EFFECTS OF CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF SIXTH GRADE STUDENTS DURING VOLLEYBALL PRACTICE AND GAME
PLAY
A Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Shiri Ayvazo, B.ED
The Ohio State University 2005
Master's Examination Committee:
Dr. Phillip Ward, Advisor Approved by
Dr. Tim Barrett ___________________________
Dr. Jackie Goodway Advisor
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of classwide peer tutoring (CWPT), a variation of peer tutoring, on the performance of 21 sixth-grade middle school students in a volleyball unit. An A-B-A-B single subject withdrawal design was
employed to examine the effects of CWPT on (a) number of total and correct trials, (b) task accomplishment, (c) student's tutoring behaviors, (d) student's positive social interactions during tutoring sessions, and (e) student's positive social interactions during game play. In addition, the acceptability of the intervention's goals, procedures, and outcomes was assessed by the student participants, the teachers, and a panel of physical education professionals. A functional relationship existed between the intervention and the total number of trials students performed for three of the four participants. This functional relationship also existed between the intervention and correct performance; even though students' correct performance was often variable. No difference was found in students' rate of task accomplishment during either baseline or CWPT. A functional relationship was not demonstrated for tutoring behaviors or for positive social skill behaviors during the practice time or during the game play. A functional relationship was suggested in the discussion for some of the behaviors, based on the effect seen in the reimplementation of the intervention. Social validity reports of participants and physical education professionals indicated that CWPT is an acceptable pedagogy to use in
physical education classes. This study extended the literature by (a) supporting CWPT as an effective instructional strategy by demonstrating its effects on student engagement in
an ecologically valid setting; (b) extending the generality of CWPT to middle school physical education, and (c) by reporting on the social validity of CWPT in physical
Dedicated to my loving parents, Rina and Eli Ayvazo
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to my Graduate Advisor, Dr. Phillip Ward, for his scholarly guidance and encouragement throughout the process of this thesis. The past year of writing my thesis, was accompanied with many challenges, hurdles as well as satisfying moments. Dr. Ward's professionalism, enthusiasm and scholarly advice made my walk down this road possible, challenging and enlightening at the same time. Dr. Ward has helped me in shaping my professional identity and is my model of a researcher, teacher, and scholar. Thank you Dr. Ward.
I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Barrett and Dr.
Goodway, for their thoughtfulness and contribution to this thesis. Their door was always open for me and I sincerely appreciate it. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Eldar for his contribution to my growth in the academic world. My gratitude is also to Dr. Harari, Dr. Morris, and Dr. Hodge who offered me insightful advice and assistance throughout this project.
I would like to thank my colleagues Carla, Dena, Myung, Rachel, and Beth for their scholarly advice, Dan and Manoel for their observations, and Rona, Paul, and Jessica for their assistance.
Special thanks is given to Keren, a very good friend, for a great support
throughout the first year of living abroad and throughout the process of writing this thesis. Thank you Keren.
Finally, I wish to extend my sincere thanks to my sister Maya and my Brother Avi, for their unique support, and especially to my parents, Rina and Eli, who asked for
nothing, and gave a lot in return. Even though across the ocean, their love and support was, and still is, endless. Thank you Mom and Dad.
VITA
July 22, 1977 ………Born - Tel-Aviv, Israel 2002 ……….B.ED Physical education,
Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Israel
2002-2003 ………...Research Assistant, Teaching Assistant,
Applied Behavior Analysis Program, Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Israel
2003-present ………...Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University PRESENTATIONS / PUBLICATIONS
1. Ayvazo, S., Davis, B., Featherstone, T., & Stuckey, C. (2003, December).
Classroom Management and Student Social Behavior. Poster presented at the OAHPERD Annual Convention, Dayton, OH.
2. Ayvazo, S., Ward, P. (2004, May). Classwide Peer Tutoring in Physical
Education Inclusion Setting. Research data presented at the 9th Annual Diversity Forum and Graduate Student Symposium, the Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
3. Ayvazo, S., Ward, P., Wolf-Zukerman, T. (2005, January). Classwide Peer Tutoring in Physical Education Inclusion Setting. Poster presented at The Israeli ABA Yearly Convention, Emek Israel, Israel.
FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education
Area of emphasis: Teacher Education Physical Education Minor Field: Applied Behavior Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ………....ii Dedication ………....iv Acknowledgments ………....v Vita ………..vi List of tables ……….x
List of figures ………..xi
Chapters: 1. Introduction ………....1
Statement of the problem ………...4
Experimental questions ………..6
Significance of the study ………....6
Limitations ……….7
Delimitations ………..7
Definition of terms ……….8
2. Review of literature ………..11
Classwide peer tutoring in education ………...11
Conceptualization of peer tutoring ………...14
Classwide peer tutoring ………..14
Cross-age tutoring ………..15
Small-group tutoring ………..15
One-to-one tutoring ………16
Home-based tutoring ………..16
Reviews of peer tutoring studies in general and special education ………..17
Cohen et al. (1982) ……….17
Heron et al. (2003) ……….20
Spencer and Balboni (2003) ………...21
Greenwood et al. (1989) ……….24
Reviews of peer tutoring studies in physical education ………...27
Depaepe (1985) ………..28
Webster (1987) ………...29
Houston-Wilson et al. (1997) ……….31
Goldberger and Gerney (1986) ………..35
Byra and Marks (1993) ………...37
Crouch et al. (1997) ………....39
Ernst and Byra (1998) ………42
Ward et al. (1998) ……….. 45
Johnson and Ward (2001) ……….. 48
d'Arripe-Longueville et al. (2002) ………. 51
Summary ………...53
3. Methods ………55
The theoretical framework underlying this study ……….. 56
Selection of setting and participants ………60
Setting ………60
Participants ……… 61
Gaining access ………... 62
Definition and measurement of the dependent variable ……….. 62
Observation procedures ………... 67
Equipment ……….. 67
Participant reactivity ……….. 68
Description of training the observers ………..69
Number of total and correct trials ……….. 69
Number of tasks completed ………... 70
Tutoring behaviors ………. 70
Positive social skill interactions ……….71
Interobserver agreement ……….... 71
The research design, experimental conditions, and treatment integrity …………...75
Research design………...75
Experimental conditions ……….77
Teacher training for CWPT ………... 81
Student training for CWPT ……… 81
Treatment integrity ……… 82 Data analysis ……….83 Internal validity ………...84 4. Results ………..86 Interobserver agreement ………...87 Treatment integrity ………...88
Performance of total and correct trials ……….89
Rate of task accomplishment ………...96
Tutoring behaviors ………...97
Positive social skill interactions during the tutoring sessions………..103
The acceptability of the intervention's goals, procedures, and outcomes to the
students who participate in the study ………..116
The acceptability of the intervention's goals, procedures, and outcomes to a panel of physical education professionals ………..118
5. Discussion ………. 123
What is the effect of CWPT on sixth grade student's performance of total and correct trials in volleyball skills? ………...123
Total trials ………123
Correct trials ……….126
What is the effect of CWPT on sixth grade student's rate of task accomplishment per lesson in a volleyball unit? ………....133
What is the effect of CWPT on sixth grade student's tutoring behaviors of volleyball tasks? ……….134
What is the effect of CWPT on positive social skill interaction during the tutoring sessions of volleyball tasks? ……….137
To what extent do positive social interactions occurring in instructional periods of the lesson generalized to game play? ……….139
How acceptable are the intervention's goals, procedures, and outcomes to the students who participated in the study? ……….140
How acceptable are the intervention's goals, procedures, and outcomes to a panel of physical education professionals? ………141
Limitations ……….143
Implications for teachers ………145
Implications for researchers and suggestions for future research ………..149
Conclusions ………152
References ………..156
Appendices………..161
A. Classwide peer tutoring in physical education-teacher consent ………...161
B. Classwide peer tutoring in physical education-parent consent ……….163
C. Peer tutoring curricular materials ….……….…...………165
D. Social validity-students.………183
E. Social validity-physical education professionals ………..185
F. Tutoring behaviors and positive social interactions-written test ………...187
G. A sample task card .………...191
H. Students achievements chart sample ………193
I. Classwide peer tutoring package-a procedural manual….……….195
J. A sample lesson plan for CWPT ………...201
K. A check list for treatment integrity-conventional instruction ………..203
L. A check list for treatment integrity-CWPT ………..205
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Collection and analysis of the dependent variable data ………...78 4.1 Percentage lessons assessed for Interobserver agreement ………...87 4.2 Mean and range of percentage of Interobserver agreement ……….88 4.3 Existence or absence of functional relationship across the dependent variables…116 4.4 Characteristics and summary of answers of the physical education
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1 Example of coding sheet for number of trials ………..64
3.2 Example of data collection sheet for tutoring behaviors and positive social skill interaction during tutoring session and during game play ………....66
3.3 Diagram of the courts, and locations of the observers and videotape recorders …..68
4.1 Total and correct trials as rate per minute for Liz and Karen ………..91
4.2 Total and correct trials as rate per minute for Don and Ethan ……….94
4.3 Number of tasks accomplished per lesson as a team ………...97
4.4 Number of tutoring behaviors performed by Liz and Karen ………....98
4.5 Number of tutoring behaviors performed by Don and Ethan ……….102
4.6 Number of positive behaviors performed by Liz and Karen during the practice time………...105
4.7 Number of positive behaviors performed by Don and Ethan during the practice time ………..107
4.8 Number of positive behaviors performed by Liz and Karen during the game …...112
4.9 Number of positive behaviors performed by Don and Ethan during the game …..114
INTRODUCTION
Educators are faced with a variety of problems as part of their role as teachers. They are required to demonstrate student learning in conditions where classes range in size from quite small to very large (Johnson & Ward, 2001; Slocum, 2004). Students in these classes vary in their ability and in their readiness to learn the content (Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000; Rink, 1993). This variability is itself often a result of economic,
linguistic, ethnic and cultural diversity found in the United States in the 21st century (Slocum, 2004).
The predominate teaching style in such situations is direct instruction (Slocum, 2004). Direct instruction is characterized by instruction which is organized into structured tasks for the learners, where students are held accountable for their performance, and provided with specific feedback on performance (Rink, 1993). Although direct
instruction is effective at times, it often creates conditions that are best described as “one-size fits all” rather than specific needs-based instruction (Fredrick & Hummel, 2004). This situation is further exacerbated as class numbers increase. One strategy to counter this outcome is to share responsibility for managerial and instructional tasks with the students. Such pedagogies are often called indirect styles of teaching (Rink, 1993). Examples of these indirect styles include peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and group contracts. These indirect styles provide alternatives to the "one-size fits all” strategy.
Peer tutoring is one of the most common indirect strategies (Heron, Welsch & Goddard, 2003; Miller, Barbetta, & Heron, 1994). There is empirical support for its use in many educational settings (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Ward & Ah Lee, in press).
For example, in a series of studies reported by Bloom (1984), student achievements in math during conventional instruction, mastery learning and tutoring were compared. Conventional instruction was characterized by a teacher-student ratio of 1:30 using direct instruction. Mastery learning required students to achieve mastery of content organized as sub-sets. One-on-one tutoring was conducted by a college student. The final achievement measures of students from fourth, fifth, and eighth-grade, who were randomly assigned to the conditions, revealed that on average, students under tutoring instruction were 98% above the average of students under the conventional teaching. In short, these students were on average two standard deviations (or Sigma) above the students in the control groups. These significant findings led Bloom (1984) to propose what he called the "2 sigma problem". That is "can researchers and teachers devise teaching-learning conditions that will enable the majority of students under group instruction to attain levels of achievement that can at present be reached only under good tutoring conditions?" (Bloom, 1984, p. 4).
Classwide peer tutoring (CWPT) is a variation of peer tutoring and has been proposed as one solution to the "2 sigma problem" (Ward & Ah Lee, in press). In CWPT the whole class is divided into pairs or small groups, who engage reciprocally in the roles of tutor and tutee as they learn the instructional content (Allsopp, 1997; Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986; Heron et al., 2003; Miller et al., 1994). Classwide peer tutoring is characterized by highly-engaged, high-paced, and partner-regulated instructional interactions (Greenwood, Maheady, & Delquadri, 2002). Research shows that CWPT affords the tutee more time to practice, to ask questions and to learn the subject matter (Hedin, 1987; Miller et al., 1994). Moreover, CWPT also allows the
tutee to receive immediate feedback from the tutor, a situation which is not always possible when traditional instruction is in place (Hedin, 1987; Miller et al., 1994). Classwide peer tutoring has produced positive effects on students' engagement with content and achievement (Delquadri et al., 1986; Greenwood, Carta, & Atwater, 1991). Additionally, it was suggested by Hedin (1987) that CWPT may assist the teacher in creating a more cooperative and pleasant classroom environment.
The role of peers and the nature of their social interactions are often overlooked as a component of effective instruction. Low levels of social interactions between the
students are often a major hurdle in achieving learning outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 1983). Nonetheless, peer interactions and relationships are an integral part of classroom life and in the socialization of children and adolescents (Johnson, 1980; Johnson & Johnson, 1983). Children directly imitate their peers' behavior; they learn attitudes, values and skills which cannot always be learned from adults, and this way the children have their social behavior shaped (Johnson & Johnson, 1983). Moreover, peer
interactions often provide support, comfort and security, which cannot always be obtained from an adult (Johnson & Johnson, 1983). We live in a social world where children do need to develop competent social skills. Peer interactions have social importance to society. If those interactions and relationships are poor in elementary school they will predict psychological disturbance and delinquency in high school. Poor relationships in high school will predict adult pathology (Johnson & Johnson, 1983).
In order to ensure that opportunities for peer interactions occur with a focus on maintaining socialization and social growth, Johnson and Johnson (1982) recommend giving children meaningful responsibility for their peers' success, giving authority and
holding peers accountable for performance. All of these recommendations can be implemented when using the CWPT strategy.
From a developmental appropriateness perspective, CWPT has been investigated across a wide range of ages, and in a variety of content areas. The majority of research has been conducted in elementary schools (Byra & Marks, 1993; Cohen et al., 1982; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Vance Hall, 1989; Johnson & Ward, 2001; Spencer & Balboni, 2003). There is also evidence for the effectiveness of CWPT in high schools (Bell, Young, Salzberg, & West, 1991; Cohen et al., 1982; Ernst & Byra, 1998; d'Arripe-Longueville, Gernigon, Huet, Cadopi, & Winnykamen, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
If pedagogies are to be used by teachers with confidence, at least two dimensions of validity must be achieved. First, studies must be demonstrably effective and therefore validated in terms of student learning. Second, studies must be ecologically valid
providing evidence that teachers can implement the strategy in different settings as described by researchers. Despite (a) strong empirical support for CWPT in general education and in special education settings, (b) the promotion of CWPT as a best practice in physical education methods texts (e.g., Rink, 1993; Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000) and in articles (e.g., Block, 1995); and (c) the recommendation from the National Association of Sports and Physical Education (NASPE) that peers be used to assist in the assessment of learning (NASPE, 1995), there is only one study of CWPT in physical education (Johnson & Ward, 2001). Thus, there is a clear need to validate CWPT in physical education.
The preceding discussion in this chapter has reported that CWPT (a) positively influences student's achievement, and (b) teaches students how to interact in socially appropriate ways. In addition, it has presented suggestions that CWPT (a) allows students to progress at different rates through the content, and (b) teaches students to share
responsibility for instructional outcomes of the lesson. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to examine the effects of CWPT on the performance of sixth-grade middle school students in a volleyball unit with the goal of assessing the following dimensions of
CWPT: (a) student's achievement, (b) task accomplishment, (c) student's instructional support, (d) student's social support, and (e) the extent to which there is improved social interactions during game play. In addition, the social validity of the study will be assessed.
Experimental Questions
1. What is the effect of CWPT on sixth-grade students' performance of total and correct trials in volleyball skills?
2. What is the effect of CWPT on sixth-grade students' rate of task accomplishment per lesson in a volleyball unit?
3. What is the effect of CWPT on sixth-grade students' tutoring behaviors of volleyball tasks?
4. What is the effect of CWPT on positive social skill interactions during the tutoring sessions of volleyball tasks?
5. To what extent do positive social interactions occurring in instructional periods of the lesson generalize to game play?
6. How acceptable are the intervention's goals, procedures, and outcomes to the students who participated in the study?
7. How acceptable are the intervention's goals, procedures, and outcomes to a panel of physical education professionals?
Significance of the Study
This study extends the literature in three ways. First, it strengthens the confidence of CWPT as an effective instructional strategy by demonstrating its effects on student engagement in an ecologically valid setting. This is demonstrated by conducting the study in a public school physical education setting. Second, this study extends the generality of CWPT to middle school physical education, by systematically replicating Johnson's and Ward's (2001) study conducted in a third-grade physical education setting. Finally, the study reports on the social validity of CWPT in physical education by the participating students and by a panel of physical education professionals.
Limitations
1. This study is limited to the teacher's ability to implement the intervention properly.
2. This study is limited to assessment procedures which were performed only during one lesson.
3. This study is limited to a gradual curriculum with an attempt to present novice or more complex tasks each lesson. It was designed to counter practice effects however was confounded by the difficulty to recover baseline data at times. 4. This study is limited by variable data during the intervention. This presented a
threat to the internal validity of the study.
5. This study is limited by an A-B-A-B withdrawal design in a 20-lessons unit. 6. This study is limited to a single 20-minutes tutoring training, which was
7. This study is limited to the sixth-grade student's ability to discriminate their peer's performance and give accurate feedback.
8. This study is limited to the sensitivity of the data which were collected live on-site. Hence, due to the student's movement in the area, the observer's ability to observe (see and hear).
Delimitations
1. This study is delimited to the specific observation methods and dependant variables as introduced in chapter three.
2. This study is delimited to an intervention implemented by a physical education teacher and assistant.
3. This study is delimited to sixth-graders in a regular physical education setting. 4. This study is delimited to a specific content taught by the teacher (volleyball
unit).
Definition of Terms
Accountability "Keeping an account of the behavior of another to see" whether it meets specifications" (Skinner, 1974, p. 186). Accountability can be formal (i.e., the student receive a grade in exchange to performance) and/or informal (i.e., the teacher monitors the student's performance by observations, proximity etc.). In this study, accountability refers to the teacher's assessment of student's performance.
ALT-PE Academic learning time in physical education. The duration of time the students are engaged with appropriate materials
to their ability, with high rates of success and low rates of errors (Siedentop, Tousignant, & Parker, 1982).
CWPT A form of peer tutoring which involves dividing the entire class into pairs in which one member is the tutor and the other is the tutee. Roles are reciprocated and students assess their peer and provide feedback. This strategy also utilizes public posting of students' results (Heron et al., 2003; Ward & Ah Lee, in press).
Conventional instruction Characterized by a teacher-student ratio of 1:30 using direct instruction (Bloom, 1984). This was the strategy used by the teacher during baseline.
Correct trial A trial that met the teacher's stated criteria for quality of performance. For example, the student set the ball while (a) being behind it and (b) while having the fingers toward the ceiling (Dearing, 2003; Viera & Ferguson, 1989).
Game play A game time at the end of each lesson, during which the students were involved in a volleyball game (4-5 versus 4-5).
Incorrect trial Trials that did not meet the teachers' stated criteria for quality of performance. For example, the student set the ball (a) without being behind it and/or (b) without having
the thumbs pointed at the eyes (Dearing, 2003; Viera & Ferguson, 1989).
Opportunity to respond Interaction between teacher and/or classroom antecedents and student's response. Frequent interactions are necessary for academic achievements (Hall, Delquadri, Greenwood, & Thurston, 1982).
Peer tutoring An instructional strategy that shifts the responsibility for instructional functions from the teacher to the student (Rink, 1993). Students are arranged in pairs and are instructed and trained to assist their partner in completing the learning tasks (Ward & Ah Lee, in press).
Public posting Student's records and results are posted publicly as a form of accountability and feedback. It indicates and
demonstrated improvement in student's/team's performance. Tutee The peer who receives instruction.
Tutor The peer who gives instruction.
Tutoring sessions The practice time of each lesson, during which the students were involved in tutoring one another.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Classwide Peer Tutoring in Education?
This section reviews the studies conducted on peer tutoring (PT) in education. The review includes an explanation about PT, followed by five
conceptualizations of PT. The various studies in this section will describe the use of PT in general and special education. Then, other studies conducted in physical education will be presented. Three studies involving students with disabilities, and others are studies on PT conducted in the regular K-12 setting.
Different teaching techniques have different effects on learning: some have remarkable effects on learning, some are considered trivial, and some might even hinder the learning process (Becker & Carnine, 1981). Traditional or conventional whole-group teaching presents serious difficulties for instructional effectiveness, because it creates the problem of requiring one teacher to discriminate among the behaviors of 20-30 students. A teacher can observe one student at a time and then provide feedback specific to their performance. In the case of a large group the teacher is often forced to make a judgment about what is the best feedback that would serve the group. In the former, the teacher will miss many students' performance while attending to the individual. In the latter, the teacher's feedback may simply not be appropriate for many of the students because a "one size fits all approach" in fact "does not fit all." Tutoring, as opposed to conventional instruction, involves a tutor-tutee ratio or up to one tutor and three tutees. Thus, it is
highly beneficial to both tutors and tutees, because it focuses instruction specifically toward individual or small-group needs (Walberg, 1990).
To illustrate the instructional effects of tutoring consider the work of Bloom (1984) and his students. Bloom (1984) reported the results of studies conducted by two doctoral students, Anania (1983) and Burke (1984), and compared student learning under various conditions of instruction. The conventional instruction was characterized as 30 students per teacher. Mastery learning was characterized by the same student-teacher ratio and included formative tests given for feedback, followed by corrective procedures and assisted in determining the extent to which the student has mastered the material. The third condition, tutoring, was characterized by one tutor for each learner (or up to three learners simultaneously). Like mastery learning, tutoring was followed by formative tests and corrective feedback.
Final achievement measures showed that the average student under mastery
learning was about one standard deviation above the average of the control (conventional) class; hence, the average student under mastery learning was above 84% of the students in the control class. The average student under tutoring was about two standard
deviations (i.e., 98%) above the average of the control class. Tutoring instruction
demonstrated that most of the students have the potential to reach high levels of learning. From these studies, Bloom (1984) posed the "2 sigma problem": "Can researchers and teachers devise teaching-learning conditions that will enable the majority of students under group instruction to attain levels of achievement that can at present be reached only under good tutoring conditions?" (Bloom, 1984, p. 4). Classwide peer tutoring (CWPT) may provide a solution to the "two sigma" problem (Johnson, 1999).
Bloom (1984) reported that 80% of the students do relatively poorly under conventional instruction as compared to under tutoring instruction. In addition, although unaware of it, teachers in conventional instruction are provided more favorable
conditions of learning for some students than they do for other students: they frequently direct their teaching and explanations, reinforce, and give attention to some students while ignoring others.
One criterion for a learning experience is that "it must provide maximal activity or practice time for all students at an appropriate level of ability" (Rink, 1993, p. 65). A second criterion is that students must experience high levels of success (Rink, 1993). Maheady and Delquadri (2002) note that tutoring provides more opportunities to respond to the curriculum, and students who are more engaged and receive more frequent error correction, help and encouragement and who also experience both competitive and cooperative learning. Peer tutoring (PT) promotes consistently greater learning across a range of subject matter and ages of students. In addition, a range of possible
contingencies of reinforcement enhance the students' motivation and satisfaction with their experiences, students learn social skills necessary to be able to teach others.
Conceptualizations of Peer Tutoring
Heron et al. (2003) identified five formats of tutoring systems. Classwide Peer Tutoring
According to Greenwood et al. (1989), CWPT was developed from the observation that much of teacher-designed instruction fails to engage the academic behaviors of students of diverse abilities. Teacher-designed instruction did not have the ecological arrangements necessary to support student's academic responding and
engagement, whereas CWPT was an instructional arrangement designed specifically to accelerate all students' levels of academic responding and engagement and to provide pacing, feedback, immediate error correction, high mastery level, and content coverage (Delquadri et al., 1986; Greenwood et al., 1991).
Classwide peer tutoring (CWPT) involves the entire class divided into student pairs (tutor and tutee dyads). The pairs are engaged reciprocally and simultaneously with instructional content (Allsopp, 1997; Delquadri et al., 1986; Heron et al., 2003; Miller et al., 1994). Tutors are trained and supervised by the classroom teacher (Delquadri, et al., 1986; Greenwood et al., 2002). According to Ward and Ah Lee's (in press) review, CWPT utilizes an interdependent group contingency where students are held accountable for performance.
Classwide peer tutoring involves content materials to be tutored, new partners each week, partner pairing strategies, teams competing for the highest team point total, contingent individual tutee point earning, tutors providing immediate error correction, score's public posting and social recognition for the winning team (Delquadri et al., 1986). Greenwood et al. (2002) identified the CWPT effective components: one-on-one
reciprocal PT, group contingencies of reinforcement, tutor modeling the correct response which served as an error correction strategy, tutor task presentation and response
opportunities, tutor monitoring of tutee performance and recording the tutee's earned points, posting of performance and feedback on progress.
Cross-Age Tutoring
In their review, Heron et al. (2003) described Cross-Age Tutoring as tutor-tutee dyads, composed of pairs of students of unequal ages or from different grades. The older
student delivers instructions to the younger one (Miller et al., 1994). He is the "expert" of the content area and provides a focus of control in the tutoring dyad (Scruggs &
Osguthorpe, 1986). Configuration of the dyads might include older children within the same school or from a different school or students from general education paired with children with special needs (Heron et al., 2003; Miller et al., 1994). Scruggs and Osguthorpe (1986) mentioned in their review the difficulty in justifying the use of the older age tutors, who are not necessarily learning skill-appropriate content, whereas Miller et al. (1994) found in their review that both members of the dyad benefit from the experience and are not adversely affected by the lost of time.
Small-Group Tutoring
In small-group tutoring, tasks are clearly assigned; students are working together in a group small enough so that everyone can participate on the task (Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). Miller et al. (1994) and Heron et al. (2003) found in their review three variations of small-group Tutoring: (a) a small group of tutor-tutee dyads, convenes to practice individualized skills during independent seatwork; (b) the teacher instructs one group while the rest of the class is engaged in a tutoring session or a in a daily seatwork; and (c) several tutors who rotate for one student needing assistance.
One-to-One Tutoring
This format of tutoring occurs in the general or special education classroom and only select tutor-tutee dyads participate within it. Students needing directive and remedial assistance (Miller et al., 1994; Heron et al., 2003) or lower-skilled students tutored by higher-skilled students are examples of candidates of this format (Miller et al., 1994;
Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). Nonetheless, each member of the dyad may receive and provide tutoring (Miller et al., 1994).
In their review, Greenwood et al. (1991) found that one-on-one PT was a strategy which resulted in the highest levels of learner's academic responding. Those learners performed well on tests covering the tutored material. Bloom (1984) mentioned one-on-one tutoring enables constant feedback and corrective process between the tutor and the tutee. Reinforcement and encouragement are integrated in the tutoring situation in addition to the tutees' active participation in the learning.
Home-Based Tutoring
Miller et al. (1994) and Heron et al. (2003) identified home-based tutoring as a system which includes parents (or siblings) serving as tutors. Initial skill training includes the "model-lead-test" format: tutoring procedures are modeled to parents and they are led through it; after that parents complete the procedures independently with feedback from the trainer (Heron et al., 2003). Classroom teachers might assist parents to implement home tutoring programs by giving specific instructions for tutoring procedures, praising, error correction, and record keeping (Miller et al., 1994).
Reviews of Peer Tutoring Studies in General and Special Education Cohen et al. (1982)
Cohen et al. (1982) reviewed 65 independent evaluations of school tutoring
programs using a meta-analysis. All studies took place in elementary or secondary school classrooms. Cohen et al. (1982) specified whether tutoring was structured or
non-structured, whether it was cross-age or not, whether it was a supplement to or a substitute for classroom instruction, and whether or not tutors received training.
The dependent variables included student achievement as measured by achievement tests and questionnaires on the attitudes toward the subject matter, and student self-concept. Meta-analytic effect sizes (ES) were calculated for all studies. This ES is the difference between the means of two groups divided by the standard deviation of the control group. It was used to quantify the effects of tutoring programs on these independent variables (Cohen et al., 1982).
With regard to effects of PT programs on achievement, 45 of 52 achievement studies demonstrated better performance by students who were tutored than the examination performance of students in conventional class. In six other studies,
examination performance was better in the conventional class and in one study there was no difference between tutee and conventional students. Nineteen of the studies reported statistically significant difference in results, favoring tutees whereas only one study favored conventional instruction. The average ES in the 52 studies was .40 with an ES standard error of .069. In other words, typical class tutoring raised the performance of tutored students by approximately two-fifths of a standard deviation unit. The average student in the tutored group scored at the 66th percentile of the students in the untutored or control group. In addition, tutoring effects were larger in more structured programs, in programs of a short duration, when lower level skills were taught and tested on
examinations, when the tutored subject was mathematics rather then reading, and when the tests were locally developed and smaller on nationally standardized tests (Cohen et al., 1982).
Thirty-eight studies examined achievements effects on tutors. Thirty-three studies demonstrated better performance of tutors on examinations in the subject matter, and the
remaining five demonstrated better performance of the students in the conventional class. Ten studies reported statistically significant results favoring students as tutors (Cohen et al., 1982).
Eight studies reported results on students' attitudes toward the subject matter. In all of the studies, student attitudes were more positive among those who participated in PT programs. Only one of these studies, however, reported a significant difference which could be considered statistically reliable. Results were consistent enough for the
reviewers to conclude that tutoring programs had a positive effect on the tutored students' attitudes toward the subject matter (Cohen et al., 1982).
Five studies examined changes in tutors' attitudes. In four studies attitudes were more positive among students who served as tutors while in the fifth one, attitudes of conventional students were more positive. Only one study reported statistically significant difference favoring students as tutors (Cohen et al., 1982).
Nine studies reported result on students' self-concept. In seven of these studies, self-concepts were more favorable for students in tutoring programs. In the other two studies, self-concepts were more favorable for students in the conventional class. Effects, however, were too small to be considered statistically reliable (Cohen et al., 1982).
Sixteen studies reported on effects of tutoring on concept. In 12 studies self-concept was higher for tutors than for conventional students. In the remaining four studies, self-concept was higher for conventional students. Four studies reported statistically significant results favoring students as tutors (Cohen et al., 1982).
Cohen et al. (1982) concluded tutoring programs have definite and positive effects on the academic performance and attitudes of both tutors and tutees. Not only tutors and
tutees expressed more positive attitudes toward the subject matter, tutees outperformed their peers on examinations and tutors gained a better understanding of the subject matter they tutored. However, tutoring programs were found to have much smaller effects on self-concept of students. Self-esteem of tutors and tutees was not changed as a result of the programs. Cohen et al. (1982) suggested that future research should focus on identifying the key variables underlying variation in tutoring program.
Heron et al. (2003)
Heron et al. (2003) reviewed 15 experimental studies in which tutoring systems with specialized applications were used as the independent variable. The systems were CWPT method (six studies), cross-aged method (three), small-group tutoring (three), and one on one tutoring (three). An additional selection criterion was employing a single subject research design. All the studies were experimental, thus utilized manipulation of the independent variable to demonstrate experimental control.
Several different dependant variables were used, such as teacher's use of lesson time, student's ability to discriminate correct performances, opportunities to respond etc. The tutoring programs included students with developmental and learning disabilities enrolled in public and private schools as well as undergraduate college students. Single subject design was used in all studies, while multiple baseline design was the most common.
Fourteen of the 15 studies reported consistent positive results favoring tutoring programs in specialized settings, and mentioned parallelism between these findings and other gains reported for academic behaviors. Tutoring improved performance which was maintained when procedures were in effect. The studies demonstrated high maintenance
and social validity results, yet, generalization of data to other settings or to higher-order responses were mixed or not reported (Heron et al., 2003).
Heron et al. (2003) concluded tutoring is a useful technique for classrooms and inclusive settings. It is effective and costs little in terms of time and materials. In addition, students stated they like and enjoy PT, which indicates on social validity. Heron et al. (2003) recommended replications with additional areas, with a variety of disabilities and settings and skills. These future replications might contribute to a better understanding of the broad applicability of PT programs. An additional recommendation was for
researchers to explore home-based tutoring to more depth, which might contribute to the existing literature of maintenance and generality across settings.
Spencer and Balboni (2003)
Spencer and Balboni (2003) reviewed 50 studies (one of them included three experiments hence they reported on 52 studies) which focused on examining the efficacy of PT involving school-age (elementary or secondary) students with mental retardation as tutors and/or tutees. There were 29 single subject and 21 group design studies included in the review. Spencer and Balboni (2003) reported that the independent variable was PT in its various configurations: cross-age tutoring (17 studies, two of them with younger
students serving as tutors), same-age PT (10 studies), same-age reciprocal PT (12 studies), mixed-age with students of varied ages serving as tutors and/or tutee (11 studies). Peer tutoring sessions at the elementary level were 25 minutes on average (one study had 85 minute PT session), held four times a week on average, and implemented for nine weeks on average (one study lasted nine months). Peer Tutoring sessions at the secondary level were 35 minutes, five times a week.
Spencer and Balboni (2003) identified the dependant variable as academic skills (13 studies examined reading skills such as identifying sight words and community signs while other involved teaching math, spelling, social studies, written language skills, sign language or combinations of reading, spelling and math), social skills (15 studies
examined pre-academic and interaction skills), and daily living/self-skills (four studies). Spencer and Balboni (2003) concluded that students with mental retardation are able to successfully teach their peers academic and daily living/self-help skills. Findings indicated that students with mental retardation made positive academic gains in reading, math and spelling when tutored by their non-handicapped peers. Successful improvement was also found in various daily living/self-help skills such as cafeteria skills.
Thirty three studies with elementary students demonstrated positive academic results. Tutors and tutees enhanced completion of academic tasks and percentage of correct items, as demonstrated on tests and quizzes. Furthermore, students with down syndrome successfully participated in CWPT in a first-grade regular class, and demonstrated an increased in sight word recognition. These studies demonstrated controversial results in the social skills area: interaction time between non-handicapped and handicapped students increased however, one study concluded tutors and tutees lacked equal status, although the uncompetitive nature of PT. For example, the tutor's role is teaching while the tutees' role is learning. The inequality of this relationship, PT may not lead to lasting relationships. Positive results were also demonstrated in the daily living skills/self-help skills era: students acquired the majority of the cafeteria skills and first aid skills. Aid skills were also generalized to other settings such as home and across different tutors. In conclusion, results of the studies conducted in elementary schools
demonstrated effectiveness of PT programs involving students with mental retardation as tutors and/or tutees. Effectiveness was also demonstrated in one-to-one setting, small groups and inclusion settings. "Thus, PT is a strategy that can be used to successfully address the academic and social needs of a diverse population of students" (Spencer & Balboni, 2003, p. 55).
Seventeen studies included secondary level students. Positive outcomes in the academic era included improvement in word labeling and in the ability to teach others, which may contribute to acquiring minor yet relevant teaching responsibilities. Only two studies focused on social skills training and resulted in positive findings such as
exhibiting high percentage of appropriate behaviors and low percentage of inappropriate behaviors. These results were maintained even after the intervention ended. Additional findings included increased frequency of initiations of interactions from students without disabilities towards their tutees and substantial increase in social behaviors exhibited by students with severe disabilities. In the daily living/self-help skills, secondary students were found to successfully pass the driver educations tests and improve their work performance of relatively complex, multi-step task due to peer delivered instruction. In conclusion, students with mental retardation continue to benefit from PT despite the advancement through the educational system. "PT has been shown to be an effective strategy to use with secondary students with mental retardation in academic, social and daily living skills (Spencer & Balboni, 2003, p. 58).
Major conclusions were that the studies identified contributed to the verification of PT as effective in increasing time on-task while providing individualized instruction, opportunity for practice, and providing frequent and immediate feedback. Hence, PT is
an effective instructional arrangement that is used in regular and special education settings (Spencer & Balboni, 2003).
Greenwood et al. (1989)
Greenwood et al. (1989) conducted a 4-year longitudinal investigation among four grade levels (416 students), in order to expand the current knowledge about process-product relationships in general and CWPT in particular. Process was defined as
classroom ecological arrangement and students behaviors, while product was defined as academic achievement. Participants were students of one school district in the
metropolitan area of Kansas. Teachers' participation in the research was first year for most teachers (Greenwood et al., 1989).
The dependant variables were the classroom ecological arrangement and students behaviors, and academic achievement which were measured by using direct observations (momentary time sampling) and a specific coding system (Code for Instructional
Structure and Student Academic Response – CISSAR). The CISSAR was divided into a variety of subcategories: academic and nonacademic activities, task, structure, teacher position, teacher behavior, academic response, task management, and competing responses. Each one of the subcategories was divided into different codes. Daily point earnings and weekly assessment on curriculum-based measures indicated on
improvements in students' academic performance (Greenwood et al., 1989).
The independent variable was the type of instruction: CWPT or teacher-designed instructional program. Three high social economic status (SES) schools were the comparison group and received the teacher designed instruction. Six low SES schools were randomly assigned to receive the teacher designed instruction (control group, n=2)
or CWPT (experimental group, n=4). Teachers' implementation of the CWPT program was assessed by using a checklist. A trained teacher was one who scored 85% or more on the checklist. Few checks were also maid randomly during the year to assess maintenance and quality of instruction (Greenwood et al., 1989).
Results of classroom ecology showed significant effects in subcategory analysis such as tasks, structure, nonacademic activity and teacher behavior. The group under CWPT and the comparison group spent more time in transition between activities than the entire group structure. In addition, the CWPT group spent less time using workbook and worksheets (Greenwood et al., 1989).
Results regarding student behavior were significant for the academic responding and the task management categories. Students under CWPT made significant
improvement: they asked more questions, used more academic talk and read more aloud. However, they were less engaged in hand rising. On the contrary, students under
traditional instruction were more engaged in task management behaviors and less time engaged in academic behaviors (Greenwood et al., 1989).
Results regarding academic achievements indicated significantly greater gains in language, reading and math under CWPT instruction, than under entire class instruction. However, these results were similar to the comparison group gains, which were high SES students' who also received traditional instruction (Greenwood et al., 1989).
Findings regarding classroom ecology and student behaviors were consistent with prior findings of CWPT as compared with traditional instruction. In addition, the process data in the experimental group reflected the implementation of the CWPT program. For example, increased time of transition activity, and less hand raising and waiting for
teacher assistance, due to the availability of the peer tutor. Moreover, the significant gains in academic achievement over a long period of elementary schooling demonstrated that students with a possible academic delay can achieve or even exceed the national norm in math, reading and language, under CWPT instruction, whereas students under entire class instructions remained consistently below the norm. These result extended previous
findings which were based on curriculum-based measures of achievements (Greenwood et al., 1989).
Greenwood et al. (1989) identified few strengths of CWPT implementation were identified: (a) the current plausible results were achieved after only partial
implementation of the CWPT program. It is likely underestimates the maximum effect actually achievable with full implementation of the program. (b) High and consistent students' satisfaction level with tutoring. Nonetheless, few hurdles contributed to the partial implementation of the CWPT program: (a) content preparation demands (i.e., complexity of math problems and fitting it into tutoring structure), physical effort (i.e., moving about the class for monitoring and awarding pairs), elevated noise levels, and conflicting schedules (other mandated program priorities). In addition, data were collected only for 3 of the 4 years of the study due to reduced funding. Hence, maintenance of the results during the fourth year can only be assumed.
Greenwood et al. (1989) report that this study revealed a causal relationship
between CWPT implementation and correspondence with changes in process and product variables. Moreover, it empirically demonstrated the significant academic outcomes under an effective instructional practice among students who are at risk for academic delays. "Even though CWPT was only partially implemented, it produced important
changes in (a) classroom ecological processes, (b) student behavior processes, and (c) students' gains in academic achievements" (Greenwood et al., 1989, p. 382).
Reviews of Peer Tutoring Studies in Physical Education
This section reviews two types of studies. First, representative samples of three tutoring studies (DePaepe, 1985; Houston-Wilson, Dunn, van der Mars & McCubbin, 1997; Webster, 1987) pairing students with disabilities with typically developing students are reviewed. Second, studies conducted in k-12 setting with typically developing
students are reviewed (Byra & Marks, 1993; Crouch, Ward, & Patrick, 1997; d'Arripe-Longueville et al., 2002; Ernst & Byra, 1998; Goldberger & Gerney, 1986; Goldberger, Gerney, & Chamberlain, 1982; Johnson & Ward, 2001; Ward, Smith, Makasci, & Crouch, 1998).
DePaepe (1985 )
Following the notion that peer tutors can increase classroom academic performance, DePaepe (1985) examined the effects of three least restrictive physical education
environments on the on-task motor skill practice of 30 moderately mentally retarded students, age 5.9 to 12.8, from a large Southwestern part of the United States.
The independent variable included three types of classroom structures into which the participants were randomly assigned: First, peer tutoring (P-T), paired 10 students with moderate mental retardation with 10 typically developing fifth-grade peer tutors. Second, the self-contained setting (S-C), included 10 students with moderate mental retardation. Third, the specific-mainstreamed setting (S-M), involving four separate classes: all classes contained 20 typically developing students, two of the classes contained two students with mental retardation each, and the remaining two classes
contained three students with mental retardation. All of the participants were guided by the teacher, in addition to the peer tutors in the P-T setting, who were to guide their tutee according to the teachers' direction (DePaepe, 1985).
The Academic learning time motor appropriate category in physical education (ALT-PE) served as the dependant variable. A balance unit was taught. The specific skills were sitting balance, kneeling balance, standing balance, elevated standing balance, dynamic floor balance, and dynamic beam balance. Students participated in the balance activity for 6 weeks, during half-hour sessions twice a week (DePaepe, 1985).
Results indicate meaningful difference of ALT-PE for the P-T group over the S-C and the S-M groups. Although a small difference, superiority of the P-T was also
obtained for mean achievements scores of static and dynamic balance. In addition, a significant positive correlation was found between ALT-PE and static balance: greater exposure to ALT-PE was followed by increased ability to perform a static balance (DePaepe, 1985).
DePaepe (1985) notes that the placement of students should be in settings that are less likely to restrict students' progress. For efficient placement, the physical educator should identify the students' needs and establish the environment accordingly.
Furthermore, DePaepe (1985, p. 39) suggests "least restrictive physical education environment should be the class setting that provides the student with ample time for motor development through short-time skill acquisition". Such setting might be the peer tutoring environment, as indicated in this research finding (DePaepe, 1985).
This study was conducted in a suburban elementary, middle, and high school "to investigate the influence of peer tutors on the ALT-PE of moderately and severely mentally handicapped students" (Webster, 1987, p. 394).
The majority of students had mental retardation; some were physically disabled and/or had behavior disorders. Three classes participated in the study (7-14 students in each class): elementary students were to acquire fundamental motor skills and movement concepts, middle-school students were taught skills for playing games such as basketball and softball, and high school students practiced games such as tennis and golf (Webster, 1987).
Three students with mental retardation, who were also identified as needing
individual attention to perform motor skills, were selected (one from each school). Tutors were typically developing peers, who successfully performed all the motor skills used in the adapted physical education (APE) class, and who were from the same site as the handicapped students. The first student was a 9-year-old moderate mentally handicapped boy, tutored by a 5th grade boy. The second student was a 21-year-old severe mentally handicapped man, tutored by a 12th grade girl. The third student was a 19-year-old severe mentally handicapped woman, tutored by an 8th grade girl (Webster, 1987).
The independent variable was peer tutoring with two phases: (a) untrained tutors and (b) same tutors after training in peer tutoring. The dependant variable was motor-appropriate behavior, measured by using the ALT-PE system. Tutors were given
information about the tutee and class activity immediately before it began. After the first level of intervention, tutors received brief individual training and practiced preferred methods for tweaking handicapped learners (Webster, 1987).
Results demonstrated higher ALT-PE during intervention than during baseline. Nevertheless, differences in the amount of ALT-PE were not significant between trained and untrained tutors (Webster, 1987).
Webster (1987) concluded that although percentage of ALT-PE was partly affected by the specific motor activity, it was also affected by the peer tutoring intervention. Thus, all participants had lower scores when left to work alone, without constant attention. This finding supports higher rates of ALT-PE when tutors were used (Webster, 1987), as also mentioned by Depaepe (1985). In addition, the similar results between trained and untrained tutors can be explained in various ways: (a) the training program was ineffective, and (b) it was too brief to reach an extensiveness level which will enable change in a student motor behavior. Although not demonstrating clear differences between the effectiveness of trained as opposed to untrained tutors, this study has a clear social significance. The time moderately to severely mentally handicapped students spend in motor activity can be increased with the assistance of typically developing peers, with minimal investment of time and money (Webster, 1987).
Houston-Wilson et al. (1997)
Houston-Wilson et al. (1997, p. 300) examined "the effect of untrained and trained peer tutors on improving the motor performance of students with developmental disabilities in integrated physical education classes". The six participants (five boys and one girl), age 9 to 11, had mild mental retardation and developmental cognitive and motor delays. The students were in a special education class and participated in physical education, art, and music on a regular basis (Houston-Wilson et al., 1997).
Six typically developing peers (four girls and two boys), age 9 to 11, from the fourth and fifth-grade, served as tutors. They were chosen by the physical education and the classroom teacher according to the following criteria: high skill level ability, good behavior in physical education class, and a desire for participating in the study. During the study, peer tutors participated in their regular physical education class as well as in the physical education class for the students with mental retardation (Houston-Wilson et al., 1997).
The independent variable was the peer tutoring program. Intervention for three students with disabilities included baseline, intervention by untrained tutors and then by trained ones. The remaining three students participated in baseline and trained tutors condition. Peer tutors were trained individually for two 30 minutes sessions. Tutor's training involved appropriate presentation of cues (verbal prompts, modeling, and physical assistance), feedback (general and specific reinforcement), and task analysis of motor skills (handout of five-part breakdown of each skill) so the students with
disabilities would understand what they need to do. Tutors role played with the researcher and completed an exam to verify their acquisition of knowledge during the training. The dependant variable was motor appropriateness of few skills which the participants with disabilities did not master before the beginning of the study: horizontal jump, catch, overhand throw, forehand and sidearm strike (Houston-Wilson et al., 1997).
Results from the two different interventions demonstrated peer tutor's
successfulness in assisting students with disabilities to improve their motor performance, as opposed to the ineffectiveness of the untrained tutors (Houston-Wilson et al., 1997). Houston-Wilson et al. (1997) concluded tutoring is effective when tutors receive
necessary training, related to the target behaviors. These findings further supported DePaepes' (1985) work who found peer tutoring as effective in increasing the ALT-PE of students with disabilities. On the contrary, the meaningful difference between trained peer tutors compared with untrained tutors in increasing ALT, stands in contrast with Webster (1987), who did not find such difference. However, a main conclusion is that elementary-aged students can be taught to be effective tutors for students with disabilities and assist in improving motor performance in a relatively fast and simple manner
(Houston-Wilson et al., 1997). Students with disabilities need supplementary assistance in order to improve their motor ability and to succeed in an integrated physical education class. Thus, and in addition to reduction in school support personnel, peer tutors are a vital force which can provide this additional individual support (Houston-Wilson et al., 1997).
Goldberger et al. (1982)
Goldberger et al. (1982) were investigating the most effective technique to teach physical education. Three established styles of teaching in education were compared to examine their capability of increasing motor skill learning and social skill development. Participants were 96 (48 boys and 48 girls) fifth-graders from a suburban public school in Philadelphia. The majority of the students were white, middle class children, who had no previous experience with the task. The sample was randomly selected from 122
volunteers, and every 16 participants from each gender group were randomly assigned to one of the teaching styles. Hence, three treatment groups (n=32) were created with equal number of boys and girls (Goldberger et al., 1982).
The three different teaching styles (B, C, and E) from Mosston’s (1981) spectrum served as the independent variable. In style B, the task style, the teacher designs tasks which provides many practice trials for the students hence, ample time-on-task practice. Style C involves dyads in which one student performs' the teachers' task while the other provides feedback based on the teacher's established criteria. Roles then are reciprocated. In style E, it is the learners' responsibility to check their own work as well as to decide on the tasks' level of difficulty. The teacher should offer ample alternative levels for the same task, so each learner could choose the most suitable level for him or her
(Goldberger et al., 1982).
One dependant variable was learning a hockey accuracy task. Students needed to shoot a puck into the target area from a fixed distance, while using their preferred hand. The second dependant variable was students' social behavior. Participants in style B and C were then paired within their groups with the same gender partner, but not with their original partner, and were asked to perform the same hockey task with their non-dominant hand. Peers were asked to assist their partner. The social interactions were recoded and coded (Goldberger et al., 1982).
Results indicated all teaching styles were effective in promoting student learning, with no significant difference among the three treatments. Although psychomotor results were almost equal for all treatments, the C style group reached these same achievements after performing only half the number of the actual performance trials. During the other half students served as observers which can be considered as a mental practice
(Goldberger et al., 1982). Social behavior results indicated that students under peer tutoring (style C), in comparison to the B style group, exhibited more empathy, praise
and encouragement, and more effective and more often feedback. Furthermore, these students requested feedback from their partners more often (Goldberger et al., 1982). Goldberger et al. (1982) concluded all three styles employed in this study are equally appropriate for increasing low psychomotor task learning. However, in terms of social behavior, style C was found to positively enhance social development through giving and receiving feedback from a peer. One-to-one peer tutoring, employing immediate feedback and conducted in an equal time period like other teaching styles seems as an ideal condition for learning. Not only does it not impede the partners' level of learning, it has profound benefit to social skill enhancement. Goldberger et al. (1982) suggest using reciprocal peer tutoring when immediate feedback is required and when social interaction is one of the main goals of instruction.
Goldberger and Gerney (1986)
This study investigated the effects of Mosston’s (1981) teaching styles B, C, and E on motor skill acquisition. It was a re-examination following a previous study conducted by Goldberger et al. (1982). In addition, it was investigated whether those effects vary according to the participants' level of aptitude, gender and SES (Goldberger & Gerney, 1986).
Participants were 328 (166 girls and 162 boys) fifth-graders from two elementary schools in Philadelphia. Low SES students attended the inner-city school, while high SES students from an affluent suburban community attended the other one. Random
assignment was used to divide students to the various treatment groups or to the control group (Goldberger & Gerney, 1986).
The dependant variable was, similar to Goldberger et al. (1982) study, the acquisition of hockey accuracy task. Students were asked to slide a rubber disk with a hockey stick, to a specific distant target (Goldberger & Gerney, 1986).
The independent variable was the teaching style. Similarly to Goldberger et al. (1982) study, the most current and common teaching styles in classrooms were employed in this investigation. In each style group, students were paired with a same-gender partner, were trained and tested during a single 90 minutes session. In style B, the teacher presents the task with abundant time for practice and also provides feedback. Students practiced two sets of 30-trials each. In style C, students were paired; tutors provided the feedback based on the teachers' criteria while the tutee is performed the task. Each student had three actual practice trails. In style E, the teacher provided the task with ample alternatives of difficulty levels, while the students were engaged in self-assessment. Students could take between 50-90 practice trials, determine the distance and change the level of difficulty during the practice (Goldberger & Gerney, 1986).
Though all treatments increased learning, posttest results identified styles B and E as more significantly effective than style C in improving motor performance. Style B was more valuable for average aptitude children while style E was more effective for those with high or low aptitude for learning motor skills. No significant difference was found between each of the treatments and SES levels or gender (Goldberger & Gerney, 1986). Goldberger and Gerney (1986) concluded that style B is an efficient strategy for teaching average children, while style E would be more appropriate for exceptional students, who are not within the average range of aptitude.
This study examined the effects of two different learner-pairing techniques on feedbacks' frequency and comfort level of providing and receiving feedback (Byra & Marks, 1993). Participants were 32 volunteer students (18 girls and 14 boys), age 9-12 years-old, from three elementary physical education classes. Students were fourth-graders (n=12), fifth-graders (n=10), and sixth-graders (n=10), "who had some previous
experience with peer tutoring in the classroom and gymnasium" (Byra & Marks, 1993, p. 289).
A reciprocal style of teaching was employed in this study. Two lessons of 25 minutes each were conducted. Content included one soccer juggling lesson and one soccer dribbling lesson. Students were paired for each lesson and a preservice teacher was randomly assigned for each pair. Students were informed with the purpose of the instruction style and with the various roles (observer, doer, and the preservice teacher). While the doer performed the task, the observer provided relevant feedback, using the teachers' criteria sheet. Observer and doer roles were reciprocal, and students were to decide who would take which role first (Byra & Marks, 1993).
The pairing methods, by ability and by companionship, served as independent variables. Students were randomly matched into pairs of similar ability (high or low) during one lesson and into dissimilar ability pairs in the other lesson. Random assignment was also used for pairing the students with non-acquaintances during one lesson, while they were paired with a friend during the other lesson. Testing yielded the ability levels, and learners' classification of their classmates yielded the companionship level (Byra & Marks, 1993).
