By Jonathan A. Bower

Peer Learning is Better than 1:1 Computing
Since the advent of computer-assisted instruction on mainframe computers, educators haveassumed that learners should use computers on their own. More recently, hardware vendors
have certainly encouraged the notion that schools need one device for every student. Softwaredevelopers have simplified their lives by assuming that their programs will be used by one
person at a time. Yet, research shows that just as they do in classroom settings, learners learn
faster and more easily when they work together at least some of the time. For this reason, Flink
Learning offers its Team programs which encourage learners to work together, and with adults,increasing both engagement and outcomes.
Why is peer learning more effective? Because at their core, human beings are social learners.
In a meta-analysis of studies investigating instructional practices that enhanced motivation for,and engagement in, reading, Guthrie and Humenick identified four instructional practices withsignificant effect sizes including “opportunities to collaborate with other students in discussion
and assignment groups to achieve their learning goals.1” During its research phase from 2000
until 2010, The Writers Express found that students improved their writing faster in response topeer feedback along with teacher feedback than from teacher feedback alone2. The National
Mathematics Advisory Panel sites 31 studies in its 2008 report indicating that various forms ofpeer learning accelerate the learning of mathematics, eight of which studied peer learning withcomputer software.3 The computer science department of Brandeis University created a webbased computer program for skills development (mathematics, geography, and spelling) andfound that when they applied a scoring algorithm that rewarded students for the improvement of
their peers, the entire group learned significantly faster together.4
Aren’t computer-based learning programs effective when used 1:1? Not really. Computerassisted instruction is one of the interventions studied by researcher John Hattie5 who foundthat:• Normal mental development and exposure to a teacher for a year generates an averagelearning gain of 0.376, and• The use of computer-assisted instruction also shows a gain of exactly 0.37 per year.
Students who use algorithmically-controlled software 1:1 see no benefit over students
who don’t!
How does peer learning with software actually work? Flink’s eBook activities provide anexcellent example. Learners work in pairs with one reading out loud and the other listening andcorrecting/ assisting their peer when they make a mistake or get stuck. The reader gets afluency score based on how quickly they finished the book. Both learners work together toanswer a set of comprehension questions, some of which require an analytical conversation
between the learners to answer. In this fashion, readers can take on more complex text as
requested by the Common Core state standards, gain fluency without the presence of an adultto guide them, and learn from the type of analytical conversation shown to maximize
engagement in reading by Guthrie and Humenick.
1

Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. JT Guthrie, NM Humenick,The voice of evidence in reading research, 2004
2
Deborah Reck, former CEO of the Writers’ Express & CAO Language Arts for Amplify Learning
3National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, U.S.
Department of Education: Washington, DC, 2008
4
Unpublished, Jordan Pollack, 20075
http://visible-learning.org/2016/04/hattie-ranking-backup-of-138-effects/
6
That is, an effect size of 0.37 from the school experience over one year. Effect sizes of various interventions ranged from -0.3 to 1.44.

For more information, contact Jon Bower at 508-641-4035 or at jon@flinklearning.com.