Practices to enhance peer program implementation integrity to safeguard peer leaders and learners

The powerful influence of peers on fellow students’ learning engagement and their ability to foster self-efficacy is well recognised. A positive learner mindset can be fostered through establishment of guided meaningful relationships formed between peers. Recognising the value of peer connections in shaping the student learning experience, peer programs have been widely adopted by universities as a mechanism to facilitate these connections. While potentially beneficial, a lack of knowledge and inexperience by program implementers can lead to program outcomes being compromised. To mitigate this risk, QUT has established university wide systems and benchmarks for enacting peer programs. These measures aim to promote program implementation integrity by supporting and developing the knowledge and capabilities of peer leaders and program coordinators. This paper describes a range of measures that have been instigated to optimise the quality of programs and ensure outcomes are mutually constructive and beneficial for all stakeholders

The QUT Training Model for Peer Leader Capacity Building

QUT has enacted a university-wide Peer Program’s Strategy which aims to improve student success and graduate outcomes. A component of this strategy is a training model providing relevant, quality-assured and timely training for all students who take on leadership roles. The training model is designed to meet the needs of the growing scale and variety of peer programs, and to recognise the multiple roles and programs in which students may be involved during their peer leader journey. The model builds peer leader capacity by offering centralised, beginning and ongoing training modules, delivered by in-house providers, covering topics which prepare students to perform their role safely, inclusively, accountably and skilfully. The model also provides efficiencies by differentiating between ‘core competency' and ‘program-specific’ modules, thus avoiding training duplication across multiple programs, and enabling training to be individually and flexibly formatted to suit the specific and unique needs of each program

A student-centred approach to support, reward and recognition of student peer 'learnership'

The benefits for university graduates in growing skills and capabilities through volunteering experiences are gaining increased attention. Building leadership self-efficacy supports students develop their capacity for understanding, articulating and evidencing their learning. Reward and recognition is fundamental in the student’s journey to build self-efficacy. Through this research, concepts of reward and recognition have been explored and articulated through the experiences and perceptions of actively engaged student peer leaders. The research methodology has enabled a collaborative, student-centred approach in shaping an innovative Rewards Framework, which supports, recognises and rewards the learning journey from beginning peer leader to competent and confident graduate

The peer leader capacity building model: A student learning journey

The benefits of peer leader experiences in building graduate skills and capabilities, is well documented and recognised in the higher education sector (Ender & Kay, 2001; Lindsey, Weiler, Zarich, Haddock, Krafchick, & Zimmerman, 2014; Shook & Keup, J., 2012). While benefits are acknowledged, responsibility for identifying, structuring and recording the learning experiences and learning outcomes is charged to the student. This poster describes a framework ‘The Peer Leader Capacity Building Model’ that purposefully structures the peer-leader’s learning journey providing: timely training, moments of critical reflection and goal setting. The model articulates the fundamental interplay of learning and peer leader service which forms the peer ‘learnership’. The journey begins with the ‘aspiration’ phase where students come to understand their leadership opportunities, progressing through ‘enabling’ and ‘mastering’ phases where students shape their learner-leader experience, and finally, to the ‘contributing graduate’ phase where students emerge as competent graduates able to confidently participate in their communities and workplaces. In shifting from a program centric approach that priorities the needs of the mentees, the Peer Leader Capacity Building Model focuses on the individual as a peer leader encouraging the student to shape their individual ‘learnscape’ through consciously navigating both their curricula and co-curricular learning experiences

Flipped peer leader training: A modularised, blended and active peer leader training and development program

Blended and flipped classroom pedagogical models are recognised as having the potential to deepen and enrich student learning while also being a more engaging learning experience (Partridge, Ponting, & McCay, 2011). E-learning platforms and blended pedagogies have transformed the higher education landscape, changing how teaching and learning occur along with learner expectations about the nature of their learning experience. Active-learning, collaborative learning, blended pedagogies and flexibility in deciding where, when and how they engage have now become mainstreamed (Gaebel, Kupriyanova, Morais, & Colucci, 2014). In the peer leader training and development landscape, blended pedagogical approaches are typically not applied; however, if adopted, they have the potential to similarly transform the learning experience. This article describes a student-centred blended and flipped classroom model of peer leader training that aims to establish a more flexible, connected, coherent and deeper student learning experience

On the semantics of free relatives with -ever

This dissertation is about three aspects of the semantics of -ever free relatives: their modal flavor (ignorance or indifference), their quantificational force (definite or universal), and their presuppositions. Free relatives with -ever have readings available to them that plain free relatives do not. Von Fintel (2000) argues that -ever introduces a presupposition of variation over the denotation of the free relative (a definite expression) across possible worlds. When the modal base is epistemic, variation results in the ignorance reading; when the modal base is counterfactual, variation results in the indifference reading. I adopt this analysis of the modal dimension of -ever free relatives and make a further distinction between agent indifference and external indifference. Regarding quantificational force, it has been variously argued that -ever free relatives are definite descriptions and that they are universals. Dayal (1997) argues that -ever free relatives are definites that acquire the properties of universals when they appear in generic contexts. I argue that a version of this last position is correct: Not all -ever free relatives can display universal behavior. While indifference free relatives can behave either like definites or like universals, ignorance free relatives cannot behave like universals and always behave like definites even in generic contexts. I argue that the ability of indifference free relatives to behave like universals is correlated with the projection behavior of their presupposition. The counterfactual presupposition that produces indifference can be accommodated locally, giving rise to agent indifference, or it can project globally, giving rise to external indifference. In contrast, the epistemic presupposition that produces ignorance can only project globally. Furthermore, ignorance free relatives that appear in generic contexts are not interpreted under the generic operator. These properties of ignorance free relatives are linked to the fact that ignorance free relatives are epistemic items

On the semantics of free relatives with -ever

This dissertation is about three aspects of the semantics of -ever free relatives: their modal flavor (ignorance or indifference), their quantificational force (definite or universal), and their presuppositions. Free relatives with -ever have readings available to them that plain free relatives do not. Von Fintel (2000) argues that -ever introduces a presupposition of variation over the denotation of the free relative (a definite expression) across possible worlds. When the modal base is epistemic, variation results in the ignorance reading; when the modal base is counterfactual, variation results in the indifference reading. I adopt this analysis of the modal dimension of -ever free relatives and make a further distinction between agent indifference and external indifference. Regarding quantificational force, it has been variously argued that -ever free relatives are definite descriptions and that they are universals. Dayal (1997) argues that -ever free relatives are definites that acquire the properties of universals when they appear in generic contexts. I argue that a version of this last position is correct: Not all -ever free relatives can display universal behavior. While indifference free relatives can behave either like definites or like universals, ignorance free relatives cannot behave like universals and always behave like definites even in generic contexts. I argue that the ability of indifference free relatives to behave like universals is correlated with the projection behavior of their presupposition. The counterfactual presupposition that produces indifference can be accommodated locally, giving rise to agent indifference, or it can project globally, giving rise to external indifference. In contrast, the epistemic presupposition that produces ignorance can only project globally. Furthermore, ignorance free relatives that appear in generic contexts are not interpreted under the generic operator. These properties of ignorance free relatives are linked to the fact that ignorance free relatives are epistemic items

Preface

This is the second volume of the Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, published by the University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Club. The publication is put together by students in Department of Linguistics and is aimed at providing a timely forum for current research in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. We are grateful to all those who contributed to the success of this volume of the Working Papers, especially our authors and anonymous reviewers. A special thanks is due to previous editors Miriam Meyerhoff and Bill and Reynolds, whose work in linguistics took them abroad this year. Their presence was felt at every stage of the process and their invaluable contribution to the inaugural volume are echoed throughout this second collection. We would like to thank Tony Kroch for this continuous support. We are also indebted to members of the Linguistics Department faculty and the University of Pennsylvania GSAC for monetary support. We believe that this second volume of papers represents another significant contribution to linguistics at Penn. We encourage you to complete your collection by obtaining a copy of Volume 1 (Spring 1994) as well

Preface

This is the second volume of the Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, published by the University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Club. The publication is put together by students in Department of Linguistics and is aimed at providing a timely forum for current research in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. We are grateful to all those who contributed to the success of this volume of the Working Papers, especially our authors and anonymous reviewers. A special thanks is due to previous editors Miriam Meyerhoff and Bill and Reynolds, whose work in linguistics took them abroad this year. Their presence was felt at every stage of the process and their invaluable contribution to the inaugural volume are echoed throughout this second collection. We would like to thank Tony Kroch for this continuous support. We are also indebted to members of the Linguistics Department faculty and the University of Pennsylvania GSAC for monetary support. We believe that this second volume of papers represents another significant contribution to linguistics at Penn. We encourage you to complete your collection by obtaining a copy of Volume 1 (Spring 1994) as well