Full version

Peer tutoring in writing: A school systems approach

Introduction

Authors

Publisher

Peer tutoring is a method of in-class teaching in which same-age or older children are trained to support their peers in learning.  It can provide educational benefits for both the tutors and the tutees, and is seen by many as one of the most effective, enjoyable and practical ways in which to deliver individual learning.

This study used an intensive tutoring approach where senior primary school children assisted junior class students to develop writing skills.  The responsive nature of the programme meant that tutors were required to use higher cognitive skills than those used in many traditional peer tutoring programmes.  Although limited by the small sample, this study shows how both tutors and tutees benefited from the process.

Keywords:
United Kingdom; Primary schools; Key Stage 1; Key Stage 2; Pupils; Literacy; Writing; Peer tutoring

What is peer tutoring?

Peer tutoring in a classroom context involves training students in instructional methods so that they can assist younger or same age students’ learning.  Peer tutoring is a practice that classroom teachers can deliver in such a way that it allows them to cater for diverse needs within an inclusive and responsible social context.

Peer tutoring:

• makes use of the support children can offer each other while working together in a structured approach that caters for the individual development needs of both parties;
• can provide academic gains for both tutors and tutees;
• has been found effective, with same-age and cross-age peers, both in small groups within classes, and as part of class-wide peer tutoring arrangements;
• benefits from a positive relationship and balance of power between participants (therefore participation should be voluntary for both parties); and
• has been demonstrated to be a successful intervention in a range of disciplines including: reading, mathematics, spelling, reading comprehension  and writing.

Some studies have suggested that peer tutoring may promote greater academic gains than teacher instruction.  This may be because students feel comfortable in peer interactions, allowing for a more easy development of cognitive growth and skills.

Being a peer tutor can train a student’s social skills, enhance their self-efficacy, and remedy skill deficiencies.  In some cases, tutors have made significantly greater gains than those they have been tutoring.  In such cases, tutors have been selected on the basis of who stands to make a gain rather than who are the most competent students in the subject.

Back to top^

The main findings of the study

The tutors in this programme benefited from their involvement, showing gains – maintained at follow-up – in all measured areas of their writing.

The rate and accuracy of tutee writing gains was even larger than those of the tutor writing group.  (This is in contrast with some other peer tutoring studies, and may be a reflection of the using of tutors and tutees of different ages in this study, as opposed to using same-age tutors and tutees)  The tutee group progress contrasted with that of the control group students, who generally showed little change on any of the writing behaviours measured in the study.  Interestingly, tutee gains were quite close to their follow-up scores, suggesting that skills they learned through peer tutoring were generalised and able to be maintained afterwards without the same level of support.

Audience ratings of the enjoyability and clarity of the tutees’ writing showed a marked improvement as the research progressed and the gains were largely maintained afterwards. (Click to What were the aim and the design of this study?).  The largest gains were in reader enjoyment.  Attitudinal data from both teachers and peer tutors found that both groups were strongly in favour of the procedures.

Back to top^

What else did the study find?

Writing output
Tutees substantially increased their writing output during the intervention, in comparison with the control group students. These gains were generally maintained at follow-up (four weeks after the programme had ended). There was little change in the writing output of the control group throughout the study. Although there was no same-age control for the tutors' group, their writing output increased in most cases during intervention and follow-up. Importantly, participation didn't appear to have a detrimental effect on their writing output.

Punctuation and spelling
Both tutors and tutees showed clear positive gains in accuracy of both spelling and punctuation, with tutees showing the largest gains. These rates of improvement were largely sustained during follow up, and were in marked contrast with the control group students. While some of the tutors were already successful in these fields, others demonstrated large gains in punctuation skills during and after the intervention.

Enjoyability and clarity
Ratings for both enjoyability and clarity of the tutors' and tutees' writing increased during intervention and follow-up. The increase in enjoyability of the tutees' writing from baseline to intervention was particularly marked. This contrasted with the control group, which exhibited little change throughout the intervention.

Teacher attitudes
Teachers rated the intervention at six out of a possible seven for usefulness. They would recommend the programme to other teachers and would continue to use it within the school.

Tutor attitudes
Most tutors felt they had helped tutees produce longer, more interesting and more accurate writing, and that the intervention would help them both in planning their own writing and in understanding how others learn.

Back to top^

What were the aim and the design of this study?

The study examined peer tutoring approaches to helping low progress writers and explored their effectiveness in assisting teachers to manage a process-oriented writing programme in a large class (Click to What does an inclusive 'process writing’ approach consist of?). It aimed to use an inclusive instructional procedure to improve writing progress for a group of primary-aged students from two different classes and age-groups.

The study took place in an urban primary school and involved:

• five teachers. Of these, three taught the senior classes providing the tutors, and two the junior classes where tutoring was carried out;
• seven peer tutors aged between ten and eleven (ten was considered the minimum age necessary to handle the complexity of the tutoring task.) Although there was no requirement that they should perform at an age-appropriate level in writing, tutors were selected on the basis of their ability to write at a three years' performance difference from those they tutored. Participation was voluntary and tutors could withdraw from the programme at any time; and
• eleven six year-old students (from the two junior classes in the school) identified by the teachers as being the most in need of assistance with their writing.  Seven were randomly selected to receive tutoring, and the other four monitored as controls.

Peer tutoring occurred for four twenty-minute sessions weekly in the tutees' classes over a ten week period. Tutors received no extra assistance with their writing beyond their training as peer tutors (Click to What training did peer tutors receive?) but continued to do their own writing in their own classes during their own regular writing programme (also four twenty-minute sessions weekly).

Samples of the writing of the seven target students, the four control students and the seven tutors were taken before the tutoring programme began (the 'base-line' phase), during the ten-week course of the programme (the 'intervention' phase) and four weeks after it finished (the 'follow-up' phase). Five writing samples were collected and analysed from each phase. During the intervention period, samples of independent writing by the tutees (as part of the class writing period but without peer tutor support) were taken to help measure the effect of the intervention.

The samples were measured by:

• rate (both words and sentences per twenty-minute session);
• % accuracy in both punctuation and spelling; and
• quality - blind ratings by parents and teachers of the enjoyability and clarity of the tutors', tutees' and control children's writing.

Samples of sessions were tape recorded to establish the level at which the tutors used approved tutoring behaviour. At the end of the intervention period teacher and peer tutor attitudes to the programme were assessed by survey.

Back to top^

What does an inclusive 'process writing' approach consist of?

The researchers examined a peer tutoring procedure for writing (known as a “process writing” approach) which required tutors to provide instruction and feedback that was responsive to specific and differing learning needs and behaviours.

The process involved:

• planning/pre-writing;
• drafting;
• revising; and
• publishing.

The authors defined an inclusive programme as one that:

• can be implemented within the classroom by classroom teachers;
• is compatible with curriculum aims and accepted instructional methods;
• can provide equitable access for students (ie a programme available for any appropriate student, rather than a specialist remedial programme which cost/resource availability restricts to a few chosen students);
• is flexible enough to cater for individual needs while maintaining its programme structure; and
• can be aligned with the school’s values and principles, and supported by management, parents and the wider community.

Back to top^

What training did the peer tutors receive?

The peer tutors’ training took place during three forty-five minute sessions over two weeks.

These consisted of:

• discussion of the role of tutors in helping a friend develop independent writing skills;
• familiarisation and practice in specific tutoring procedures;
• proof-reading writing for meaning and accuracy;
• asking appropriate questions to prompt  the writer to make changes/improvements; and
• conducting pre-writing conferences with peers to develop a writing plan.

Tutors also received three feedback sessions on their performance as tutors during the first two weeks of tutoring.

Following training the peer tutors were expected to be able to assist and prompt the tutees in specific ways.  These included:

• helping them to  develop and expand a writing plan;
• providing prompts and encouragement  with the writing process;
• assisting the writer to attempt difficult words;
• asking questions to promote editing changes/additions;
• prompts or assistance in proof-reading for spelling and punctuation; and
• providing praise and encouragement for the writer’s efforts.

Back to top^

What are the implications of the study?

As the study was only based on one school’s experience, we cannot generalise in terms of implications of the study, however, in completing this digest the authors began to ask the following questions about implications for practitioners:

• Peer tutoring was an effective learning tool for the pupils in this study.  Would the use of peer tutoring help teachers in your school to improve their pupils’ learning?
• What are the professional development implications of introducing peer tutoring in your school?  Would teachers benefit from practicing the peer tutoring skills between themselves before introducing tutor training to their pupils?
• How well would such peer tutoring transfer to a different field, such as mathematics or IT?  Would teacher collaboration, including joint planning, be an effective way of introducing peer tutoring in other curriculum areas?
• This is not the only model of peer tutoring which has been found to be effective.  Other models have involved same-age pupil tutoring.  Teachers might consider whether these approaches may be easier to implement in their own classrooms initially.
  

Back to top^

Where can I find out more?

Readers may like to view another research digest on students working together in groups at secondary level: The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/digests/ThuAug261107362004/

Glynn, T. (1994) Pause Prompt Praise: Reading tutorial procedures for home and school partnership. In S. Wolfendale, and K. Topping (eds.) Effective partnerships in education. Cassell Education.

Greenwood, C., & Delguadri, J. (1995) Classwide peer tutoring and the prevention of school failure.Preventing school failure, 39, 21-25.

Greenwood, C. Delguadri, J. & Carta, J. (1997) Together we can! Classwide
peer tutoring to improve basic academic skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

King, A., Staffieri A., & Adelgais, A. (1998) Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 134-152.

Medcalf, J. (1995) Cooperative learning and peer tutoring: strategies for inclusive education. Reading forum NZ, 2, 11-19.

Paris S., & Paris, A. (2001) Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning.Educational psychologist, 36, 89-101.

Sideridis, G., Utley, C., Greenwood, C. Delguadri, J., Dawson, H., Palmer, P., & Reddy, S. (1997) Classwide peer tutoring: effects on the spelling performance and social interactions of students with mild disabilities and their typical peers in an integrated instructional setting. Journal of Behavioural Education, 7, 435 – 462.

Back to top^