This paper focuses on peer tutoring as a teaching strategy. Peer tutoring is a method of instruction where a student (tutor) teaches another (tutee) in a particular area or discipline. Implementing this teaching strategy requires time and careful planning and the implementer would need to take certain key components into consideration.
Some of these key components includes, tutor and tutee selection, matching tutor and tutee, tutor training, selecting the appropriate content, and the length and schedule of each session.
In peer tutoring, both the tutor and tutee are carefully monitored and evaluated to measure effectiveness. One method of monitoring and evaluating is through self-questioning. Self-questioning give both tutor and implementer a chance to objectively asses themselves.
Research indicates that peer tutoring, when properly implemented can be an effective teaching strategy regardless of the subject area. It is widely use in the reading and comprehension. However, if carelessly implemented there can be potential detrimental consequences. Therefore, the teacher (implementer) would need to be extremely careful when using this strategy.
Tutoring is a method of instruction in which learners help each other and in turn learn by teaching. Tutoring may occur is different forms. In fact, in reading the different sources, tutoring exit in three main forms. These are peer tutoring, cross age tutoring and a mixture of both peer and cross age tutoring. How are these different category defined? Probably the most succinct definition of peer tutoring comes from Damon and Phelps: “peer tutoring is an approach in which one child instructs another in material on which the first is an expert and the second is a novice” (1989a, p.11). However, other definitions do exist and they all seem to emphasize the idea of one student teaching the next. This definition is not very appropriate because tutors are not necessarily “experts” and not all tutee are “novices.” In fact, Wagner defines peer tutoring as “the concept of students teaching other students in formal or informal school learning situations that are delegated, planned and directed by the teacher’ (Wagner, p.5).
Cross age tutoring occurs when the tutor is older than the tutee. Most literature suggests that cross age tutoring occurs when the tutor is two or more years older than the tutee. Even though this may be the case in most literature, the notion of peer and cross age tutoring are sometimes used interchangeable and in this sense is a “little” ambiguous.
Peer and cross age tutoring can be mixed and this results in another form of tutoring. Like most other teaching strategy peering tutoring requires careful implementation in order to be fruitful.
Peer tutoring whether class-wide, one-on-one or in small groups must be properly implemented in order for it to work effectively. Because of this, there are a number of factors that must be carefully considered. Current research recognized that teachers wanting to implement peer tutoring are required to plan and prepare lessons that take into account elevated noise and workout schedules problems (Berliner and Cassanova, 1990). They also teach the behaviors and skills that enhance peer learning (Fantuzzo, Polite, and Grayson 1990).
One important initial factor that must be considered is choosing both tutor, tutee and paring them. In other words, in choosing tutors and tutees there are the guidelines that must be followed when pairing (matching) them. Choosing both tutor and tutee can be very difficult and teachers (implementers) need to exercise caution when making these selections. Tutors are usually identified base on certain important features and characteristics.
A potential peer tutor should possess leadership skills, be responsible, be positive and be able to pique the interest of other students. Tutors are often expected to be academically capable and be able explain of the concepts to be taught. Tutees are usually slow learners or students with learning disabilities.
How are tutors and tutees paired? What are the factors that will determine how well both tutor and tutee work together? There are several factors to be considered. Some of these factors are; gender, ethnicity, class level and similarity in achievement level (Hartman H. 1997b, p.114). There is a common saying in chemistry that “like dissolve like.” This means that chemical of similar chemical nature are more likely to react and dissolve intimately with each other. Similarly, in pairing tutors and tutees “likeness” is also important. Even though gender, ethnicity and some other factors may affect the pairing of tutors and tutee, research suggests that the “best” pairing occurs when both tutor and tutee share similar academic achievements and similar social characteristics. These similarities help tutors and tutees to collaborate because they may see each other as equals and thus communicate with each other (Hartman, et al., p.114). These similarities help tutors and tutees establish bonds and make tutoring a less threatening experience (Maxwell and Medway, 1991).
After pairing tutors and
tutees the teacher need to ensure that tutors are adequately prepared for each
tutoring session. Tutors are not
mini-professors, so they are not expected to know everything or to give
lectures on topics that haven’t been taught or covered in the course before
(Hartman, et al., p.102). In this way, tutors usually focus on material that
their tutees are already familiar with. A tutor’s task can be categories into
three main categories. Tutors often add, refine or change their tutee content
knowledge. Thus, tutors are trained to understand their tutee’s learning needs
and hence address these needs.
Tutors are trained to
exhibit certain behavior and response for certain unique situations. Tutees
sometimes may has problems that the tutor may not be able to deal with, because
of this tutors are trained to be selective in making suggestions and addressing
certain issues.
Tutors are sometimes viewed
as a teachers to their tutee this creates a professional relationship.
Therefore, tutors are trained to maintain a certain level of professionalism.
In peer tutoring, tutors and tutees are usually the same age and because of this conflicts may develop. Tutors are thus encouraged to be collaborators rather than competitors. They are also trained to be very encouraging and constructive. We all learn differently and as a result, tutors and often advice to be patient and supportive of their tutees.
Tutoring Session
Putting peer tutoring into practice requires planning. Some factors that need consideration includes; when, where, the length and frequency of each session. Other factors includes, time span and physical size of each session.
As a teacher you need to decide how many students you want to involve initially and eventually in peer tutoring. It is recommended that teachers start with very small groups and expand gradually over time.
The length and frequency of tutoring sessions depends mainly on the content to be covered and the time in which it should be covered. Some literature indicates that class-wide peer tutoring sessions should be 15—30 minutes in length depending on the content. For the first session, it is important for the tutor to develop or establish an amicable relationship as a tutor. This will help their tutee to relax and be more comfortable. This in turn, stimulates interest and foster concentration.
Tutoring sessions can be conducted before, during or after regular instructional periods. If tutoring is administered during regular teaching and does not include all the students, as the teacher, you need to consider factors such as classroom space, which may be limited. You must determine whether or not tutoring will interfere with the attention and focus of the tutor, tutee and other students. Outside of regular instructional period, tutee may not always show up and the implementer would have to take this into consideration as well.
As the implementer, you must consider how and how often you will monitor and assess the progress or each tutoring session. Monitoring is the process of checking up on your self and the students while tutoring occurs (Hartman, et al. p.120). Effective monitoring and assessment will require careful personal observation of the students engage in the session. Tutoring sessions that take place within instructional periods are more difficult to monitored and it would best to schedule small sessions outside of regular instructional periods. Monitoring can be done through self-questioning. Here, the tutor self-question him/herself asking and answering certain questions. Some of these questions include; how well does the student understand the important concepts? Can the student explain and identify certain differences? Is the student considering all the possibilities?
Evaluating in this sense, is grading what you and the student did in the tutoring session. Evaluation helps you to determine the progress of the tutoring session. Evaluation can also be done through testing or self-questioning. Testing is carried at out strategic point throughout the entire program. Examples of questions asked in self-questioning are; how did the student do overall? Did I forget anything important? How can I improve the pace of the session?
It was Andrew Bell, born in England in 1753, who developed the first systematic use of peer tutoring in 1789 (Topping, 1988, p.13). Bell developed a system in which each class was paired into tutors and tutees and was assigned an assistant teacher who supervise the tutors. Bell found that “the effect of the system in raising pupil attainment appeared to be substantial” (Topping, 1988, p.14). In 1801, Joseph Lancaster had the idea that “boys who knows little could teach boys who knows less” (Wagner, et al., p.62). Lancaster developed in England a program in which monitors and assistant monitors were used in each class to ensure that pupil helped other pupils.
Peer tutoring promotes metacognition in which students achieve higher levels of thinking at a quicker rate than they might if they worked independently (Vygotsky 1978, Barone 1991, Fantuzzo, Polite and Grayson 1990; Taylor 1991). According to Wertsch (1981) analysis of Vygotskian theories on peer learning, the peer relationships often have less rigid characteristics then adult-child interactions in a school setting. Wertsch is quoted as saying (Forman and Cazden 1985, p. 344) that, typically, children don’t gives direction to teachers and questions address to teachers is rare except for asking permission. The only context in which children can reverse are interactional roles with same intellectual content, giving directions as well as following them, and asking questions as well as answering them, is with their peers.
The positive effects of class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) on several measures of academic achievement in the areas of reading, spelling, vocabulary, and math have been documented and replicated extensively over the last two decades. (e.g., Delquadri 186; Greenwood, Dinwiddie, 1987; Harper, Mallette & Parkes, 1993). These studies included single-subject and experimental-control group design primarily with disadvantaged and special education students. Some studies demonstrated improvements in oral reading rates and comprehension of students with learning disabilities and academics delays (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989: Mathes & Fuchs, 1993). Similar CWPT has been reported to be more effective than conventional instructional method with secondary students with mild disabilities( Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1988). Greenwood, Dinwiddie, et al. (1984) reported three experiments comparing CWPT in spelling, math and vocabulary to teacher-developed instruction. In their first experiment, 88 third graders in three different classroom and their teachers participated. This study prior results in which CWPT reduced errors on Friday test (Delqadri, Elliot, Hughes, & Hall, 1983; hall, De Delquadri, Greenwood, & Thurston, 1982). These experiments further indicated that during CWPT, students’ academic behavior of writing and speaking were increased over baseline levels. Also, the number of weeks that students used tutoring in which high mastery levels and content coverage occurred, covaried with gain pre-test post-test standardized achievement.
A study by Greenwood, Delquadri and Hall (1984) employed experimental-control group designs to compare outcome effects for inner-city students with learning disabilities (LD). There were 64 students receiving reading instruction using (a) CWPT at school, (b) parent tutoring at home, and (c) the regular school program. A fourth group, normative (non-LD) students, was also included to provide social comparison with regard to the size on LD treatment gains. Results after three months indicated that oral reading errors rate for students in both tutoring programs (school and home) were significantly reduced compared to each other group’s pre-assessment levels and in relationship to both the LD control group and the non-LD normative group. Observation data also indicated that students receiving tutoring spent more time using readers and engaged in oral and silent reading behaviors than any of the other groups. Teacher. Parent, and student survey data also indicated a higher degree of satisfaction with the tutoring procedures and the effects upon reading performance.
Research also indicates that CWPT improves the rate of accurate responding to basic math facts. Harper, Mallette, Maheady, and Clifton (1990) assessed the rate and accuracy performance of 17-second graders with one hundred subtraction problems. Results showed high rates of responding and an average of 98% accuracy over a ten-week period.
In a longitudinal project spanning four years and grades 1 through 4(Greenwood et at., 1989), students in urban schools whose teacher employed CWPT each year, performance significantly bettered on reading, mathematics, and language subtest of a standardized measure of achievement in comparison to an equivalent control group. Effect sizes were 0.38 in mathematics, 0.58 in reading, and 0.60 in language. By the end of the fourth grade, the CWPT group students approached the national normative level in these three subjects areas, where as controls were nearly one standardized deviation below the level. Direct observation data also indicated that CWPT group students, in comparison with control were also increase their level oral and silent reading, writing and academic talking and they reduced their time spent in task management and in competing inappropriate behaviors.
Results from an 8-year experimental, longitudinal follow-up study of the above-mentioned groups that indicated CWPT, when compared to at-risk and non-risk groups that did not receive CWPT (a) increase growth in students’ achievement at grades 2, 3, 4, and 6, (Greenwood et al., 1989; Greenwood, Terry, Utley, Montagna & Walker, 1993); (b) reduced the number of CWPT students needing special education services by grad & (Greenwood et al., 1993); and (c) reduced the number of CWPT dropping out of school by 11th grade (Greenwood & Delquari. 1995).
When initiating a tutoring program, you will want to give yourself and your students every opportunity for success. Success maybe more likely if you start small and expand the program over time. By beginning with a handful of students and using well-defined, brief instruction period, you will give yourself the opportunity to developed and modify effective procedures and handle challenges associated with the implementation of any new process. A smaller program at the outset will also provide you with time to consider how you might successfully incorporate more students in the program. As more students are added, real issues of space and time become challenging factors, gradual growth at this stage maybe preferable to sudden growth.
Peer and cross age tutoring, are associated with many benefits. Research shows that they increase achievement in students’ problem solving skills, independence, and self-initiative for tutors and tutees. In situations where peers tutor students’ with socialization difficulties, improvement of social skills often occurs. The opportunity for social interaction may allow for greater development of cognitive and performance skill F
Furthermore, peer tutoring facilitate understanding between students who might not be able to find common ground. Students tend tends to develop a greater respect for other with different levels of skills. Students become more understanding and tolerant.
Finally, there are three main areas in which peer and cross age tutoring may benefits or contribute to learning and development. These are, learning of academic skills, the development of social behaviors and classroom discipline and the enhancement of peer relationships. In this way, benefits accrue to both tutor and tutee.
Barone, M. (1991)
“A Third- and First-Grade Peer-tutoring study.”
Berliner, David, and Cassanova.
“The Case for Peer Tutoring.” Instructor 99 (April 1990) 16-17.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E.
“Strategic Uses of Peer learning in Children’s Education.” Peer Relationships in Child development, edited by T. J Bendt and G.W. Ladd. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1989b, p. 135-157.
Delquadri, J., Elliot, M., Hughes, V., & Hall, R. V (1983, May).
Parent peer tutoring in reading: An approach for
increasing instructional time and achievement with disadvantaged learning
disabled students.
Fantuzzo, John, Polite K., and Grayson N.,
“An Evaluation of Reciprocal Peer Tutoring across Elementary School Setting.” Journal of school Psychology 28 (winter 1990): 309-23.
Greenwood, C.R., & Delquadri, J. (1995).
Classwide peer tutoring and the prevention of school
failure. Prevention School failure, 39(4), 21-25.
Greenwood, C.R., Delquadri, J., & Carta, J. (1997)
Together we can; Classwide peer tutoring to improve basic
acadmic skills.
Greenwood, C.R., Delquadri, J., & Hall R.V. (1989).
Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal
of educational Psychology, 81, 371-383.
Greenwood,
C.R., Terry, B., J., Delquadri, J., Elliot, M., & Arreaga-Mayer, C. (1995):
Classwide Peer Tutoring(CWPT): Effective teaching and research review.
Greenwood, C.R., Terry, B., J., Utley, C.A., Montagna, D & Walker, D. (1993).
Achievement,
placement and services: Middle school benefits of classwide peer tutoring
used at the elementary school. School Psychologist, 22(30), 497-516.
Harper, G. F., Mallete, B., Maheady, L., Parkes, V., & Moore, J. (1993).
Retention and generalization of spelling words acquired
using a peer-mediated instructional procedure by children with mild
handicapping conditions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3 25-38.
Harper, G. F., Mallete, B., Maheady, L., & Clifton, R. (1990)
Responsive research: Apllications peer tutoring to
arithmetic and Spelling. Direct Instruction. Direct Instruction News, 9,
34-38.
Hall, R. V., Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., & Thurston, L. (1982).
The importance of opportunity to respond in children’s
academics success.
Hartman, H., City College of the City University of New York.
Human Learning & Instruction (1997b, July)
Maheady, L.,
Sacca, M. K., & Harper, G. (1988). The effects of a classwide
peer-tutoring program on the academic performance of mildly handicapped
students enroll in 10th grade social studies classes.
Wertsch, V.,
& Addison S., “the Concept of Internationalization in Vygotsky’s Account
of Genesis of Higher Mental Functions. (1985).
http://www.nwrel.org
Http://eric.indiana.edu