported cases of poor attendance by tutees needs to be addressed before peer
tutors’ commitment and enthusiasm are undermined, making it more difficult to
recruit peer tutors in the future.
1.7
Better matching of tutees’ needs (academic as well as time) to peer tutors’
skills and availability should be considered as a matter of priority. Matching and
timetabling are known to be potential hazards to sustaining effective peer tutor/tutee
relationships – a point made during the initial workshops/interviews for sub-project
co-ordinators.
1.8
The October workshops and interviews also emphasised that regular
communication for two-way feedback is an essential part of the support co-ordinators
must establish with their peer tutors.
1.9
Appointment of a part-time co-ordinator is RECOMMENDED in cases where
it is difficult – if not impossible -- for senior academic staff, even with the best will
and intentions, to
•
handle the day-to-day issues in a full-fledged peer tutoring programme
(recruitment, training, matching, monitoring);
•
maintain the necessary, on-going co-operation of subject co-ordinators;
•
liaise with Deans and departmental/faculty heads etc.
1.10 The expectation that university students will acquire and demonstrate ‘all
round’ skills (eg in leadership, teamwork, communication etc.) needs to be more
widely and actively promoted to staff and students if the role of peer tutoring is to be
fully understood and integrated in the university. And it is so RECOMMENDED
2.Sub-project Progress
2.1
Of the eleven sub-project progress reports received, four were cases where
active peer tutoring is yet to begin – ie in September 2003.
2.2. Two of those cases – in The Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s School of
Nursing – nevertheless raise some interesting issues.
2.3
Dr Margaret O’Donoghue has specifically drawn attention to ‘disappointing’
assessment results among students taking the Clinical Microbiology course in Year II
Higher Diploma Nursing.
2.4
It will be interesting to see whether the small Group peer tutoring by honours
students can be an effective ‘early-intervention’ mechanism.
2.5
It will require close monitoring by the sub-project coordinator/course
supervisor and, above all, support for peer tutors who identify students potentially ‘at
risk’.
3
2.6
Implementing further action to support ‘at risk’ students will, of course,
remain the responsibility of the course supervisor but may benefit from enlisting input
from the relevant peer tutor(s).
2.7
In the case of the sub-project led by Mrs Maureen Boost, the proposal
mentioned that peer tutoring had been earlier introduced in two subjects: Medical
microbiology and Cellular pathology.
2.8
Though well received by students in the former, students in Cellular pathology
‘were not as pleased….(which, it is said) can be attributed to the different approach of
the subject leader in this case.’
2.9
This highlights the need to have all potential participants fully briefed before
introducing peer tutoring, and it is evident the sub-project leader is already mindful of
this by proposing the development of a peer tutoring manual. This is COMMENDED
to all sub-project co-ordinators
2.10 While the present project focusses exclusively on students in Medical
microbiology, is it possible that the best practice developed in this case may be tried,
again, in Cellular pathology?
3.1
The sub-project in nursing at Hong Kong University provides a good example
of pre-launch consultation. Dr Agnes Tiwari briefed staff and student ‘on the purpose,
design and implementation of the peer tutoring scheme.’
3.2
The briefings were supplemented by workshops for the peer tutors on their
roles and responsibilities, and the development of tutoring and conflict-management
skills.
3.3
Pre and post-intervention focus group interviews were held with peer tutors,
tutees and a control group. A RECOMMENDED process for projects that follow this
model.
3.4
Tutors and tutees reported that their involvement in the project motivated them
to learn, but it is not evident from the progress report whether the peer tutoring had
any influence on other, specific issues raised in the interviews and cited in the subproject’s objectives ie ‘…..understanding of (the) professional roles in nursing and
demands made on them as professional nurses’.
3.5
How their responses compare with the focus group is not mentioned and this
will need to be addressed in the next reporting period.
3.6
It would also be useful to learn whether/how it is planned to extrapolate this
small-scale, one-to-one project into a wider programme. RECOMMENDED that a
medium/long-term strategy be developed in the next reporting period.
4.1
The sub-project proposal appended to the report from Professor Agnes
Gardner requires fine tuning before going into its final state. Suggestions made by the
4
advisers are being considered by Professor Gardner at the time of report writing and it
is anticipated that a final proposal will come up before the second phase of the project.
4.2
Although peer tutoring for first-years studying Human anatomy in the
Department of Rehabilitation sciences is yet to start, Professor Gardner has spent the
intervening time substantially revising her proposal.
4.3
The objectives of the sub-project are ambitious and, although well supported
by the rationale, seem difficult to achieve unless there is a well-defined strategy to
sustain the sub-project beyond its current 10-sessions. (Refer RECOMMENDATION
in 3.6) This applies particularly in verifying examination/assessment performance of
peer tutored and non-tutored groups of students. While anecdotal evidence suggests
improvements of this nature can be effected through sustained peer support, there
have been conflicting results in the very few, longitudinal studies of this nature
reported in the literature. (For further information, Keith Topping’s research on
evaluation – cited in the list of references provided to all sub-project co-ordinators – is
commended.)
5.1
Introducing peer tutoring as a compulsory component of the BSc (Honours)
Radiography programme is unique among the sub-projects.
5.2
It would be valuable to learn what proportion of students ‘…did not want to
take on the role (of peer tutor’ and opted, instead, to undertake extra assignment work.
RECOMMENDED that this be addressed in the next reporting period.
5.3
Interestingly, in light of experiences in established programmes elsewhere,
peer tutors’ responses in the evaluation questionnaire reflected less enthusiasm about
the benefits of peer tutoring than the tutees; though the project leader, Dr Jan McKay,
notes that the tutors’ views in interviews and comments in their reflective diaries
suggest a positive impact.
5.4
The compulsory nature of this project and, possibly, a lack of awareness
among students of the need to develop wider, generic skills (eg leadership -- Refer
RECOMMENDTION in 1.10) before graduating may be contributing factors
influencing the peer tutors’ documented views.
5.5
What was particularly noticeable from the pre and post-implementation data
was that the peer tutors rated the experience as of low value in improving
interpersonal skills. In studies elsewhere peer tutors have consistently rated this as one
of the most valuable outcomes of the experience. RECOMMENDED that the
variation reported in this case be further investigated in the next phase of the project.
5.6
As noted with other sub-projects, scheduling peer tutoring sessions presents a
challenge, even when the peer tutors are well supported – as in this case with a project
assistant.
5.7
Consistency in time and venue for meetings is important in building credibility
for peer tutoring programmes and Dr McKay is already well aware of this and has
signalled the need for improvement in the next reporting period.
5
5.8
It is RECOMMENDED that the foreshadowed ‘cascade’ system of peer
tutoring (since deferred) only be pursued on a students’ needs basis and as part of a
medium to long-term sustainability strategy.
6.1
The 1997/98 peer tutoring experiment in the Institute of Textiles and Clothing
was halted due to lack of funding. As Dr Ng’s progress report on the current subproject shows equally-favourable signs of peer tutoring’s potential it is
RECOMMENDED that in the next reporting period a medium to long-term
sustainability strategy be prepared to ensure that the advantages of this latest initiative
are not lost.
6.2
The 1:3 and even 1:1 ratio of peer tutors to tutors is commendable, but is it
sustainable?
6.3
The responses to questionnaires suggest that tutees have gained substantially
more from the peer tutoring than the tutors. Though the tutors regard the experience as
enjoyable and would recommend it to others, little more than 40% of them believe it
has improved their competence (presumably in the course requirements) or
communication skills.
6.4
It is early days for the project, but these outcomes – in relation to the specific
aims and objectives set for peer tutors in the Sub-Project Proposal (#1 a-d) – need
closer scrutiny. Regular, informal feedback in communication between peer tutors and
the co-ordinator will be useful in fine-tuning procedures to keep the attainment of
these objectives on track. While it is important that peer tutors enjoy the experience of
helping others, it is equally important, in the interests of sustaining a programme, that
the peer tutors should gain new or enhanced skills. It is RECOMMENDED that the
issue of improving, evaluating (and acknowledging) peer tutors’ acquisition of skills,
as set out in the sub-project’s aims and objectives, be a strategic priority in the next
reporting period.
(NOTE:
Some peer tutors in the STAR Programme have reported improved
academic performance in their own courses which they attribute to their experience in
peer tutoring others.)
6.5
Further evidence that the benefits for tutees -- as set out in the sub-project
proposal (#2 a-c) – have been addressed and evaluated will be sought in the next
reporting period. In particular, what success there has been in instilling/improving
teamwork.
7.1
There is insufficient detail in Dr Wong’s progress report to make any
meaningful or useful comment, but I shall be keenly interested – in the next reporting
period – to see whether the introduction of peer tutors has had any evaluated effect on
assisting transition for freshmen and, specifically, whether the addition of peer
tutoring to the remedial support for students ‘…from the Mathematics track…..(has
helped them) to catch up with the human science subjects’.
8.1
Although not mentioned in his written progress report, tutee absenteeism is a
specific concern mentioned by sub-project co-ordinator Mr Yip. However,
6
examination of this issue, possible reasons and remedial action are not included in the
targets for the next reporting period. RECOMMENDED that this be added to the
issues to be addressed.
8.2
Given the key aims/objectives for this sub-project, the initial analysis of pre
and post-questionnaires does not indicate what, if any, effect the introduction of peer
tutors has had on assisting transition. RECOMMENDED that this be addressed in the
next reporting period.
8.3
As with most, if not all the sub-projects greater attention needs to be given to
matching peer tutors with tutees. In this case it is evident, from the outset, that tutees
have preferences in who tutors them ie they ‘…dislike the peer tutor to be a student in
their own class or have the same gender as them.’ RECOMMENDED that the
question of ‘matching’ peer tutors and tutees be surveyed across the sub-projects and
that it be a subject for discussion at a pre-semester seminar for co-ordinators.
9.1
The experience of tutees’ preference in peer tutors referred to above
immediately poses questions in relation to the co-peer tutoring model adopted by Dr
Jinlian Hu. Positive outcomes are reported, but there are no data provided to support
these findings, though the original proposal suggested -- #1 (b) – ‘formal evaluation,
that might for example include:
• pre- and post-questionnaire surveys
• focus group interview with students
• ‘measurement’ of actual student learning outcomes
• assessing any changes in students’ attitudes (to teaching/learning, leadership etc.)
RECOMMENDED that more details of evaluation methods and outcomes be provided
in the next reporting period
9.2
More details, please, on the reasons for the decision to ‘Separate the tutors and
tutees in the class….’
9.3
Since ‘more training for tutors’ is advocated it will be helpful to know what
specific concerns/shortcoming (in tutors’ preparation) need to be targetted.
9.4
RECOMMENDED that a peer tutoring manual specific to the needs of the
Textile Department be prepared to address the issues identified by the co-ordinator in
Item 1.3 of the progress report.
9.5
It was originally intended to carry out this sub-project with 40 Final Year
students in ‘Hi-TechTextiles’, but the progress report refers to just ‘three groups of
three students each’. The variation in the numbers of students to be involved is not
explained in the progress report. More information please.
10.1 The BUSS Department has had prior experience with peer tutoring, but given
that this department is ‘disappearing in the restructuring of the Faculty’ the future for
peer tutoring requires a strategic, long-term sustainability plan and this is
COMMENDED to the new Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee.
7
10.2 The more ‘objective’ evidence of tutees’ ‘before and after’ grades added to the
tutees’ evaluation of the ‘value’ of peer tutoring may add valuable weight to the
subjective evidence that has sustained peer tutoring in BUSS over previous years.
[Though attention is drawn to the cautionary note in #4.3 above viz: ‘ While anecdotal
evidence suggests improvements of this nature (ie tutees’ academic performance) can
be effected through sustained peer support, there have been conflicting results in the
very few, longitudinal studies of this nature reported in the literature.’] It is,
nevertheless, RECOMMENDED that collation and analysis of this additional
evidence be budgetted for the next reporting period.
10.3 While acknowledging that ‘The number of Tutors and Tutees will be driven by
supply and demand, as in the past’, BUSS’s past experience also suggests that peer
tutoring has been worthwhile, which prompts the question of whether more active
efforts should be made to promote its values – to tutors and tutees -- particularly if the
University moves to requiring more opportunities for (and evidence of) students’
ability to gain and demonstrate generic/workplace skills before graduation.
RECOMMENDED that the new Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee consider
the integration of peer tutoring in strategies aligned with the University’s expectations
for students to develop and demonstrate these ‘extra-curricular’ skills.
11.1 The selection process for peer tutors and the ‘quality assurance’ through ‘close
monitoring of peer tutors and tutees’ are commendable aspects of the sub-project coordinated by Mrs Ann Cheung. However, timetabling of peer tutoring is already
highlighted as an issue, with tutees wanting earlier access to peer tutors. Experience
has shown that early recruitment of peer tutors and matching to peer tutees is a factor
in the success and sustainability of programmes. It is RECOMMENDED that
strategies be established to facilitate early recruitment of peer tutors, and that
promotion of the benefits for tutors and tutees be incorporated in planning for the next
reporting period.
Evaluation
As part of the evaluation process, videoed interviews have been conducted with peer
tutors and tutees.
12.1 As a general observation it appears that, despite several concerns expressed by
both groups (tutors and tutees), the concept of peer support has promising potential in
offering benefits to the participants – and the teaching staff as well.
12.2 From the tutors’ perspective the main concerns were poor attendance by tutees;
the tutees’ lack of preparation and preparedness to participate in group discussions and
the excessive expectations/demands of tutors (ie some tutees expecting tutors to
provide the answers). More than one group of tutors cited the fact that their assigned
tutees did not take the sessions seriously enough. Problems in arranging meetings with
tutees and, paradoxically, running out of time at sessions were also mentioned.
12.3 Several tutors felt they lacked sufficient guidelines on their roles and what was
expected (by the course lecturer) to be covered in a session.
8
12.4 Both tutors and tutees constantly referred to peer tutoring as ‘teaching’ and this
is not the widely-accepted role of peer tutors. Peer tutors are not equipped as teachers,
so their concurrent roles – as facilitators and mentors -- need to be made abundantly
clear to both those recruited as tutors, and those first-year students who choose (or are
chosen) to participate.
12.5 For their part, tutees also expressed concerns about lack of contribution to
group discussions; lack of preparation by tutors (hence a perception that the
information they were being given was not correct), and some felt there was not
enough time allocated for sessions – or not enough sessions – to cover the subject
material.
12.6 While these may be seen as negatives, they are not uncommon at the start of
peer tutoring programmes and are, generally, overcome if early corrective measures
are instituted.
12.7 Attention to adequate training of peer tutors and clear (written) guidelines on
the duties, expectations and responsibilities of all participants (tutors, tutees and
course lecturers) will be the major factors in addressing the issues mentioned above.
12.8 Several sub-project leaders have suggested producing a manual for tutors and
course lecturers/co-ordinators and this is strongly recommended.
12.9 All prospective tutees must have an introductory briefing from the sub-project
leader/course lecturer on the roles and responsibilities of peer tutors and the guidelines
they (the tutors) will work within.
12.10 Overall, the interviews provide strong evidence that tutors and tutees
experienced benefits from their participation.
12.11 The most commonly expressed ‘positives’ from the peer tutors were that
•
they, personally, gained skills in communication, working with a team
(groups) and time management, which were acknowledged as useful for their future
work and careers;
•
they gained a sense of contributing to their younger peers’ (the tutees)
knowledge and/or practical experience;
•
new friendships were established,
and
•
they gained a greater understanding of their own knowledge of the subject
matter through having to revise material in preparation for assisting their tutees.
12.12 It was particularly interesting (and pleasing) to see how often peer tutors said
they consulted with or shared experiences with other peer tutors in the same
discipline. This is to be encouraged.
9
12.13 Tutees were, overall, equally positive about the help they received in an
atmosphere where they felt less inhibited about asking questions and seeking advice or
help.
12.14 The most common references were to having someone
•
openly willing to share experiences and knowledge;
•
who was a good listener – and willing to listen;
•
a friend as well as an academic support person (usually described as a teacher;
though this conflicts with the fairly common – and probably unfair -- criticism that
tutors were perceived as not well-prepared to teach);
•
who, through the (extra) peer tutoring sessions, gave them a deeper
understanding of the subject material.
12.15 Whether the peer tutoring support translates to better academic performance is
still open to question – particularly after such a short experience – but there are signs
that many first year students felt that their transition to university study had been made
easier by the friendly support and advice offered by more senior students.
Summary
13.1 While the majority of sub-projects have made a promising start with peer
tutoring (despite the difficulties created by the SARS outbreak) several key issues – all
of which were raised during the initial workshops/interviews in October -- have been
identified in this report and need to be addressed, as a matter of urgency, before
beginning the second phase.
13.2 It is RECOMMENDED that a seminar for sub-project leaders be convened in
early November to discuss the issues raised and to share feedback from their
experience so far.
13.3 As mentioned above, this project is distinguished by the large number of subprojects to be introduced over the study period; the ambitious objectives; the wide
range of academic fields involved, and the equally-wide range of peer tutoring models
employed.
13.4 It is a major challenge for peer tutoring to be planned and introduced on such a
scale as this. Successful experience elsewhere suggests that it should be introduced
incrementally; usually through a single, small pilot project setting modest objectives
and testing policies and procedures over a minimum of a year. While there is evidence
that some participants in the sub-projects have had experience with peer tutoring
(albeit on a small, somewhat ad hoc basis), for most this is a new venture and hence
one that requires a clear understanding of the fundamental required for long-term
success ie the commitment and communication required from and between all
participants – co-ordinators and peer tutors -- short and long-term objectives, and
strategies for sustaining the sub-projects.
10
13.5 The advantage of a single pilot project is that procedures, such as selection and
training of peer tutors, co-ordination and communication (between sub-project leaders
and peer tutors and between peer tutors and tutees) can be thoroughly tested before
being implemented on a wider scale.
13.6 Nevertheless, having embarked on eleven sub-projects, in a wide range of
academic fields and with a range of peer tutoring models (paid/voluntary/compulsory;
older students assisting new students; students from within the one class alternating
role of tutor and tutee) there is the advantage of being able to compare and contrast the
success of several, different approaches. Project and sub-project participants will
benefit from formal and informal opportunities to exchange observations and
experiences.
13.7 But, surveys and interviews with peer tutors and tutees have revealed that
more attention needs to be given to some of the fundamentals cited above.
13.8 The co-ordinated, uniform training procedure for peer tutors that has been
instituted is commended, but it is evident from the early evaluations that more detailed
briefing on the roles and responsibilities of lecturers, sub-project co-ordinators and
peer tutors is needed – with emphasis on improving communication. Indeed, improved
communication (fostering two-way feedback – between co-ordinators, subject
lecturers and peer tutors and peer tutors and tutees) is, perhaps, the single most
important issue to be addressed in these early stages of the sub-projects. This is not
uncommon in peer tutoring programmes and will continue to require monitoring and
fine-tuning as experience dictates.
13.9 Given the project’s defined time-frame (and funding) it was advisable to
establish modest sub-project objectives – at least short-term ones.
13.10 Observing and reflecting on how the concept of peer tutoring is implemented
and received by students (ie peer tutors and tutees) and teaching staff might have been
a sufficient objective for the first phase of the sub-projects.
13.11 Peer tutoring is not a short-term solution – whether that is improving academic
performance or professional awareness of first-year students, or offering effective
support to academic teaching staff. Given the relatively short time-frame of this
project – and in the absence of long-term sustainability strategies -- one should be
cautious about having too high an expectation of its outcomes. So, while having some
reservations about the degree of adherance to and implementation of peer tutoring
fundamentals, it is acknowledged that the scale of this project, the diversity of
academic disciplines involved and the wide range of models being implemented is
significant in the context of the evolution of peer tutoring.
13.12 As mentioned previously, peer tutoring projects, traditionally, grow from
relatively small, pilot projects – invariably with an initial, limited objective (or
objectives) eg focussing on a single subject with a history of high failure rates or,
perhaps more broadly, trying to encourage greater student interest in a particular
discipline such as science.
11
13.13 The scope of the Hong Kong project will, therefore, have particular interest
and relevance for the international community of scholars and practitioners interested
in peer tutoring.
13.14 What has been achieved so far through energy and determination, given the
unfortunate (and unforeseeable) delays caused by the SARS outbreak, has been quite
remarkable and augurs well for the project’s success.
Adviser’s Background: Russell Elsegood is founder and Director of the
Science/Technology Awareness Raising (STAR) Peer Tutoring Programme at
Murdoch University in Western Australia. In 1989 he was co-founder of the WA
Science Summer School, which first used university students as resident peer tutors in
1991. In 1993 he was awarded a British Council Travelling Fellowship to study peer
tutoring in the UK – specifically the model pioneered at Imperial College, London.
The STAR Programme was launched in 1994 and now has more than 100 university
student volunteers (from Murdoch University and other WA universities) involved in
regular, weekly peer tutoring. The STAR model has since been introduced in several
Australian universities (eg RMIT, La Trobe, Monash and the University of South
Australia), in New Zealand and Malaysia. Mr Elsegood has been an invited keynote
speaker at Peer Tutoring Conferences in London, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and South
Africa. He has also presented peer-tutoring workshops in Australia and New Zealand.
In 1999 he organised and hosted the Asia Pacific Peer Tutoring Conference in Perth.
Mr Elsegood has written extensively on peer tutoring, and has been published in UK,
US and Australian journals and books on the subject.
In 2002 he accepted the invitation from Dr Patrick Lai to be External Adviser to the
current University Grants Commission-funded project
12