June 2015
Feasibility Study
To determine the feasibility of implementing a mental
mathematics cross-age peer tuition intervention across the
transition boundary between primary and secondary schools.
Wayne Harrison
1+ 3 PhD Student Durham University
1
June 2015
A Feasibility Study: To determine the feasibility of implementing a mental mathematics cross-age
peer tuition intervention across the transition boundary between primary and secondary schools.
There is a world-wide interest into improving the numeracy skills of children. The evidence of the
impact of peer tuition as an effective strategy is highlighted as part of the teaching and learning
toolkit developed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). The benefits are apparent for
both the tutor and tutee, particularly in cross-age tutoring. However, it is not feasible for schools to
deliver cross-age peer tuition as a transition strategy between different phases of schools, such as
primary into secondary.
This is the first worldwide pilot trial of online cross-age peer tuition involving Year 7 pupil’s peer
tutoring Year 5 pupils in group sizes 1:1, 1:2 and 1:4. Current evidence for online delivery model is
less well-developed, therefore this study will contribute to the evidence base of online learning and
peer tuition. The design will be a pilot of a Randomised Controlled Trial, investigating the feasibility
of implementing the intervention between schools.
The findings of the study will inform a sponsored PhD at Durham University, providing schools
with a flexible and cost effective intervention strategy. Online cross-age peer tuition has the
potential to improve academic attainment, ease the transition between school phases and develop
the ‘softer’ skills such as communicating effectively with peers, confidence in mathematics and
responsibility in teaching fellow peers.
Background Evidence
Tutoring to improve attainment is a recognised strategy to help narrow the gap between pupils from
less affluent backgrounds and their peers. One-to-one tuition is one of the most reliable forms of
intervention and with consistent positive impact (Jun et al. 2010; Higgins et al. 2013). An early metaanalysis of 65 school tutoring programs showed improvement on academic performance and
attitudes of tutored students compared with controls (Cohen et al. 1982) with an effect size (ES) of
0.4, indicating that tutored students made, on average, an extra five months progress. A more
recent meta-analysis of the impact of supplementary adult support for one-to-one reading
interventions also found that trained volunteers and college students were highly effective (Elbaum,
2000). It also found that pupils tutored by college students made the largest gains and, the more
intense the programme, the greater the effects (Elbaum, 2000). More recently, a review of
alternative approaches for struggling readers concluded that tutoring was very effective in improving
performance (Slavin et al. 2011). A major drawback is the cost of providing tutoring to all students
who may benefit. The issues of cost-effectiveness and efficacy of one-to-one programmes have been
2
June 2015
raised by a number of researchers (Hiebert 1994; Shanahan 1998; Grossen, Coulter & Ruggles 1997;
Higgins et al. 2013).
The evidence for the benefits of peer-tutoring by fellow students is also strong. A meta-analysis
of tutoring by adolescents indicated benefits, notably for cross-age tutoring, in reading (Jun et al.
2010). A positive effect was also found for children who serve as tutors, as they gained greater
understanding and more positive attitudes (Cowen et al. 1982; Tymms et al. 2011). However, only
recently has a large-scale RCT been completed in the UK in Fife, focusing on peer-tutoring in
mathematics, demonstrating the potential of cross-age tutoring in the UK (Topping et al. 2011;
Tymms et al. 2011).
The EEF toolkit (Higgins et al. 2013) highlights peer-tutoring as a potential high impact
intervention1, providing benefits to both the tutor and tutee. On the basis of this evidence, the EEF
awarded £750,000 to Durham University in 2011 to develop and implement a Shared Maths
programme where older primary school pupils tutor younger ones in mathematics. The aim of this
research is therefore to build on the research underpinning the EEF Toolkit (Higgins et al. 2013) and
specifically on the ESRC Knowledge Transfer partnership research in Fife (Tymms et al. 2011) and the
current EEF-funded Durham Shared Maths.
Research indicates that both one-to-one support and peer-tutoring can be effective with other
research indicating that online tuition can be as effective as face to face (Means et al. 2009;
Thurston et al. 2009). However, few research studies of the effectiveness of online learning for
school-aged children meet the rigorous inclusion criteria for a meta-analysis. Between 1994-2008
only five published studies met the criteria. These studies indicated students in online conditions
exceeded those of students receiving face-to-face instruction, (average ES of +0.20: Means et al.
2009). Online tuition alters the dynamics of the interactions between the tutor and tutee, with some
speculation that it allows tutees to become more involved in their learning and to initiate more
questions than face-to-face (Jones et al. 2006).
The potential benefits of cross-age peer tuition as a strategy to complement classroom teaching
are based on a robust evidence base (EEF, 2015), yet is often overlooked by schools and rarely used
between transition between primary and secondary schools. Multiple reasons exist in schools for
not using this effective strategy, these include: completing detailed paperwork for any visits outside
the school premises, arranging and cost of transport, organising rooms (often rescheduling other
classes), time taken to travel to and from the secondary school and repeating this each week if they
intervention lasted 6 weeks. It is also important to note that a secondary school often has 5 or more
feeder primary schools, requiring the intervention to be offered to each school creating a logistical
1
Equivalent to 1 GCSE grade
3
June 2015
nightmare. Therefore, traditional cross-age peer tuition between Year 7 and Year 5 pupils is not
feasible.
The main intention of this proposed study is to explore whether one-to-two or one-to-many
online peer-tutoring2 can be as effective as one-to-one tuition online. If one-to-many (1:4) can be as
effective as one-to-one in online learning, secondary schools can use small groups of peer tutors to
deliver a flexible transition intervention eliminating the issues previously discussed. The current
study adds to the evidence-base in educational research as no previous studies have researched
synchronous online cross-age peer tuition. The study will be used to inform an ESRC funded PhD
study at Durham University, collaborating with the EEF to develop an aggregated trials model to
create an online peer tuition evidence base for schools to use.
Research question
The objective of the study is to determine the feasibility of implementing a mental mathematics
cross-age peer tuition intervention across the transition boundary between primary and secondary
schools. The principle research questions are:
1) Is online cross-age peer tuition feasible as a transition intervention between primary and
secondary schools?
2) Does one-to-two online cross-age peer-tutoring produce equivalent effects in mathematics
attainment3 compared with online one-to-one tuition?
3) Does one-to-many online cross-age peer-tutoring produce equivalent effects in mathematics
attainment2 as compared with one-to-one or one-to-two online tuition?
Trial Design
The design for the feasibility study is a randomised controlled trial in which 38 pupils will participate.
The Year 7 pupils will be randomised, controlling for any unknown hidden biases when conducting
the final analyses. The Year 5 pupils will use blocked randomisation using pre-test InCAS data
ensuring the active control and two comparator groups are balanced for mental arithmetic ability.
This design is ethical as all pupils are participating in the intervention, with only the group size
changing in the experimental design. The use of an active control, similar to an RCT for the efficacy
2
Online peer tutoring refers to synchronous delivery between peer tutor and tutee.
Mathematics attainment is defined as mental arithmetic ability as measured by CEM InCAS online
assessments.
3
4
June 2015
of Fast ForWord Language intervention (Gillam et al. 2008) ensured all pupils were involved in using
the technology for the delivery. If a non-active control is used, an alternative explanation for an
increase in attainment could be attributed to the use of technology.
The trial will be designed, conducted and reported to CONSORT standards (Altman et al. 2011),
minimising all potential threats to internal validity, such as selection bias and post randomisation
bias (Cook & Campbell, 1969; Torgerson, 2008).
Ethical Review
Schools will inform parents of the pupils participating about the study with a parental information
letter. Included will be an opt-out letter allowing parents the opportunity to withdraw their child’s
data at any point in the study. Approval from Durham University Ethics Committee was sought
before commencing the project.
Recruitment
The schools targeted for this trial are those with a high proportion of pupils eligible for free school
meals and are located in the North East (logistical reason for the process evaluation). All
participating schools will provide parents with information and the opportunity to opt-out at any
stage of the research.
Eligibility
The system of ‘levels’ previously used to report children’s attainment and progress has been
removed from September 2014, as part of reforms to the National Curriculum (Department of
Education, 2014). However, inclusion and exclusion criteria previously used reference levels to
determine eligibility in educational trials. A relative criterion, depending on each individual school
assessment – “above expected”, “expected” and “below expected” progress will be used in this
study. Consistency between individual schools will be a limitation; however no alternative national
framework is available. The following inclusion criteria used in the study are:
School inclusion criteria: Schools are eligible to take part in the trial if they agree to all trial
procedures4, including provision of pupil data, informing parents, randomisation and
implementation of the intervention.
4
Agreement to participate form can be found in appendix 1.2
5
June 2015
Pupil inclusion criteria: Primary pupils eligible for the intervention will be either “below expected”
or “expected” for progress in Mathematics by the end of Year 5, based on teacher assessments.
Secondary pupils selected by schools who are “below expected” progress at Key Stage 3
Mathematics.
Intervention
The Year 7 peer tutors would receive a 30 minute online training session on how to use the Tute
virtual platform and strategies to use in peer tutoring in week one of the programme. A series of
four mental arithmetic lessons would be delivered by the Year 7 pupils, with their teacher providing
these materials a week in advance to become familiar with the content that they would deliver. The
sessions are 30 minutes in duration with the opportunity for pupils to work together on the virtual
platform to solve mental arithmetic problems. The Year 7 pupils had the ability to mute/unmute
Year 5 pupils; this would be used in the 1:4 group as a strategy for controlling the dialogue between
the group members.
Outcomes
InCAS online assessment would be the main test used to determine mental arithmetic outcomes.
The mental arithmetic assessment will be administrated to the pupils in the pre- post assessments,
online therefore technically blinded from the researcher, reducing a potential source of bias. InCAS
is designed to measure pupils’ performance in primary school and has been used extensively in
educational research. The InCAS assessment system uses an adaptive algorithm matching questions
to the ability of each individual pupil and has a Coefficient Alpha exceeding .90 for reliability (CEM,
2012).
Sample size
Three secondary schools were approached to participate in this study, with each school identifying a
feeder primary school to jointly participate. All feeder primary schools approached accepted,
however one secondary school did not proceed after the initial meeting due to long term staff
absences in their Mathematics department. The sample involved two secondary schools and two
primary schools, with 14 Year 7 peer tutors and 24 Year 5 tutees, with a total of 38 pupils involved.
This is a feasibility study and will be significantly under powered due to the sample size,
restricting the inferences made regarding the effectiveness of different group sizes. In the full PhD
study power calculations will be completed, however resources will be a limitation. In order to
develop a sufficiently large enough sample size an aggregated trials model similar to the accelerated
6
June 2015
reader EEF trial (Gorard, 2015) will be used. Ideally, a stratified random selection of schools based
on Free School Meals, Region and Ofsted rating would be used to strengthen external validity.
Randomisation
Randomisation is blinded to prevent selection bias as a recent systematic review of trials reported
studies using non-blinded assessors generated more optimistic effect estimates than blinded
assessors (Hrobjartsson et al. 2012). Randomisation will be performed at an individual level in each
school participating in the study and carried out by an independent person.5
Simple randomisation will be used with the 7 peer tutors in each secondary school participating
in the study, with 4 pupils assigned to 1:1 group, 2 pupils into 1:2 group and 1 pupil into the 1:4
group. Simple randomisation of the peer tutors means the only difference between the two groups
is the group size as all other characteristics are distributed evenly across the two groups (Torgerson
& Torgerson, 2001).
In each primary school, the pupils would be ranked in order of performance using InCAS mental
arithmetic pre-test (1 equating to best and 12 the least) and divided into groups of 3. A random
number generator will be used to select one of each triplet, starting with 1, 2 and 3 and allocated
into the group sizes 1:1, 1:2 and 1:4. This process would be repeated for blocks 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8, 9,
then finally 10, 11, 12. Through blocking the performance ability as indicated by the InCAS preassessment on mental arithmetic performance this will result in an equal distribution across the
groups.
Process Evaluation
In order to establish if the intervention is feasible, all peer tuition sessions were observed by the
researcher on site at the participating secondary schools. Focus groups and semi-structured
interviews were used to understand pupil and teacher perspectives on the success of the study.
5
A qualified teacher not involved in the study performed the randomisation, after performing a trial run under
the supervision of the author of this study to ensure the process was completed correctly.
7
June 2015
Trial diagram6
6
Recruitment targeted 3 secondary schools in the North East of England, each approaching a feeder primary
school to participate. One school initially agreed to participate but withdrew due to long term staff absence in
their Mathematics department, resulting in a sample of 4 schools in the feasibility study.
8
June 2015
Analysis
Research question 1: Is online cross-age peer tuition feasible as a transition intervention between
primary and secondary schools?
A thematic analysis was completed using Nvivo software to analyse the pupil focus groups and
teacher interview transcripts.
The views of the pupils
The researcher conducted post intervention focus groups with all the pupils participating as peer
tutors and tutees. The main themes from the analysis showed a positive learning experience for
both the tutor and tutee and the importance of communication skills during the project.
Year 7 peer tutor reported:
The skill I learned most was patience…. I could easily work out the problems but the year 5
pupil did not get it. I had to think of different ways to explain it until they got it. I now know
how my teacher feels when trying to explain something to me.
Others observed:
I really enjoyed the opportunity to teach pupils from my old primary school. Teaching
someone else has helped me with my maths.
Online is great as it is just like talking to my friends on my xbox, but I am talking maths.
The tutoring has helped me learn how to communicate with others, as when I am older I will
need to learn to talk over the internet as most things will use this I think.
Year 5 pupils also responded positively. Year 5 pupils reported:
I loved talking to the Year 7 pupils about Maths; it has helped me learn how to add fractions
together.
I feel more confident talking online rather than if I was in the same room (referring to face to
face) as I am not as shy so I ask more questions.
It was really good making friends with pupils from the secondary school, I now know
someone from the big school.
I usually find maths boring but it was great learning from other kids, as I find it easier to
understand it when they explain something.
9
June 2015
Views of teachers
The responses from the teachers involved were positive with the main themes of over-coming
logistical barriers, communication skills and on task behaviour emerging.
The over-coming logistical barriers are an important theme. A Year 5 teacher commented:
We could not run a project like this if it was not online, as it would not be feasible. In order
to deliver a 5 week cross-age peer tuition project with secondary and primary students I
would need to complete a huge amount of paperwork (reference to evolve health & safety),
arrange transport to and from the secondary school, the time taken to travel and finding
rooms available for the tuition. It would be a logistical nightmare!
These comments were repeated from secondary school teachers, with one teacher commenting:
We could not deliver a programme like this due to the logistics involved, as if we organise
this for one primary school we would have to offer this to our other five feeder primary
schools.
The second theme of communication skills was also seen as important by the teachers involved:
The project allowed the pupils to develop their communication skills, as this is just as
important as the maths skills that they are developing. You can see how much pupil A (pupil
name removed) improved from the first week to the last.
An interesting theme emerging from the analysis was the behaviour of the pupils participating. A
Year 5 teacher commented:
The amount of off task behaviour was minimal over the 5 weeks, with all the pupils on task
with the talk based on the problems they were working on. Even the most challenging child
in terms of behaviour responded well to the intervention. Initially they refused to participate
in week 1 but after they observed what the other pupils were doing they asked to take part
in the second week.
Research question 2: Does one-to-two online cross-age peer-tutoring produce equivalent effects in
mathematics attainment7 compared with online one-to-one tuition?
The R statistical software was used to analyse the data from the trial (version 3.2.1). A linear mixedeffects model with school (random) and pre / post-test data as fixed effects. The Hedges g effect size
calculated 0.31 (CI- 0.61 – 1.23) with intra-class correlation 0.16. The total variance was used as a
7
Mathematics attainment is defined as mental arithmetic ability as measured by CEM InCAS online
assessments.
10
June 2015
conservative measure as both within and between resulted in effect sizes of 0.34 (CI -0.66 – 1.35)
and 1.34 (CI -8.31 – 11).
Research question 3: Does one-to-many online cross-age peer-tutoring produce equivalent effects in
mathematics attainment2 as compared with one-to-one or one-to-two online tuition?
The R statistical software was used to analyse the data from the trial (version 3.2.1). A linear mixedeffects model with school (random) and pre / post-test data as fixed effects. The Hedges g effect size
calculated -0.08 (CI -1.18 – 1.01) with intra-class correlation 0.35. The total variance was used as a
conservative measure as both within and between resulted in effect sizes of -.11 (CI -1.47 – 1.25)
and -0.19 (CI -7.66 – 7.27).
Conclusions
Overall, as a test of concept the online cross-age peer tuition must be considered a success. The
project has demonstrated the feasibility of implementing a cross-age peer tuition project across the
transition boundary between primary and secondary schools. The thematic analysis of the focus
groups and semi-structured interviews clearly showed positive views towards the concept, as the
comments in the analysis demonstrate. The pilot has been successful in identifying the practical
issues involved in implementing a cross-age peer tuition project, as these will be implemented in the
next part of the research.
The analysis of the data shows a moderate effect size of the 1:2 compared to the 1:1 of 0.31,
whereas 1:4 compared to 1:1 results in a slightly negative effect size of -.008. However, a limitation
of the study is the small sample size, meaning the external validity is weak. As the sample is small,
with the study only focusing on mental arithmetic mathematical ability and the year groups 5 and 7,
further research is required in order to generalise these findings to the larger school population.
As stated above, this pilot has been successful in demonstrating that the concept is feasible. It is
therefore appropriate to move to the next stage of the research and development as part of a PhD
at Durham University. In order to increase the sample size, an aggregated trials model will be used
over a two year period to create a sample sufficiently powered to allow inferences to be made from
the evidence collected.
11
June 2015
References
Ainsworth, A., Hewitt, C.E., Higgins, S., Wiggins, A., Torgerson, D., Torgerson, C. (2014). Sources of
Bias in outcome assessment in randomised controlled trials: a case study. Educational
research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice. Vol. 21 (1), 3 – 14.
Arinto, P. B. (2013). A Framework for Developing Competencies in Open and Distance Learning. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 14, No. 1, p 167 - 185.
Barhart, M.K. (2011). The Impact of Participation in Supplemental Educational Services (SES) on
Student Achievement: 2009 -10. Los Angeles Unified School District, Publication No.379
Beal, C., & Woolf, B. P. (2007). Online Tutoring for Math Achievement Testing: A Controlled
Evaluation. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Vol. 6, No. 1, p 43-54.
CEM. (2015). Centre For Evaluation and Monitoring, Retrieved on 7th June 2015:
http://www.cem.org/primary
Chappell, S., & Hager, J. (2010). Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Provision of No Child Left
Behind: A Synthesis of Provider Effects. The Centre for Educational Partnerships (TCEP).
Cohen, P.A., & Kulik J.A. (1982). Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-Analysis of findings.
American Educational Research Journal, Vol 19, No.2, p 237 – 248.
Department for Education (2014). National curriculum and assessment from September 2014:
Information for schools. Retrieved on 1st June 2015:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/358070/N
C_assessment_quals_factsheet_Sept_update.pdf
Elbaum, B., & Moody, S.W. (2000). How Effective are One-to-One Tutoring Programs in Reading for
Elementary Students at Risk for Reading Failure? A Meta-Analysis of the Intervention
Research. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 92, No.4, p 605 – 619.
Fantuzzo, J. W., & Grayson, N. (1990). An Evaluation of Reciprocal Peer Tutoring Across Elementary
School Setting. The Journal of School Psychology, p 309 – 322.
Garrison, R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and practice of
distance education. Journal of Distance Education, Vol 2, p 93 – 104.
Gillam, R.B., Loeb, D.F., Hoffman, L.M., Bohman, T., Thibodeau, L., Widen, J., Brandel, J., Friel-Patti, S.
(2008). The Efficacy of Fast ForWord language Intervention in School-Age Children With Language
Impairment: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and hearing Research.
Vol.51, 97 -119.
12
June 2015
Ginsbury-Block, M. D., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Review of social, Self-Concept, and
Behavioural Outcomes of Peer-Assisted Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 98,
No. 4, p 732 – 749.
Gorard, S. (2013). Research design: Creating Robust Approaches for the Social Sciences. Sage
Publications.
Gorard, S. (2015). Accelerated Reader EEF Evaluation. Retrieved on 2nd June:
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/Accelerated_Reader_(Final).p
df
Grossen, B., & Ruggles, B. (1997). Reading Recovery: An evaluation of benefits and costs (online).
Hiebert, E. H. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: what difference does it make to an age
cohort? Educational Researcher, Vol. 23, p 15- 25.
Higgins, S., & Coe, R. (2013). The Sutton Trust-Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and
learning Toolkit. London: Education Endowment Foundation.
Hrobjartsson, A., Thomsen, A.S., Emanuelsson, F., Tendal, B., Hilden, J., Boutron, I., Ravaud, P.,
Brorson, S. (2012) Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes:
systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome measures. British
Medical Journal, 344: e1119.
Ismail, H. N., & Alexander, J. M. (2005). Learning with Scripted and Nonscripted Peer-Tutoring
Sessions: The Malaysian Context. The Journal of educational Research, Vol. 99, No. 2, p 67 –
77.
Jones, R.H., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring
sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, p 1 – 23.
Jun, S.W., & Cumming, A. (2010). Tutoring Adolescents in Literacy: A Meta-Analysis. McGill Journal of
Education, Vol 45, No 2.
King, A. (1998). Transactive Peer Tutoring: Distributing Cognition and Metacognition. Educational
Psychology Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, p 57 – 74.
Laurillard, D. (2008). Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation. Journal of
Philosophy of education, 42(3-4).
Li, T., & Zhang, L. (2010). Cash Incentives, peer-tutoring, and Parental Involvement: A Study of Three
Educational Inputs in a Randomised Field Experiment in China. Peking University, HSBC
Business School.
McBrien, J. L., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual Spaces: Employing a Synchronous Online Classroom to
Facilitate Student Engagement in Online Learning. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 10, No. 3, p 1 - 17.
13
June 2015
McLuckie, J., & Topping, K. J. (2010). Transferrable skills for online peer learning. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher education, Vol 29, No 5.
Means, B., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence Based Practices in Online Learning. A MetaAnalysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S Department of education, Office of
planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Revised September 2010.
Person, N. K., & Graesser, A. G. (1999). Evolution of discourse during cross-age tutoring. Cognitive
perspectives on peer learning, p 69-86.
Ritter, G.W., & Albin, G.R. (2009). Programs for Elementary and Middle school Students: A metaAnalysis. Review of Educational Research, Vol 79, No1, p 3-38.
Rohrbeck, C. A., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-Assisted Learning Interventions with Elementary School
Students: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95, No. 2, p 240 –
257.
Shanaham, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. Review of Research
in Education, Vol 23, p 217- 234.
Sharpley, A. M., & Sharpley, C. F. (1981). Peer-tutoring: A review of literature. Collected Original
Resources in Education, Vol, 5, No.3.
Shea, P., & Tseng, C.H. (2013). Online learner Self-Regulation: Learning Presence Viewed through
Quantitative Content and Social Network Analysis. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, Vol. 14, No. 3, p 428 – 461.
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best evidence
synthesis. Educational Research Review, Vol 6, p 1 – 26.
Tanner, E., & Collingwood, A. (2011). Evaluation of Every Child a Reader (ECaR). Research Report DFE
– RR114.
Thurston, A., Duran, D., Cunningham, E., Blanch, S., & Topping, K. (2009). International on-line
reciprocal peer-tutoring to promote modern language development in primary schools.
Computers & Education, 53(2), 462-472.
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in Peer Learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), p 631-645.
Topping, K. J., & Conlin, N. (2011). Implementation integrity in peer-tutoring of mathematics.
Educational Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 5, p 575-593.
Topping, K. J., & Conlin, N. (2011). Outcomes in randomised controlled trial of mathematics tutoring.
Educational Research, Vol. 53, No. 1, p 51 – 63.
Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer assisted learning.
Torgerson, C. J. & Torgerson, D. J. (2001). The need for randomised controlled trials in educational
research. British Journal of Educational Studies, 49 (3), 316-329.
14
June 2015
Tymms, P., & Miller, D. (2011). Improving attainment across a whole district: school reform through
peer-tutoring in a randomised controlled trial. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, Vol. 22, No. 3, p 265 – 289.
Wasik, B.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing Early Reading Failure with One-to-One Tutoring: A
Review of Five Programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28/2.
15