pengaruh pengetahuan pedagogi dan kandungan terhadap

Chem-Friend From the Eyes of Tutors and Tutees
Teh Kai Li, Rohani Yahaya, Yeoh Guan Thai, Tio Mie Ling, Norjalilah Supardy
Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang
Nordin Abd Razak
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Abstract: Chem-Friend is an ongoing peer tutoring programme conducted at Kolej Matrikulasi, Pulau
Pinang. As such, the purpose of this study is to examine and to compare the peer tutors' and tutees'
perceptions towards (i) Chem-Friend programme; and (ii) tutors' capability in conducting the ChemFriend programme. In addition, tutors' and tutees' perceptions and suggestions were also compared. This
study employed the quantitative research design using survey research method. The sample was selected
using purposive sampling technique. The sample consisted of 45 tutors and 116 tutees. The data was
collected using a self-developed survey questionnaire which consisted of fourteen items. A pilot study
was carried out and the instrument was found to have high reliability. The independent sample t-test was
used to compare the tutors' and tutees' perceptions. The results showed that there was no significant
difference in tutors' and tutees' perceptions on Chem-Friend. Mean score and ranking order of each item
were calculated. The findings showed that both tutors and tutees agreed on (i) discussion sessions within
the group was fun during CF, and (ii) tutors could improve the performance of group members. They also
suggested enhancing CF with interesting activities. Suggestions for the lecturers to further improve peer
tutoring programme and future research of peer tutoring in Kolej Matrikulasi, Pulau Pinang are provided
in the text.
Keywords: peer-tutoring, tutor, tutee, perception.
Abstrak : ‘Chem-Friend’(CF) merupakan satu program pembimbing rakan sebaya yang dijalankan di
Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang. Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk mengkaji dan membandingkan persepsi
pembimbing rakan sebaya (tutor) dan tutee berkaitan dengan: (i) program ‘Chem-Friend’;; dan (ii) keupayaan pembimbing rakan sebaya dalam mengendalikan program ‘Chem-Friend’. Kajian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuatitatif dan mengadaptasi kaedah tinjauan tinjauan. Sampel kajian dipilih
menggunakan teknik pensampelan bertujuan. Seramai 45 orang pembimbing rakan sebaya dan 116 tutee
terlibat dalam program ini. Soal selidik yang mengandungi 14 item telah dibina untuk mendapatkan
maklumat daripada sampel. Kajian rintis telah dijalankan dan instrumen ini didapati mempunyai
kebolehpercayaan yang tinggi. Ujian-t sampel bebas telah dijalankan untuk menganalisis perbandingan
antara persepsi pembimbing rakan sebaya dan anak didik pembimbing. Keputusan mandapati tidak
terdapat perbezaan ynag signifikan antara tutor dan tutee Dapatan juga menunjukkan bahawa kedua-dua
pembimbing rakan sebaya (tutor) dan tutee bersetuju dalam (i) perbincangan dalam kumpulan adalah
menarik semasa Chem-Friend’ berlangsung, dan (ii) ahli dalam kumpulan pembimbing rakan sebaya,
iaitu tutor perlu menambahbaik prestasi mereka. Mereka juga mencadangkan agar aktiviti peneguhan
dalam Chem-Friend’ perlu menarik. Sementara itu pensyarah juga dicadangkan supaya menambah baik
lagi program pembimbing rakan sebaya ini dan kajian lanjutan bagi pembimbing rakan sebaya dalam
Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang dibincangkan.
Kata kunci : pembimbing rakan sebaya, anak didik pembimbing rakan sebaya, persepsi
97
INTRODUCTION
Students learn better with their peers. Both tutors and tutees gain skills and knowledge from peer tutoring.
One of the most effective way to foster problem-solving skills and the learning of deep concepts is using
the approach that focuses on peers to solve a problem (Schleyer, Langdon, & James, 2005; William,
Wiebe, Yang, Ferzli & Miller, 2002). When learning together with peers, students not only learn, master
the content better and acquire other effective learning skills as well but also demonstrated positive
ranging from academic achievement to learning attitudes (Ding & Harskamp, 2010). Moreover, peertutoring can lead to social and academic development among students (Suha Al-Hassan, 2003) which may
due to teaching the students appropriate ways to gain peer attention (Lawson, 2010). Cheung (2004)
suggested that students will learn better form tutors who are their peers or who are similar in general
culture and background, than from teachers from the perspectives of Piaget's constructivism.
Learner-centered approach is by far preferred over the teacher-centered approach as documents
emphasized that learner-centered produces self-directed and self-initiated learners (Ayele, Schippers &
Ramos, 2007). Topping, Watson, Jarvis and Hill (1996) concluded that same year paired peer tutoring
provided added value to teaching and learning in higher education. Schleyer, Langdon, and James (2005)
found that peer tutoring helped peer tutors to be more responsible and employable as a result of the peer
tutoring experience. This is because constructivist theories also promote the concept of student
interactions with advanced peers (Facey-Shaw & Golding, 2005). Ding and Harskamp (2010) pointed
out that the underlying theory of peer tutoring is similar to collaborative learning where the interaction
has a powerful and positive influence on academic motivation and achievement from their literature
review. Peer tutoring is a learner-centered approach. As a result, peer tutoring can benefit both tutor and
tutee in their learning.
The chemistry lecturers in Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang has came up with a peer tutoring programme
named Chem-Friend Program in order to increase students ability to study with their peers for better
achievement of their Chemistry knowledge. Thomas (1993) described peer teaching or tutoring as the
process by which a competent pupil, with minimal training and with a teacher's guidance, helps one or
more students at the same grade level to learn a skill or concept'. The more advanced students will be
helping the less advanced students with their studies as in many forms of peer tutoring strategies (FaceyShaw & Golding, 2005). According to Ensergueix and Lafont (2010), peer tutoring is characterized by
specific role taking as tutor or tutee in dyad with a common, known and shared objective. Falchikov
(2001) defined same-level peer tutoring is where unequal status is identified and introduced by the coordinator, e.g. students may be selected to assume the role of tutor on the basis of their higher level of
skills and/or academic attainment.
In order to implement peer tutoring programme effectively, tutors play an important role in the peer
tutoring. A student tutor has three functions as outlined by Sobral (2002): (a) to help the tutees in the
study tasks; (b) to aid the faculty in teaching tasks compatible with his/her knowledge experience; and (c)
to act as a link between teachers and tutees. Grubbs and Boes (2009) mentioned that the ability that the
tutors are expected to have is to pique the interest of the tutee about the subject matter and to be able to
explain the concepts of the subject being reviewed. Ding and Harskamp (2010) concluded from their
review that tutors need to formulate their expressions meaningfully from their own experience and
understanding. Tutors should have certain skills and qualities before taking part in peer tutoring.
98
PROBLEM STATEMENTS
One of the subjects taught at the Matriculation College is Chemistry. Chemistry is a highly conceptual
science subject that involves macroscopic and microscopic level. Sirhan (2007) concluded that chemistry
proves to be a difficult subject for many students and sometimes repel learners from continuing with
studies in chemistry. It is believed that when students are studying chemistry as a part of a programme or
with other major subjects, the confident level of ability in studying chemistry is low (Coll, Ali, Bonato &
Rohindra, 2006; Dalgety, Coll & Jones, 2003). Some students have found to face some difficulties
understanding the concepts of chemistry as well as problem solving in chemistry despite the provision of
tutorials in the first year degree course in biotechnology (Parkinson, 2009). In addition, teacher-centered,
exposition-dominated teaching practices and the lack of student motivation in physical chemistry course
are some of the common themes between student's and lecturer's perceptions of students' learning
difficulties in physical chemistry (Sözbilir, 2004). One of the weaknesses of teacher-centered learning is
the lesson cannot accommodate large numbers of students (Ayele, Schippers & Ramos, 2007).
Furthermore, students have difficulties in understanding chemistry which may partly due to the learningstyle preferences of different individuals.
Ismail and Alexander (2005) revealed that Malaysian students quickly acquire the interpersonal skills
needed to effectively collaborate through reciprocal-questioning peer-tutoring strategy. Despite the
benefits of peer tutoring to enhance students' performance, reports showed that peer tutoring is not as
effective as it turn out to be from the viewpoint of students (Cheung, 2004; De Semet, 2008; Ding &
Harskamp, 2010; Ensergueix & Lafont, 2010). Ding and Harskamp (2010) have pointed out that there are
limitations in peer tutoring such as the hands-on instructions are guided by students who are not experts
and have as much experience as a teacher. Besides that, some knowledge or important points may be left
out during peer tutoring due to student tutors having difficulties to bridge the gap between the training
course and the real task (Schleyer, Langdon, & James, 2005). In addition, misconceptions might be
transferred from the tutor to tutees and the chemistry laboratory learning may be curtailed (Ding &
Harskamp, 2010). De Semet (2008) claimed that an increasing number of researchers agree that peer
tutoring activities – whether online or not – are less effective without a preceding training program. Peer
tutoring programmes should be carried out systematically from the training of tutors to the
implementation of actual peer tutoring activities.
From our review, there are very few research being conducted and implemented in Malaysia with regards
to peer tutoring. Furthermore, there will be challenges to introduce student-centered instructional
strategies such as peer tutoring in Malaysia (Ismail & Alexander, 2005). Aladağ and Tezer (2009) also found that very few research has been carried out in Turkey despite the growing popularity of peer
helping programs in educational setting from their research review. Thus, there is a need to examine the
tutors’ and tutees’ perceptions towards peer tutoring programmes in Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang.
SIGNIFICANCE AND OBJECTIVES
From the information gathered from the tutor-tutee's perception towards CF, lecturers can better improve
the implementation of peer tutoring programmes that will suit the needs of peer tutors and tutees. The
suggestions provided by the tutor-tutees in this study will give an insight of the important components of
a successful peer tutoring programme.
Objectives of this study are:
1. To examine the tutors and tutees' perceptions on Chem-Friend.
2. To examine the tutors' perceptions towards their capability in Chem-Friend.
3. To examine the tutees' perceptions towards the tutor's capability in Chem-Friend.
99
Therefore, the research questions in this study are:
1. Is there any significant difference between tutors and tutees' perceptions on Chem-Friend?
2. What are the tutors’ perceptions towards their capability on Chem-Friend?
3. What are the tutees’ perceptions towards the tutor's capability on Chem-Friend?
METHODOLOGY
This study employed the quantitative research approach by utilizing the survey research design. The
purpose of survey is to collect tutors and tutees' perceptions in the implementation of CF. The mode of
survey administration used is questionnaire. Both tutors and tutees are given the same questionnaire to
answer one month after attending CF.
The target population is all the one-year programme science students in all matriculation colleges in
Malaysia. The sample was comprised of students from one-year programme science stream in semester I
of year 2010/2011 in Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang in Malaysia. The sample of the study was taken
only from one of the matriculation colleges in Malaysia, mainly Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang where
convenience sampling method was used. Therefore generalization was not justifiable. In this study, the
term used to refer the student group leader or student tutor is tutor. One tutor and three tutees were
randomly selected from each class to answer the questionnaire. After a month, there were 45 tutors
completed the questionnaire and the response rate is 56.25%. There were 116 tutees completed the
questionnaire and the response rate is 48.33%.
A questionnaire which consisted of 14 five-point Likert scale response categories were developed by the
researchers and has been pilot tested by the researchers. There are two parts in the questionnaire: (i)
perceptions towards peer tutoring and; (ii) perception towards of tutor's capability in peer tutoring. Item 1
to Item 7 measured the perceptions of tutors and tutees on CF. Item 8 to Item 14 measured the perceptions
on tutor's capability in CF. Pilot study was carried out among 58 students. Cronbach's alpha for the
fourteen items was .94. The content validity of the items has been determined by two chemistry education
expert lecturers in Kolej Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang. In addition, a feedback column is provided for
participants to give suggestions to further improve peer tutoring training.
Implementation of peer tutoring - Chem-Friend
Chem-Friend (CF) is carried throughout the 2010/2011 session with all the science classes entirely
devoted to it. All tutors and tutees attended CF which is held once in every two weeks. CF starts from
8.30pm-10.30pm in a tutorial room which has the capacity for thirty students. In each class, there were
about 20 to 30 students. Tutors discuss with tutees on solving the subjective questions in a question
booklet that was distributed to all students early in the semester before Facilitator Training Class (FTC)
and CF were conducted. The tutors and tutees were requested to solve the problems before attending CF.
Each discussion group consisted of about 4 to 5 tutees and one tutor. Before peer tutoring, tutees chose
their group members and a tutor. During the group discussion, the tutors and tutee have the freedom to
decide how they wanted to carry out the discussion. The lecturer is not in the tutorial room when peer
tutoring is going on. This is to ensure that students take full responsibility of their own learning during the
group discussion. Lecturer is only a facilitator to the CF when the tutors have difficulties in helping other
tutees during group discussion.
100
Implementation of peer tutoring training
Selected tutors acted as group leader had demonstrated excellent performance in Malaysian Certificate of
Education or SPM chemistry. This is to ensure that tutees will not feel intimidated or inferior to their
group leader in terms of their chemistry knowledge and skills (Tariq, 2005). All peer tutors were required
to attend a one-day training workshop named Smart Learning Workshop (SLW) a week before the CF is
commenced. One week before attending SLW, all tutors are given a set of new questions to answer. This
is to ensure that the tutors are well prepared to present the answers during SLW. The SLW is divided into
three sessions. The first session was a motivation session where the invited speaker explained the roles of
a tutor in peer-tutoring and how effective peer-tutoring is carried out. In the second session, an expert
chemistry lecturer showed how tutors could teach or guide their members in answering questions through
effective ways. For the third session, all tutors are divided into a group of five and facilitate by a lecturer.
The tutors took turn to assume the role of tutor and tutees in the two-hours training session.
The tutors are also requested to attend the FTC for two hours during weekday before having the
discussion with their members. FTC is aimed to deepen the understanding of chemistry problems given to
tutors for whom tutors will later explain to their tutees during CF. FTC is conducted by lecturers. Tutors
could have discussion with the lecturers in a lecture hall regarding difficult questions.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
First part of the findings is to examine the perceptions between tutors and tutees towards CF. For the
second and third part of discussions, tutors' and tutees' perceptions on the capability of tutors' skills are
discussed. The data are collected by the completing five-point Likert scale questionnaire where 1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = moderately agree, 4= agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The descriptive
statistics such as mean and inferential analysis such as t-test are used to analyse the data collected in this
study. The mean score and ranking order of each item are calculated.
Based on Table 1, the outcomes of the descriptive analysis showed that item 7 “discussion sessions within
the group is fun” has the highest mean score. This result showed that tutors and tutees have the same
agreement that CF is fun. This finding is congruent to other findings of studies that showed the peer tutors
enjoyed having peer tutoring to help their peers (Ding & Harskamp, 2010; Parkinson, 2009; Tariq, 2005)
as peer tutors developed deeper relationships with their peers (Schleyer, Langdon, & James, 2005).
Besides that, tutors and tutees also rank Item 2 “Discussions in group become more organized” in the fourth place indicating that group discussion still needs more attention to have an organized learning.
From Table 1, the mean score pattern for lowest means showed that both tutor and tutee's perceptions
have some similarities that more effort are required to make the discussion runs smoothly and the content
can be linked to other subjects.
101
Table 1: The mean of tutors and tutees' perceptions on Chem-Friend
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Statements
The aims of Chem-Friend
become clearer.
Discussions in group become
more organized.
Discussions during the ChemFriend become more focused.
Discussions become more
effective.
The content of the discussion
can be linked to other
subjects.
Each member of the group is
clear about his/her respective
roles in running the discussion
sessions smoothly.
Discussion sessions within the
group are fun.
Tutor's
Mean
Tutor's
perception
ranking
order
Tutee's
Mean
Tutee's
perception
ranking
order
3.71
2
3.49
3
3.62
4
3.46
4
3.64
3
3.45
5
3.6
5
3.57
2
3.41
6
3.11
7
3.39
7
3.41
6
3.89
1
3.79
1
Table 2 shows that the tutors have higher mean score (M=50.31; S.D.=9.80) as compared to tutees
(M=48.15; S.D.=8.28). However, this result does not show whether there is a significant difference
between these two means. To compare them, the independent sample t-test is employed. The result of this
analysis is shown in Table 3.
Table 2: The mean and standard deviation of the perceptions score for tutors and tutees
Group
Tutees
Tutors
N
116
45
Mean
48.15
50.31
Std. Deviation
8.28
9.80
Std. Error Mean
1.23
0.91
Table 3: The results of independent sample t-test between tutors and tutees
Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of
Variances
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Equal variances assumed
2.86
0.09
1.31
159
0.19
2.16
1.53
Equal variances not assumed
1.41
94.11
0.16
Dependent variable: Perception score
2.16
1.65
102
The Levene test for equality of variances shows that there exists a significant difference between the
tutors and tutees variance (F=2.86, p= .09) since the p value is less than .05. This finding indicates that
the assumption for homogeneity of variances has been violated and the t-test is based on separate variance
estimates (equal variance not assumed) is used. Furthermore, the results in Table 3 shows there is no
significant difference between tutors and tutees on their perceptions on CF (t(94.11)=1.41, p=0.16). As a
consequence, the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected. The insignificant difference between tutors' and
tutees' perceptions implies that both tutors and tutees are aligned in understanding of what is happening to
them and their peers during peer tutoring.
Tutors and tutees' perceptions on tutors' capability
Based on Table 4, both tutors and tutees moderately agreed that contributions of the peer tutors can
improve the performance of tutees and the tutors have used their skills to guide their tutees. Peer tutors
experience significant benefits as they developed and reinforced leadership skills (Schleyer, Langdon, &
James, 2005; Warner, Olney, Wood, Hansen, & Bowden, 2005). Furthermore, peer tutoring is found to
have positive effects on academic achievement (Golding, Facey-Shaw, & Tennant, 2005). Item 9
“Explain the lesson content in detail” has one of lowest mean score item for tutors as shown in Table 4.
Tutors and tutees perceived tutors' capability in explaining the content of discussion in detail is at
moderate level. This may due to many tutors were concern about their specific content subject
knowledge is sufficient or not (Galbraith & Winterbottom, 2011). The lowest mean score item for tutees
is Item 10 (M= 3.28) where tutee almost disagree that tutors are able to help to develop the content of
topics discussed during CF. The weaker content development may be due to tutees compared tutors to the
lecturers in instructional design. As we know, the tutors' content knowledge and skills could not be
compared to the lecturers', especially when tutors did not receive and undergo the same amount of
training as the lecturers.
Table 4: Perceptions towards tutors' capability in Chem-Friend
No
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Statements
Motivate discussion to occur
more systematically.
Explain the lesson content in
detail.
Help to develop the content of
the topics discussed.
Use their skills to guide their
group members.
Always monitor the group
discussion.
Always assess the mastery
level of group members on a
topic of discussion.
Contributions of the facilitator
can improve the performance
of group members.
Tutor's
Mean
Tutor's
perception
ranking order
Tutee's
Mean
Tutee's
perception
ranking
order
3.64
2
3.59
3
3.51
5
3.37
5
3.53
4
3.28
7
3.64
2
3.67
2
3.64
2
3.41
4
3.58
3
3.34
6
3.82
1
3.68
1
103
Tutors' perceptions
In this study, results showed that tutors have more positive perceptions on their capability in CF
compared to tutees as tutors' mean score are higher than tutees' mean score. Basically, the tutors'
capability in CF is mainly focused on organizing group discussions and helping their peers to understand
chemistry better. The tutors see themselves as group leaders who are capable in organizing group
discussion smoothly as they use their skills to motivate and monitor their tutees in discussion. The
students in Malaysia are able to quickly learn the interaction skills needed (Ismail & Alexander, 2005).
Furthermore, peer tutor's motivation to learn the material is increased in order to be able to answer tutees'
questions and avoid embarrassment (Galbraith & Winterbottom, 2011). Therefore, tutors' felt that they
help to improve students' knowledge. However, the level of confidence to master chemistry knowledge
and to explain to peers in detail is still a problem among the tutors. Explanation of content in a detail
manner may be the limitations in peer tutoring as Ding and Harskamp (2010) have pointed out that
students are not expert and do not have as much experience as a teacher. The faculty needs to prepare the
tutors with deeper chemistry knowledge that is suitable for them to cope with tutees level.
Tutee's perceptions
The tutees have supported that tutors in CF helped to improve their performance. It is possible that tutees
were less intimidated by peer tutors than adults and tutees could questione and explore more complex
higher-order thinking (Kalkowski, 1995). In addition, Tariq (2005) also found that tutees have highly
supported that peer tutors were very supportive. The tutor's skills in organizing peer tutoring are
acknowledged by the tutees as being helpful. Tutors have used their skills to guide and motivate the
discussion with tutees in order to organize the discussion more systematically. Tutees in CF have the
positive perceptions on the tutees' capability in handling the discussion. However, tutees still need the
tutors to explain the lesson content in greater details and they expect the tutors to be able to assess tutees'
mastery level on a topic of discussion. Tutees also think that the tutors need to link chemistry to other
subjects during CF. From the tutees' perceptions, the tutors' capability in deepening the understanding of
chemistry and in linking the chemistry knowledge with other subjects still needs further improvement.
Tutors and tutees' feedback
From the tutors and tutees' feedback in Table 5, the researchers found that the students are looking for
some interesting activities instead of just the typical discussions among tutors and tutees in answering and
understanding the problems. Students nowadays get bored easily with just a single type of instruction in
any setting. The interesting activities will help all students to learn effectively and more eagerly to solve
the problems with their groups. The CF session should be held regularly as most of the tutees need more
time to learn and to understand the problems compared to the tutors. However, increasing CF session is
not an easy task as the students' timetable is very congested in matriculation college and as in other
studies (Parkinson, 2009; Schleyer, Langdon, & James, 2005). Other than timetable, the peer tutees also
request for more authority in deciding their discussion venue as the usual tutorial room might not be
suitable for few groups of discussion taking place at the same time. Ensergueix and Lafont (2010) agreed
that the insufficient preparation of tutor's role is one of the causes that students often do not take full
advantage of peer tutoring instructional strategies. Therefore, tutors must take the effort to prepare
themselves in terms of content knowledge and organizing the discussion by referring to the lecturer
before attending CF. More training sessions could be planned to suit tutors' needs in this matter .
104
Table 5: Suggestions to enhance CF among tutors and tutees
Suggestions
Tutors must prepare themselves earlier by consulting
lecturer before CF.
Increase the CF session.
Enhance the effectiveness of CF discussion with interesting
activities.
Discussion venue should be determined by tutors.
Provide answers for CF exercises.
Increase the number and quality of questions, cope with the
recent trend and rank from easy to difficult.
Lecturers should teach and explain each question in more
detail so that tutor can teach tutees more effectively.
Lecturers should supervise CF in order to help the
discussion when questions arise.
Facilitators should be appointed based on their capability of
teaching and not based on their knowledge.
Tutors should construct mind map or notes together with the
tutees.
Others
Tutor
9.67%
Tutee
0.00%
3.25%
9.67%
21.05
10.52%
3.25%
6.45%
6.45%
10.52%
5.26%
5.26%
6.45%
5.26%
6.45%
5.26%
3.25%
5.26%
3.25%
5.26%
41.86%
31.56%
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Overall, the peer tutoring programme, CF, has received moderate positive feedback from tutors and tutees.
The tutors and tutees have similar experience in peer tutoring where they supported that peer tutoring is
fun and tutors' skills are helpful to enhance tutees' performance. The tutors showed that they are confident
towards their capability in helping their peers in Chemistry subject. However, lecturers have to look into
how to enhance the delivery of content or explanation by tutors during CF. The chemistry unit lecturers
could look into the suggestions provided by the students for further improvement in CF. Therefore, the
outcomes of this study give a clear picture to the lecturers of how tutor and tutees' response to peer
tutoring and what they are looking for in a successful peer tutoring.
For future research, we proposed that a pre-post survey should be carried out before CF to investigate the
effectiveness of CF towards students' performance and leadership skills. In addition, an in-depth interview
should be carried out to further understand the tutor and tutees' perceptions on the effectiveness of CF.
Lecturers' observation and suggestions should also be analyzed to give a clear picture from the point of
view of those who involve. With all the data collected since 2008 until 2011, the lecturers may want to
look for what are the similar suggestions by tutors and tutees to improve CF. An action research design
could be adapted in the new session of 2011/2012 academic year. By constantly having reflection and
discussion among lecturers and students, collecting and analyzing data, it is our hope that the students
will eventually become independent learners and become holistic and well-balanced human capital for
our country.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We gratefully acknowledge the Bahagian Matrikulasi Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia and Kolej
Matrikulasi Pulau Pinang for the permission and support given to conduct this study. We also gratefully
acknowledge the valuable guidance by Dr. Nordin Abd. Razak from Universiti Sains Malaysia.
105
REFERENCES
Aladağ, M., & Tezer, E. (2009). Effects of a peer helping training program on helping skills and self
growth of peer helpers. International Journal For The Advancement Of Counselling, 31(4), 255269. doi: 10.1007/s10447-009-9082-4.
Ayele, D., Schippers, K., & Ramos, M. A. (2007). Student centered teaching and learning experience
from the external world. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Science, 2(2), 113-141. Retrieved
Mar 25, 2011 from www.ajol.info/index.php/ejesc/article/viewFile/41984/9159
Cheung, S. H. (2004). Peer tutoring in pure mathematics subject. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 3. Retrieved February 24, 2011 from http://edb.org.hk/HKTC/download/journal/j3/11.pdf
Coll, K. R., Ali, S., Bonato, J. & Rohindra, D. (2005). Investigating first-year chemistry learning
difficulties in the south pacific: a case study from Fiji. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 4, 365-390. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from Springerlink database.
Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K. & Jones, A. (2003). The development of the Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences
Questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 649-668.
De Semet, M. (2008). Online peer tutoring behaviour in a higher education context. Retrieved Jan 28,
2011 from http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/proefschrift_8jan8.pdf
Ding, N. & Harskamp, E. G. (2010). Collaboration and peer tutoring in chemistry laboratory education,
International Journal of Science Education. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.498842.
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(2), 222-242. doi: 10.1007/s10212-009-0010-0
Facey-Shaw, L., & Golding, P. (2005). Effects of Peer Tutoring and Attitude on Academic Performance
of First Year Introductory Programming Students. 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference.
Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning Together. Peer Tutoring in Higher Education. London, UK:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Galbraith, J., & Winterbottom, M. (2011). Peer-tutoring: what's in it for the tutor? Educational Studies,
37(3), 321-332. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2010.506330.
Golding, P., Facey-Shaw, L., & Tennant, V. (2006). Effects of Peer Tutoring, Attitude and Personality on
Academic Performance of First Year Introductory Programming Students. 36th ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers
in
Education
Conference.
Retrieved
Feb
25,
2011
from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.125.
Grubbs, N., & Boes, R. S. (2009). The effects of the peer tutoring program: An action research study of
the effectiveness of the peer tutoring program at one suburban middle school. Georgia School
Counselors Association Journal, 16(1), 21-31 2009.
Ismail, H.N., & Alexander, J.M. (2005). Learning within scripted and nonscripted peer-tutoring
sessions:
The Malaysian context. Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 67.
106
Kalkowski, P. (1995). Peer and cross-age tutoring. School Improvement Research Series, 18, 1-27.
Retrieved February 27, 2011 from http://www.nwrel.org/archive/sirs/9/c018.html
Lawson, T. R. (2010). The effects of implementing a classwide peer tutoring model on social approvals
and disapprovals emitted during unstructured free time. Journal of Early and Intensive
Behavioral
Intervention.
Retrieved
Jan
29,
2011
from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6887/is_2_4/ai_n28461095/
Parkinson, M. (2009). The effect of peer assisted learning support (PALS) on performance in
mathematics and chemistry. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(4), 381392. doi: 10.1080/14703290903301784
Schleyer, G. K., Langdon, G. S., & James, S. (2005). Peer tutoring in conceptual design. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 30(2), 245-254. doi: 10.1080/03043790500087084.
Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning Difficulties in Chemistry: An Overview. Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 4(2), 2-21. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from Ebscohost database.
Sobral, D. T. (2002). Cross-year peer tutoring experience in a medical school: conditions and outcomes
for student tutors. Medical Education, 36(11), 1064-1070. doi: 10.1046/j.13652923.2002.01308.x
Sozbilir, M. (2004). What makes physical chemistry difficult? Perceptions of Turkish chemistry
undergraduates and lecturers. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(4), 573-578.
Suha Al-Hassan, M. A. (2003). Reciprocal peer tutoring effect on high frequency sight word learning,
retention, and generalization of first- and secondgrade urban elementary school students.
Dissertation, The Ohio State University California University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved
February 24, 2011 from
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/sendpdf.cgi/AlHa0ssan%20Suha.pdf?osu1067541937
Tariq, N. V. (2005). Introduction and evaluation of peer-assisted learning in first-year undergraduate
bioscience. BEE-j, 6. Retrieved Jan 30, 2011 from
http://www.bioscience.heacademy/journal/vol6/beej-6-3.pdf
Thomas, R. L. (1993). Cross-age and peer tutoring. ERIC Educational Reports. Retrieved March 15, 2011
from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pric/is_199300/ai_4124948346/
Topping, K. J., Watson, G. A., Jarvis, R. J., & Hill, S. (1996). Same-year paired peer tutoring with first
year
undergraduates.
Teaching
in
Higher
Education,
1(3),
341-356
doi:10.1080/1356251960010305.
Warner, D. G., Olney, C. A., Wood, E. C., Hansen, L., & Bowden, V. M. (2005). High school peer tutors
teach MedlinePlus: a model for Hispanic outreach. Journal of Medical Library Association,
93(2), 243–252. Retrieved Mar 25, 2011 from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1082942/
Williams, L. W., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., & Miller, C. (2002). In support of pair programming in
the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education, 12(3), 197-212.
107