|
Description
Seventh-grade through 12th-grade students are expected to obtain knowledge and skills through various activities, such as teacher lectures and reading textbooks independently (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Spencer, & Fontana, 2003). Researchers recommend that teachers use these activities within a teaching cycle that has three interrelated phases (Hofmeister & Lubke, 1990; Hudson, Lignugaris/Kraft, & Miller, 1993; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). The first phase includes review or learning-set activities. During this phase, teachers review material that students successfully practiced previously or confirm that students have the prerequisite skills that are critical to the day's lesson. The second phase includes presenting new material and providing structured practice on the new content. The final phase is independent practice, during which students practice the targeted knowledge and skills, develop fluency, and apply the knowledge and skills to broader instructional situations (Hudson et al., 1993). Researchers (e.g., Brophy & Evertson, 1974; Brophy & Good, 1986; Cotton, 1995; Madsen & Geringer, 1989; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Starlings, 1980) indicate that, within the teaching cycle, teachers should engage in a variety of teaching behaviors to effectively increase student learning. These include providing frequent opportunities to respond with feedback (praise for correct responses and error corrections for incorrect responses), accurately presenting subject matter, and monitoring student work.
Three basic instructional arrangements can be employed during the teaching cycle: whole class, small group, and individual work (Hofmeister & Lubke, 1990). Teachers often use a whole-class instructional arrangement during the new material and guided practice phase of the teaching cycle where teachers present new material and question students about material learned previously. The advantages of a whole-class teaching arrangement are that teachers can easily provide extensive amounts of feedback for student responses and apply an entire teaching cycle. In a whole-class instructional arrangement, however, it is difficult to individualize content to meet each student's needs. In small-group arrangements, teachers might use cooperative learning groups or work with each small group individually. An advantage of small-group arrangements is that it is easier to individualize content to meet each student's needs than in whole-class instruction. The disadvantage of Small group arrangements is that managing multiple groups can be difficult for teachers, and it is more difficult than whole-class instruction or small-group arrangements to provide the full teaching cycle. In individual work arrangements, students work independently on previously introduced knowledge and skills. During individual seatwork it is easy for teachers to tailor content for each student in the class (e.g., students with varying math skills can practice specific skills that correspond with their needs). In individual seatwork, however, it is difficult for teachers to provide the full teaching cycle for each student, and opportunities to provide feedback are more limited. Moreover, maintaining high levels of task engagement often is more difficult during individual work than during whole-class or small-group instruction. Stallings (1980) reported that students who have more engaged time have higher achievement than students who have less engaged time.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004 (IDEA 2004) require teachers to use research-based practices and instructional arrangements in their classrooms (Odom et al., 2005). This is especially important when teaching students with disabilities at the secondary level. These students typically have poor reading skills, poor note-taking skills, and poor organizational skills (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Marchand-Martella, Martella, Orlob, & Ebey, 2000). Thus, students with disabilities often cannot access content-area knowledge (e.g., social studies, math, health, science) using the strategies typically employed by secondary teachers (e.g., lecture and independent reading). Additionally, as students enter secondary settings, the curriculum demands increase as the classroom settings and teacher demands vary (Haisley, Tell, & Andrews, 1981). This fact amplifies the need for teachers to use teaching practices and instructional arrangements that help reduce the skill disparity between students with mild disabilities and students without disabilities.
Peer tutoring is one instructional arrangement that has been used extensively to increase students' engaged time in elementary settings (e.g., Delquadri, Greenwood, Stretton, & Hall, 1983; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; Greenwood et al., 1987; Johnson & Johnson, 1984; Maheady & Harper, 1987; Nelson, Johnson, & Marchand-Martella, 1996) and secondary settings (e.g., Allsopp, 1997; Bell, Young, Salzberg, & West, 1991; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Kazdan, 1999; Maheady, Harper, & Sacca, 1988a; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1988; Marchand-Marteila et al., 2000; Mastropieri et al. 2001; Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb, Meyers, & Duncan, 1983). Hudson et al. (1993) suggest that peer tutoring might be used during the independent-practice phase of the instructional cycle to build fluency and apply content information.
In peer tutoring, peers serve as the instructional agent for other students (tutees; Harper, Maheady, & Mallette, 1994). There are several variations of peer tutoring including (a) heterogeneous grouping in which tutees are taught by tutors in the same grade level with a higher level of knowledge or skill, (b) homogeneous grouping in which tutees are taught by tutors with similar skills, (c) cross-age tutoring in which a tutor teaches a younger tutee, and (d) reverse-role tutoring in which students with disabilities tutor other students with or without disabilities (Utley, Mortweet, & Greenwood, 1997). By using peer tutors, teachers can individualize content and provide extensive opportunities to respond with feedback during the independent-practice phase of the instructional cycle (Greenwood, Carta, & Kamps, 1990). Greenwood et al. (1987) suggest that opportunities for individual responding are more frequent during peer tutoring than during teacher instruction. Moreover, peer tutoring might Be used to increase students' engaged time during independent practice when managing students is often difficult.
This literature review examines peer-tutoring research conducted in academic settings in the secondary grade levels with students with mild disabilities. The literature was examined to determine (a) the demographics of tutors and tutees, (b) the content and skill areas where peer tutoring with students with mild disabilities are employed, (c) the tutor training needed for an effective tutoring program, and (d) the effect of tutoring on tutee and tutor performance. Finally, studies are assessed to determine whether practices employed by the researchers are identified as evidence-based practices.
METHODS
Peer-tutoring studies were identified through the ERIC, Exceptional Child Education Resources, ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses electronic databases using the descriptors peer teaching, peer tutoring, peer tutor, disabilities, special education, adolescents, middle school, high school, and junior high. Studies were included if (a) tutee outcomes were included as a primary dependent variable; (b) the sample of participants included students with mild disabilities such as learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit or hyperactivity disorder (ADD or ADHD), or behavior disorder (BD); (c) the tutees in the study were enrolled in the 7th through 12th grades; and the studies provided data to compute effect sizes for group design studies or percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) for single-subject studies. The reference sections of articles that met these criteria were reviewed for additional studies. Initially, 26 studies were identified; 6 were eliminated because they did not provide data to compute effect sizes or PND, thus 20 studies were reviewed.
The study characteristics coded in the review are (a) study setting; (b) tutor and tutee characteristics; (c) skill and content domains (e.g., reading, mathematics, social skills, history) and dependent variables; (d) type of peer tutoring used; (e) peer-tutor training and whether the tutors were matched to tutees prior to peer tutoring; (f) whether there was monitoring of tutor behavior and evidence of treatment fidelity; and (g) whether teachers problem solved with tutors after peer tutoring sessions.
The literature analysis is divided into three sections: (1) a synthesis of the studies' demographics, including the peer-tutoring setting, tutor and tutee characteristics, skill, and content domains in which tutoring was employed; (2) a summary of study outcomes; and (3) conclusions.
PEER TUTORING
DEMOGRAPHICS
STUDY CHARACTERISTICS
Study Setting. Peer-tutoring research has been conducted in a broad range of classroom settings, including general education classrooms, remedial special education classrooms, and resource and self-contained special education classrooms (Table 1). Five of the 20 studies (25%) were conducted in a general education setting and 13 of the 20 studies (65%) were conducted in a remedial classroom, resource classroom, or self-contained special education classroom. One study was conducted in a resource classroom and general education classroom (Hogan & Prater, 1993). Another study was conducted in a correctional-facility school (Kane & Alley, 1980). The type of tutoring used also varied across studies. Most researchers used heterogeneous peer tutoring (n = 9). The second most-used tutoring type was reverse-role tutoring (n = 8), and homogeneous peer tutoring was used in only 2 studies, and cross-age peer tutoring was used in 1 study.
Tutor and Tutee Characteristics. The tutor and tutee characteristics included the participant's age and grade, whether they were from the same class or recruited from different classes (origin), and whether they had a disability (Table 1). It was noted whether the tutors also served as tutees, and whether the authors reported the disability category in each of the studies.
Tutors were in 7th to 12th grades and their reported ages ranged from 10 to 21 years (Table 1). Tutors overwhelmingly were recruited from the tutees' class (n = 16). In one study, tutors were recruited from a peer buddy class (Presley & Hughes, 2000). In three studies the tutors' origin was not indicated (Bell et al., 1991; Blake, Wang, Cartledge, & Gardner, 2000; Hogan & Prater, 1993).
In most studies the tutors included students with disabilities (learning disabilities, behavior disorders, mental retardation [mild mental retardation, educable mentally retarded, intellectual disability], other health impairment). In 8 of the studies, tutors did not have a disability (Bell et al., 1991; Kane & Alley, 1980; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1987; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1988; Nobel, 2005; Presley & Hughes, 2000; Smith, Young, Nelson, & West, 1992; Stevens, 1998). In 11 of the studies, the tutors also served as the tutees.
Tutees were in 7th to 12th grade and their ages ranged from 12 to 21 years. Tutees' disabilities included behavior disorders (35%), learning disabilities (65%), and mental retardation (27%). The total number of tutees across all studies was 298 (M = 15; range = 1-58).
Skill and Content Domains. Peer tutoring was examined as an instructional strategy to increase tutees' proficiency in skill areas or to teach content knowledge. In 60% of the studies, tutees' basic reading, vocabulary, spelling, math, and social skills were addressed. Improving basic academic and social skills often is critical for improving students' ability to comprehend content independently, respond to questions in content-area texts, and enable greater levels of participation and interaction with teachers and peers (Marchand-Martella et al., 2000; Prater, Serna, & Nakamura, 1999; Presley & Hughes, 2000; Smith et al., 1992). There were only a few studies (n = 6) in which peer tutoring was used to help tutees in content areas (e.g., social studies, science, driver's education).
The primary dependent variable in 18 studies was correct responding (e.g., reading rate, rate of correct responses per minute on paper-and-pencil driving procedure tests, percentage of correct math problems, content chapter test scores, providing feedback to peers, anger management steps completed correctly) and the... |
More articles from Exceptional Children
Repeated reading versus continuous reading: influences on reading flue..., September 22, 2007
Outcomes of a teacher-led reading intervention for elementary students..., September 22, 2007
How much growth can we expect? A conditional analysis of R-CBM growth ..., September 22, 2007
A qualitative study of the initiation and continuation of preschool in..., September 22, 2007
Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students ..., September 22, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Click here
to search our database of over 3 million articles.
|
%20%20&position=1)