Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
3, 2016
Pages 359388
360
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
schools during the 20092010 school year, just over 5 million were
identified as ELLs (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). T
hese statistics represent a significant increase in the population of students with
second-language learning needs. Thus, classrooms are becoming increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse, including t hose within
districts that have not typically experienced such diversity (e.g., rural).
This sharp increase in enrollment makes finding ways to provide and
support quality instruction for ELLs all the more imperative. In light
of these rapidly changing demographics, teachers need to be able to
access research-based strategies that best meet the needs of ELLs.
Peer Tutoring Overview
Peer tutoring can be defined as a class of practices and strategies
that employ peers as one-on-one teachers to provide individualized
instruction, practice, repetition, and clarification of concepts (Utley &
Mortweet, 1997, p. 9). Peer tutoring is a research-based intervention
that has been used to help students learn academic content (King,
Staffieri, & Adelgais, 1998), and is beneficial for tutors and tutees
(King etal., 1998). Features of peer tutoring include frequent opportunities to respond, increased time on-task, opportunities to practice
academic content, and regular and immediate feedback. Each of these
components has been empirically linked with increased academic
achievement (Maheady, Harper, & Sacca, 1988). Peer tutoring has
been implemented across content areas including reading (Hassinger, & Via, 1969; Houghton & Bain, 1993; Oddo, Barnett, Hawkins, &
Musti-Rao, 2010), mathematics (Fantuzzo, Polite, & Grayson, 1991;
Harper, Mallette, Maheady, Bentley, & Moore, 1995; Hawkins, Musti-
Rao, Hughes, Berry, & McGuire 2009), social studies (Bell, Young, Blair,
& Nelson, 1990; Lo & Cartledge, 2004; Maheady etal., 1988), and science
(Bowman-Perrott, Greenwood, & Tapia, 2007; Kamps etal., 2008). Benefits include (a) being paired with a peer partner for one-to-one instruction, (b) opportunities for error correction, (c) increased time
spent on academic behaviors, (d) increased positive social interactions
between students, (e) a decrease in off-task and disruptive behaviors,
and (f) experiencing more success and report feeling more confident
academically (Greenwood, Terry, Arreaga-Mayer, & Finney, 1992).
Peer tutoring has proven effective for students with and without
disabilities (Okilwa & Shelby, 2010), native English-speaking students,
and (in a small number of studies) ELLs (Gersten etal., 2007; Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, Utley, Gavin, & Terry, 2001). It has also been
implemented across settings including general education (Lo & Cartledge, 2004), resource (Burks, 2004), self-contained (Harper etal., 1993),
alternative education (Bowman-Perrott etal., 2007), and group homes
361
362
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
levels; findings w
ere reported across several content areas and peer
tutoring formats. Further, all nine meta-analyses reported effect size
(ES) measures that support the efficacy of peer tutoring as an intervention that positively impacts academic, social, and/or behavioral outcomes (e.g., Bowman-Perrott etal., 2013; Ginsburg-Block etal., 2006).
Seven of the nine examined student outcomes in studies using group
research designs (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Cole, 2013, 2014; Cook,
Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1985; Ginsburg-Block etal., 2006; Jun
etal., 2010; Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003); two
examined findings for single-case research studies (Bowman-Perrott,
Burke, Zhang, & Zaini, 2014; Bowman-Perrott etal., 2013).
The meta-analysis conducted by Cohen etal. (1982) examined
school tutoring programs across 65 studies that included students in
grades 1 through 12. Of the 65 studies, 52 examined the impact of peer
tutoring on tutees (ES=.40); 38 examined the effect on tutors (ES=.33)
in reading and math. Students who participated in tutoring outperformed students in control groups on content area tests, and had more
positive attitudes toward the peer tutoring subject matter. They also
found that engagement in peer tutoring for fewer weeks had a greater
effect size than engagement for a greater number of weeks.
Cook et al. (1985) included 19 studies in their meta-a nalysis
i nvolving elementary and secondary age students. Tutors were identified as students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBDs),
learning disabilities (LDs), and m
ental retardation/intellectual
disabilities (MR/IDs). The majority of students w
ere identified with
EBDs (56%) followed by students with LDs (20%) and MR/IDs (18%).
Tutors and tutees both made gains academically; however, tutors
made fewer gains (ES=.59) than tutees (ES=.65). They also found no
significant effect on self-esteem or self-concept, and concluded that
structured peer tutoring programs yielded a larger effect size than
unstructured programs. In addition, they examined the impact of the
number of weeks during which students participated in peer tutoring.
Cook and colleagues found that no clear relation between the length
of the intervention and study outcome could be determined (p.488).
Rohrbeck etal. (2003) included 90 studies of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) interventions at the elementary school level (grades K6)
from peer-reviewed journals. They concluded that PAL interventions
were most effective with younger, urban, low-socioeconomic (SES),
and culturally diverse students. The overall effect size for academics
was .59. They also found that peer tutoring studies that used interdependent reward contingencies yielded a larger effect size. They also
examined the impact of dosage, defined as the durationthe number
of sessions per weekthe length of the peer tutoring sessions. The
363
364
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
oral and written language outcomes across 28 studies for ELLs from
elementary through high school. The impact of peer tutoring was analyzed separately from collaborative and cooperative learning, as he
stated that peer tutoring adds an instructional element typically underemphasized or completely absent in cooperative and collaborative
methods (p.149). Overall, peer tutoring was found to encourage oral
and written language gains for ELLs. Specifically, the six peer tutoring studies that focused on elementary school students outcomes
yielded an effect size of .83 for oral language and .31 for written language. The Cole (2014) meta-analysis examined literacy outcomes for
elementary-and secondary-age ELLs across 28 studies. The overall
finding was that peer-mediated interventions promote literacy gains.
Students outcomes were analyzed in light of their participation in collaborative, cooperative, or peer tutoring interventions. The three peer
tutoring studies yielded an effect size of .31, compared to collaborative (ES=.37) and cooperative (ES=.63) formats.
Purpose of This Review
The purpose of this systematic review is to further extend the
peer tutoring literature by providing the first synthesis of peer tutoring outcomes for ELLs to summarize: (a) students academic, social,
and linguistic outcomes; (b) findings for ELLs with disabilities who
are involved in peer tutoring interventions; and (c) the contribution
ofboth group design and single-case design research studies. Effect
sizes and their confidence intervals are reported for each study for
which sufficient data w
ere reported for effect size calculation. Both
confidence intervals and effect sizes are needed for the accurate interpretation of intervention effects (American Psychological Association, 2010; Cooper, 2011; Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982; Thompson,
2007). This work addresses a gap in the peer tutoring literature by
providing needed information about its efficacy for elementary-and
secondary-age ELLs with and without disabilities across three domains (i.e., academic, social, and linguistic). In addition, it contributes
to the sparse literature base on evidence-based practices for ELLs (e.g.,
Moore & Klingner, 2014).
Method
Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria
To identify relevant studies, a literature search of data-based
peer tutoring studies was conducted using the Education Full Text,
365
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsycINFO databases (between 1969 and2014). In order to control for possible publication bias (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001), unpublished studies were
also sought for inclusion. As such, the Thesis/Dissertation Abstracts
database was searched to include relevant dissertation studies in the
analyses. Search terms included peer tutoring, reciprocal peer tutoring, classwide peer tutoring, peers as tutors, peer mediated
instruction, and peer assisted learning along with English language learner, ELL, and English learner. In addition, the first author contacted two experts who have published research extensively
on peer tutoring and/or issues related to ELL outcomes; no additional
studies were identified. A total of 66 studies were found. Two authors
examined each title and abstract for possible inclusion.
Selection criteria for inclusion in the systematic review w
ere
specified as studies that (a) included ELL participants in pre-K through
12th grade; (b) disaggregated and reported data for ELLs; (c) included
same-or cross-grade peers as tutors; and (d) examined students academic, social, behavioral, and/or linguistic outcomes as a result of participating in peer tutoring. Studies involving college students, parents,
or other adults as tutors, and duplicate studies w
ere excluded. A total
of 17 studies met the selection criteria and are included in this systematic review. Research design standards (e.g., What Works Clearing
house; Kratochwill etal., 2010) were not included as inclusion criteria
to allow as many studies as possible in the analyses.
Study Variable Coding and Coding for SCR Data
Study variable coding. Studies w
ere coded on 10 student variables, 13 teacher variables, and10 peer tutoring intervention variables
(see T
able1). Three of the authors trained on the coding scheme separately applied the codes to a group of studies. To determine coding
reliability, 25% of the studies were independently coded by three of
the authors across all 33 codes. Reliability was calculated using the
formula: sum of agreement/total number of agreements+disagreements100 (House, House, & Campbell, 1981). Disagreements were
resolved a fter the authors reread and discussed the articles, resulting
in 100% final agreement across all codes.
SCR data coding. Dummy coding, assigning a numerical value
for each data point in baseline and intervention phases, was conducted
by hand for the SCR studies that provided graphed data. Dummy
codes for A (baseline) and B (intervention or treatment) phases were
entered into the TauU effect size calculator (Vannest, Parker, & Gonan,
2011) to obtain TauU and its and standard error (SETau) values for
dependent variables. T
hese values were then entered into WinPepi
366
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
Table1
Student, Teacher, and Intervention Variables Coded for Each Study
Student Variables
Age/grade
Ethnicity
Duration
Gender
Intensity
Language(s)
Number of sessions
Language proficiency
Use of reward
Retained in g
rade
Fidelity
Disability/at-risk status
Fidelity percentage
Interobserver agreement
Teacher Variables
Social validity
Age
Ethnicity
Gender
Language(s)
Degree earned
ESL certification or training
n1 + n2
d2
+
n1n2
2 ( n1 + n2 )
367
1.31
.95
1.00
.58
.13
LL
1.00
UL
.23
7.11 utterances
Gain
Spelling
.95
.09
.77
1.00
72.2%
1.43
1.72
1.46
1.31
1.27
SE (TauU)
Spelling (Language
preference)
.47
.90
.66
.52
.85
ES (TauU)
76%
.24
.21
.21
.20
.11
UL
95% CI
LL
95% CI
SE (d)
.91
1.06
Phoneme segmentation
1.06
ES (d)
Proportion of English
Frequency of utterances in
En
glish
Study
SCR
Group
Table2
ELL Peer Tutoring Outcomes
1.46
.84
LAS
CCCT
1.66
28%
.31
.58
RLS
.32
.32
.64
Blending
.32
.08
.68
Segmentation
RLN
.28
.54
1.21
.05
1.28
1.33
.70
.01
.05
(continued)
44%
.49
1.50
2.16
2.27
1.00
.81
.88
56.6%
.08
.18
.76
.83
.86
.77
.52
.65
Spelling (cooperative)
.10
.34
.36
.37
.21
.10
.07
.06
Spelling (competitive)
Comprehension passages
Gates-MacGinitie
1.55
1.26
PPVT
.66
.98
Johnson (1983)1
.77
.22
.03
.14
Spelling
.84
.66
.57
.40
.58
.29
SE (TauU)
LL
UL
25%
13 wpm
Gain
1.20
.48
.27
.82
.36
Reading fluency
Words correct
Questions correct
.09
.09
.09
.05
.19
.63
.09
.38
.54
1.00
.44
.59
1.5%
Saenz (2008)
13%
Pyron (2007)
22min
ES (TauU)
Oral engagement
1.90
.54
.70
.50
UL
LL
20.6%
.36
.22
.31
.31
.31
SE (d)
Comprehension
Reading rate
Spelling
.10
Word attack
ES (d)
Word identification
Study
SCR
95% CI
Group
95% CI
Table2 (continued)
ELL Peer Tutoring Outcomes
2.54
.24
1.22
Negative behaviors
2.47
6.97
3.03
5.66
.53
7.33
Parallel play
Associative/cooperative play
1.59
.54
1.27
.81
1.51
.73
.60
.58
.53
1.20
1.28
10.45
1.59
.53
4.21
8.15
4.62
9.93
3.90
2.56
3.17
1.44
4.01
1.04
.20
2.36
.80
.08
7.62
2.92
Note: SCR=Single-Case Research, ES=effect size, SE=standard error, CI=confidence interval, LL=lower limit, UL=upper limit, PPVT=Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test, LAS=Language Assessment Survey, CCCT=Child-Child Communication Test, RLN=Rapid Letter Naming, RLS=Rapid
Letter Sound, per points=percentile points, wpm=words per minute, min=minutes. 1Pre-to posttest gains reported. 2Posttest values only reported.
3
Gain from baseline (teacher-led instruction) to peer tutoring.
1.38
Solitary play
Nonplay behaviors
5.27
Positive interaction
77.7%
8.5%
.07
51%
Capitalize sentences
2.40
37.7%
Xu etal. (2005)
76.5%
13.2%
Standley (2006)
Serrano (1997)
372
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
373
374
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
Average IOA across these studies was 97% (range 98% to 100%). Three
studies reported the percentage of peer tutoring sessions included in
IOA calculations (Kratochwill etal., 2010). The range was 25% to 39%.
Social validity. Surveys w
ere given to teachers and students to
determine how well-received peer tutoring interventions w
ere. For
teachers, questions included how easily peer tutoring fit into their existing schedules and with their current curricula. For students, they
included asking whether peer tutoring helped them learn academic
content. Both teachers and students reported positive feedback about
participating in peer tutoring in the 10 studies that collected these
data. One study informally reported that students requested peer tutoring (during nonpeer tutoring weeks).
Intervention Effects
The following Cohens d values have been consistently used to
provide a guideline for interpreting effect size data: .20 (small effect),
.50 (medium effect), and .80 (large effect) (Cohen, 1988). TauU values
may be interpreted as follows: A .20 improvement may be considered
a small change, 0.21 to 0.60 a moderate change, 0.61 to 0.80 a large
change, and above 0.80 a large to very large change, depending on the
context (Vannest & Ninci, 2015, p.408). Intervention effects for each
dependent variable are presented in Table2.
Academic outcomes. Six studies examined ELLs reading outcomes. Klingner and Vaughn (1996) examined the efficacy of peer
tutoring versus cooperative learning for ELLs with LDs across three
measures of reading comprehension. They found that ELLs in both
groups made gains in reading comprehension. ELLs made gains of
3.3percentile points on the Gates-MacGinitie, and a 28% improvement
on correct items on comprehension passages during cross-age peer tutoring. Calhoon, Al Otaiba, Cihak, King, and Avalos (2007) investigated the impact of peer tutoring on phoneme segmentation, nonsense
word fluency, letter naming fluency, and oral reading fluency. A large
overall effect size (d=1.06, .11, CI95=.85 to 1.27) was obtained for this
study. Calhoon etal. reported that peer tutoring was more effective
for ELLs than for En
glish proficient students on nonsense word
fluency and letter naming fluency tasks on the Dynamic Indicators
of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good etal., 2004). They indicated that peer tutoring seemed to benefit ELLs in making gains on
phoneme segmentation more so than oral reading fluency. Houghton
and Bain (1993) studied word errors per minute and words read correctly per minute. The overall TauU effect size was .77 (.06, CI95=.65
to .88). They found that ELLs with LDs gained more in terms of reading
375
376
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
etal. (2001) studied spelling and vocabulary gains using weekly pre-
and posttests. They found that ELLs made significant gains in mastering new vocabulary and spelling words in English. A large TauU
value of .95 was found (.09, CI95=.77 to 1.00). The study conducted by
Klingner and Vaughn (1996) yielded a moderate d=.67 (.24, CI95=.20
to 1.13). Greenwood etal. (1984) measured vocabulary gains for ELLs
in the third study reported in this article. Although ELLs made
gains, the authors reported that they did not gain as much as their
native English-speaking peers. A shorter list of vocabulary words
and additional time with peer tutoring are modifications they identified that might be helpful for ELLs. Madrid, Canas, and Ortega-Medina
(2007) examined weekly pre-and posttest scores to determine w
hether
cooperative or competitive peer tutoring arrangements (compared to
teacher-led instruction) befitted ELLs more. While ELLs made notable spelling gains in both conditions, they had higher posttest means
in the cooperative peer tutoring condition. The overall TauU effect
size for the study was 1.00 (.32, C95=.38 to 1.00).
Standley (2006) investigated students use of complete sentences,
correct use of spelling, capitalization, and use of periods and question
marks. Students made the greatest gains with correctly using periods
and question marks (77% gain), followed by the use of complete sentences (76.5% gain). Their pre-to posttest gains for capitalizing sentences, accurately capitalizing words, and correct use of spelling were
51%, 8.5%, and37.7%, respectively. Two ELLs with MR/IDs, one ELL
with EBDs, and one gifted student with LDs served as tutors. Students
worked collaboratively on revising and editing text, brainstorming,
and turn taking; tutors were motivated to fulfill their role. Social gains
were noted anecdotally, and improved behaviors w
ere reported for
the student identified with EBDs.
Social outcomes. One study examined ELLs social outcomes as
a result of participating in peer tutoring. Xu, Gelfer, and Perkins (2005)
found that peer tutoring encouraged positive social interactions
among second-grade peers. The overall d was 2.40 (.07, CI95=2.26 to
2.54). Effect sizes
were also calculated for each of the be
hav
iors
examined in the study. The largest effect sizes were found for ELLs
initiating interactions with native English-speaking peers (d=7.33,
1.59), engaging in cooperative play (d=6.97, 1.51), responding positively to peers (d=5.66, 1.27), and interacting positively with peers
(d=5.27, 1.20). Smaller effects w
ere found for parallel play (d=2.47,
.73), solitary play (d=1.38, .60), and nonplay behaviors (d=1.22, .58).
Smallest effect sizes w
ere found for responding negatively to peers
(d=.53, .54) and engaging in negative behaviors (d=.24, .53).
377
378
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
likely to speak English, PPVT scores revealed increased English proficiency (p.65).
Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of peer tutoring on the academic, social, and language production outcomes of elementary and secondary ELLs. Findings across the
17 group and single-case design research studies provide the first
summary of academic, social, and linguistic outcomes for ELLs engaged in peer tutoring in more than 40 years of peer tutoring research. Overall, findings suggest that peer tutoring encourages gains
for ELLs of varying levels of English proficiency. Further, ELLs appear
to gain academic and social benefits from this empirically supported
practice just as their peers who are native English speakers. ELLs were
also found to make noticeable strides in developing their English language proficiency. Cross-age and same-age peer tutoring as well as
cooperative and competitive tutoring arrangements seem to be beneficial for ELLs.
Limitations and Implications for F
uture Research
The primary limitation of this study reflects a limitation of the
body of evidence overall for examining the efficacy of peer tutoring
with ELLs. It is also the first implication for future researchthere is
a paucity of peer tutoring research focused on ELLs (Cole, 2014). As
more studies become available, more solid conclusions can be drawn
about the efficacy of peer tutoring for ELLs. In addition, a meta-analy
sis of this body of literature should be conducted as more data are
available. Meta-analytic reviews are critical to establishing the evidence base for effective interventions and practices because they allow researchers to arrive at conclusions that are more accurate and
more credible than can be presented in any one primary study or in a
non-quantitative, narrative review (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001,
p.61). Meta-analysis moves beyond the question Is peer tutoring effective for ELLs? to determining which peer tutoring components
and what ELL characteristics lead to the greatest benefits for this
growing population of students. Further, potential moderators such as
grade level, duration, the use of reward, peer tutoring model, and disability status should be examined. With regard to grade level, gaining
an understanding of content vocabulary and concepts can be challenging for students navigating second-language learning. This is especially true for secondary-age ELLs, as curricula at the m
iddle and
379
380
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
peer tutoring studies. Also, future peer tutoring investigations involving ELLs need to report IOA and fidelity of implementation. In light
of the importance of identifying and implementing evidence-based
practices, it is imperative that important research components be included to strengthen the internal validity of peer tutoring interventions for ELLs. Additionally, only August (1987) reported maintenance
data collected up to 13 weeks after peer tutoring ended and the ELLs
continued to make gains. Authors from two other studies mentioned
informally following up with participants, but no specific findings w
ere
provided. A final recommendation for future research is to include
more ELL with disabilities; data should be disaggregated by disability.
Implications for Practice
Teachers as well as students can benefit from peer tutoring b
ecause
it is flexible and can be used with curricula teachers are already using.
Peer tutoring can be used class-wide, with small groups of students, or
with students working in a dyad. It is easily applied in regular education, special education, bilingual, and ESL classrooms and appears to
be beneficial for ELL with and without disabilities. Further, it can simul
taneously meet the needs of ELLs and their native English-speaking
peers within the same classroom. This intervention provides multiple
opportunities for responding to and for engaging with course content
through reading, hearing, speaking, and writing (Short, Fidelman, &
Louguit, 2012). Social validity measures have shown peer tutoring interventions to be acceptable to students and teachers.
Last, pre-and in-service training should include peer tutoring.
This intervention fits well within multitiered intervention supports.
Particularly in this era of increased accountability, administrators,
teachers, and school psychologists are constantly encouraged to implement evidence-based practices; however, very few have been identified for ELLs. There is great promise for the continued use of peer
tutoring for ELLs at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.
References
*Articles with an asterisk represent studies that are included in this
systematic review.
Abramson, J. H. (2011). WINPEPI updated: Computer programs for
epidemiologists, and their teaching potential. Epidemiologic
Perspectives & Innovations, 8(1). http://www.epiperspectives
.com/content/8/1/1
381
382
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
383
384
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
385
386
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
387
388
BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
Copyright of Education & Treatment of Children is the property of West Virginia University
Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.