The Effectiveness of Peer Tutoring in Further and Higher Education: A Typology and Review
of the Literature
Author(s): K. J. Topping
Source: Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Oct., 1996), pp. 321-345
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448075 .
Accessed: 14/01/2011 16:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher Education.
http://www.jstor.org
Higher Education 32: 321-345, 1996.
? 1996 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printedin the Netherlands.
321
The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher
education: A typology and review of the literature
K.J.TOPPING
Centrefor PairedLearning,PsychologyDepartment,Universityof Dundee, Dundee DDI
4HN, Scotland
Abstract. Quality,outcomesandcost-effectivenessof methodsof teachingand learningin colleges and universitiesare being scrutinisedmore closely. The increasinguse of peer tutoring
in this context necessitates a clear definitionand typology, which are outlined. The theoretical advantagesof peer tutoringare discussed and the researchon peer tutoring in schools
brieflyconsidered.The substantialexisting researchon the effectiveness of the manydifferent
types and formatsof peer tutoringwithin colleges and universitiesis then reviewed. Much is
already known about the effectiveness of some types of peer tutoringand this merits wider
disseminationto practitioners.Directionsfor futureresearchare indicated.
Researchonteachingandlearninginfurtherandhighereducationis muchless
voluminousthanthaton teachingandlearningin schools.Whiletherehave
beena numberof booksonthetopicof adultlearning(e.g.Rogers1977,Lovell
1980,Gibbs1981,Tight1983,Brookfield1983,EntwistleandRamsden1983,
MartonHounsellandEntwistle1984,Ramsden1986,RichardsonEysenck
andPiper1987,MerriamandCaffarella1991,Laurillard1993, Sutherland
1996),boththe quantityandqualityof researchin this areais surprisingly
limited,consideringthe vastresourcesexpendedon thetertiarysector.
of teachingandlearningin the
However,thequalityandcost-effectiveness
sectorare increasinglyunderthe microscope.Therehas long beenconcern
thattraditional
curricula,deliveredandassessedin traditional
ways,promote
a surfaceapproachto learningratherthana deeporevena strategicapproach
(Entwistle1992).Teachingqualityassessmentexercisesconsistentlyresultin
forfailingtopromotethedevelopment
of transferable
criticismof departments
skillsin theirstudents(Barnett1992,Ellis 1993).At thesametime,increased
studentnumberscoupledwithreducedresourceshaveoftenresultedin larger
class sizes, thusencouraginga reversionto a traditionallecturingstyle of
deliveryanda reductionin smallgroupandtutorialcontact- in short,less
interactive
teachingandlearing.
to improveteachingqualitywhile doingmorewith
Thedualrequirement
less' has recentlyincreasedinterestin peer tutoringin higherand further
education.However,it wouldbe unwiseto seize upon peer tutoringas a
and instantpanacea.Differentformatsof peer
universal,undifferentiated
322
tutoringhavebeen the subjectof researchof differingquantityandquality,
withvariousoutcomes.
Definitionsand typology
Peertutoringis a veryoldpractice,traceablebackat leastas faras theancient
Greeks.Archaicdefinitionsof peer tutoringperceivedthe peer tutoras a
surrogateteacher,in a linearmodelof the transmissionof knowledge,from
teacherto tutorto tutee.Later,it wasrealisedthatthepeertutoringinteraction
was qualitativelydifferentfrom thatbetweena teacherand a student,and
involveddifferentadvantagesanddisadvantages.
At this point of development,a definitionmighthave been: 'moreable
studentshelpingless able studentsto learnin co-operativeworkingpairs
or small groupscarefullyorganisedby a professionalteacher'.However,
as developmentandresearchin differentformatsof peertutoringproceeded
apaceinmorerecentyears,itbecameclearthatpeertutoringis notnecessarily
only abouttransmissionfromthe moreable andexperienced(who already
have the knowledgeand skills) to the less able (who have yet to acquire
them).As peertutoringhasdeveloped,definingit hasbecomemoredifficult,
anda currentdefinitionseems so broadas to be ratherbland:'peoplefrom
similarsocialgroupingswhoarenotprofessionalteachershelpingeachother
to learnandlearningthemselvesby teaching'.However,thisdefinitiondoes
includereferenceto thegainsaccruingfromthetutoringprocessto thetutor
- increasingly,
peertutoringprojectstargetgainsfor bothtutorsandtutees.
Peertutoringis characterised
by specificroletaking:at anypointsomeone
has the job of tutorwhile the other(s)are in role as tutee(s).Peertutoring
content.Projectsusuallyalso outline
typicallyhas highfocuson curriculum
forinteraction,
in whichtheparticipants
arelikelyto
quitespecificprocedures
havetrainingwhichis specificorgenericorboth.Inaddition,theirinteraction
may be guidedby the provisionof structuredmaterials,amongstwhicha
degreeof studentchoicemaybe available.
A typologyof peertutoringcouldincludeten dimensions:
1. Curriculum
Content- whichmay be knowledgeor skills orientated,or
a combination.The scopeof peertutoringis verywideandprojectsare
in virtuallyeveryimaginablesubject.
reportedin the literature
2. ContactConstellation- some projectsoperatewith one tutorworking
witha groupof tutees,butthe size of groupcan varyfromtwoto thirty
or more. Sometimestwo tutorstake a groupof tuteestogether.Less
andmoreintensive,is peertutoringin pairs(dyads).
traditional,
3. Yearof Study- tutorsandtuteesmaybe fromthesameordifferentyears
of study.
323
4. Ability- while manyprojectsoperateon a cross-abilitybasis (even if
they aresame-year),thereis increasinginterestin same-abilitytutoring
(wherethetutorhassuperiormasteryof only a verysmallportionof the
curriculum,or a pairareof equalabilitybutworkingtowardsa shared,
deeperandhopefullycorrectunderstanding).
5. Role Continuity- especiallyin same-abilitytutoring,the roles of tutor
Structured
andtuteeneednotbepermanent.
switchingof rolesatstrategic
canhavetheadvantage
of involvinggreater
moments(reciprocal
tutoring)
noveltyanda widerboostto self-esteem,in thatall participants
get to be
tutors.
6. Place- Peertutoringmayvaryenormouslyin locationof operation.
7. Time - peer tutoringmay be scheduledin regularclass contacttime,
outsideof this, or in a combinationof both,dependingon the extentto
or supplementary.
whichit is substitutional
8. TuteeCharacteristics projectsmay be for all studentsor a targeted
subgroup,e.g. the especiallyable or gifted,thoseconsideredat risk of
failureor dropout,andthosefromethnic,religious
under-achievement,
andotherminorities.
- thetraditional
9. TutorCharacteristics
assumptionwas thattutorsshould
be the 'best students'(i.e. those most like the professionalteachers).
However,verylargedifferentialsin abilitycan proveunder-stimulating
forthetutor.If tutorsarestudentswhoaremerelyaverage(orevenless),
bothtutorandtuteeshouldfindsome cognitivechallengein theirjoint
activities(e.g. Fantuzzo,DimeffandFox 1989).Althoughtuteegainmay
notbe so great,theaggregategainof bothcombinedmaybegreater.Many
projectsin schoolshavedeployedstudentswithlearningandbehaviour
difficultiesas tutors,to thebenefitof the tutorsthemselves(Scruggsand
Osguthorpe1986,AshmanandElkins1990).
10. Objectives- projectsmay targetintellectualgains, formalacademic
achievement,affectiveandattitudinal
gains,socialandemotionalgains,
self imageand self conceptgains,or any combination.Organisational
objectivesmightincludereducingdropout,increasingaccess,etc.
Theoreticaladvantagesof peer tutoring
The cognitiveprocessesinvolvedin peer tutoringhave been exploredby
variouswritersoverthe years,manyof whomemphasisedthe valueof the
andquestioning(e.g. Gartner,Kohlerand Riessman
inherentverbalisation
1971, DurlingandSchick 1976,BarghandSchul 1980, Webb1982, Foot,
Shute,MorganandBarron1990,Forman1994).A neo-Piagetian
interpretation of individualdevelopment
throughthe cognitiveconflictandchallenge
324
involvedin manyformsof peer assistedlearningis offeredby Doise and
Mugny(1984).However,peertutoringis morefullyunderstoodthroughthe
view of cogsocial interactionist
(or socio-culturalor socialconstructivist)
nitivedevelopment.Supported(or 'scaffolded')explorationthroughsocial
andcognitiveinteractionwith a moreexperiencedpeerin relationto a task
of a level of difficultywithinthe tutee's 'zone of proximaldevelopment'
remainsa theoreticalcornerstoneof peerassistedlearning(Vygotsky1978).
This themehas beenfurtherdevelopedby BarbaraRogoff(1990)underthe
in thinking'.
labelof 'apprenticeship
Peer tutoringis often promotedon the groundsthat,for the tutors,it is
'Learningby Teaching'.This view is expandedin the old saying 'to teach
is to learntwice'. Sternberg's
iden(1985)theoryof intelligentperformance
tifies componentswhichmightbe enhancedduringpeertutoring(Hartman
1990):the meta-cognitiveskills of planning,monitoringandevaluatingand
the associateduse of declarative,proceduralandcontextualknowledge;and
thecognitiveprocessesof perceiving,differentiating,
selecting,storing,inferand
ring,applying,combining,justifying responding.Justpreparingto be a
peertutorhasbeenproposedto enhancecognitiveprocessingin thetutor- by
increasingattentionto andmotivationfor the task,andnecessitatingreview
of existingknowledgeandskills.Consequently,
existingknowledgeis transnew
associations
anda newintegration.
formedby re-organisation,
involving
The act of tutoringitself involvesfurthercognitivechallenge,particularly
clarification
andexemplification.
withrespectto simplification,
An excellentstudyby Annis (1983) comparedthreerandomlyallocated
groupsof students:one whichmerelyreadthe materialto be studied,one
which readthe materialin the expectationof havingto teach it to a peer,
anda thirdwhichreadthe materialwith the expectationof teachingit to a
peer and then actuallycarriedthis out. On a 48 item test of both specific
andgeneralcompetence,the 'readonly' groupgainedless thanthe 'readto
teach'groupwhichin turngainedless thanthe 'readandteach'group.The
tutorsgainedmorethanthe tutees.A similarstudyby Benwareand Deci
(1984) comparedthe relativeeffectivenessof readingto learnfor a test and
readingfor learningto teach a peer.Subjectswere randomlyassignedto
conditionsandthe outcomemeasurewas a 24 itemtest of bothrotememory
While both groupsperformedequallywell
and conceptualunderstanding.
on rotelearning,the 'learnto teach'groupperformedbetteron higherorder
andon a questionnaire
conceptualunderstanding,
regardingmotivationand
their
as
more
active
and
learningperceived
experience
interesting.
Manyotheradvantageshave been claimedfor peer tutoringand related
formsof peer assistedlearning(e.g. Greenwood,Cartaand Kamps1990).
Pedagogicaladvantagesfor the tutee includemore active, interactiveand
325
participativelearning,immediatefeedback,swift prompting,loweredanxiety
with correspondinglyhigherself-disclosure,and greaterstudentownershipof
the learningprocess. The 'pupil/teacher'ratio is much reducedand engaged
time on task increased. Opportunitiesto respond are high, and opportunities to make errorsand be corrected similarly high. In addition to immediate cognitive gains, improvedretention,greatermeta-cognitiveawareness
and better application of knowledge and skills to new situations have been
claimed. Motivationaland attitudinalgains can include greatercommitment,
self-esteem, self-confidence and empathy with others. Much of this links
with work on self-efficacy and motivatedlearning(Schunk 1987), leading to
the self-regulation of learningand performance(Schunk and Zimmermann
1994). Modelling and attributionalfeedback are importanthere - perhaps
peer tutoring can go some way towardscombating the dependency culture
associated with superficiallearning.From a social psychological viewpoint,
social isolation might be reduced,the functionalityof the subject modelled,
and aspirationsraised,while combatingany excess of individualisticcompetition between students.Moust and Schmidt (1994a) found that studentsfelt
peer tutorswere betterthanstaff tutorsat understandingtheirproblems,were
more interested in their lives and personalities,and were less authoritarian,
yet more focused on assessment. Economic advantages might include the
possibility of teaching more studentsmore effectively, freeing staff time for
otherpurposes.Politically, peer tutoringdelegates the managementof learning to the learners in a democraticway, seeks to empower students rather
thande-skill them by dependencyon imitationof a masterculture,and might
reduce studentdissatisfactionand unrest.
Peer tutoringcan have disadvantages,however (Greenwood et al. 1990).
Establishing it does consume organisationaltime in designing and effecting
appropriatepeer selection and matching, and it may also necessitate some
adaptationto curriculummaterials.Certainlythe requirementsfor training
studentsin teaching and learningskills are greater,althoughit can be argued
that peer tutoringmerely serves to bringto the surface needs that traditional
teaching tends to overlook. All these may involve increased costs in the
short term, with a view to reducedcosts and/or greatereffectiveness in the
medium and long term. The quality of tutoringfrom a peer tutor may be a
good deal inferior to that from a professionalteacher (although this should
not be assumed), and the need for monitoringand quality control cannot be
overstated.This also significantlyconsumes time and resources. Likewise,
the tutor'smasteryof the contentof tutoringis likely to be less than that of a
professionalteacher,so curriculumcontentcoverage in peer tutoringmay be
much morevariable.Forthese reasons,projectco-ordinatorsmay experiment
326
andpractice,ratherthanthefirst
initiallywithpeertutoringforconsolidation
learningof new material,utilisingit on a smallscalewithsuitabletopics.
Researchon peer tutoringin schools
A recentreview(Topping1992) identified28 previousreviewsand metaanalysesof researchon peertutoring,mostlyin schools.SharpleyandSharpley (1981) conducteda meta-analysisof 82 studiesin schools, reporting
substantialcognitive gains for both tutees and tutors.Same-agetutoring
appearedas effectiveas cross-agetutoring,andtrainingof tutorssignificantly
improvedeventualoutcomes.Cohen,KulikandKulik(1982)discovered500
titlesrelatingto tutoring.In 65 studieswithcontrolgroups,tutoredstudents
controlsin 45. Therewas againevidencethattutortraining
out-performed
effect.Highlystructured
tutoringwas
producedlargersizes of experimental
that
also associatedwithlargereffectsizes.Therewasevidence peertutoring
improvedtuteeattitudesin class,as well as tuteeself-concept.In 38 control
tutorsout-performed
controlsin
groupstudiesmeasuringtutorachievement,
33. Improvedtutorattitudesandself-conceptwerealso reported.
evidencethatpeertutoringis effectivein schools.
Thereis thussubstantial
relative
cost-effectiveness
this,
mayalsobe considered.Levin,Glass
Beyond
and Meister(1987) conducteda cost-effectivenessanalysisof four differin primary
ent interventions
designedto improvereadingandmathematics
schools(elementaryschools)in theUSA:computerassistedlearning,reducing class size, lengtheningthe schoolday,andcross-agepeertutoring.The
most cost-effectiveintervention(peertutoring)was four times morecosteffectivethantheleast.Theleastcost-effectivewasreducingclasssize.While
evidenceconcerningpeertutoringin schoolscancertainlynot be automatifood
callygeneralisedintohigherandfurthereducation,thereis considerable
for thoughtin thesefindings.
Peer tutoringin higher education- previousreviews
Previousreviewsand surveysof peertutoringin higherandfurthereducation includethoseof GoldschmidandGoldschmid(1976),Cornwall(1979),
Whitman(1988), Lee (1988),Lawson(1989), Maxwell(1990) andMooreWest,Hennessy,Meilman,andO'Donnell(1990).All of theseareinteresting,
butthe earlierpaperswerecompletedat a timewhenmostof the literature
wasdescriptivein nature.TheGoldschmids'ownempiricalwork(1976)was
well beforeits time in this respect.Cornwall(1979)offereda wideranging
andproblemsolving.
overviewof the field,includingadviceon organisation
327
In a surveyof 93 colleges,Lee (1988)madea comparative
analysisof seven
differentkindsof programmes
targetedon increasingretentionandreducing
studentdropout.Programmes
involvingpeersas resourcesshowedupparticwerenot moreeffectivethan
most
well.
The
ularly
expensiveprogrammes
cheaperonesandsize of institutionwasnota factorin retentionanddropout
rates.Peertutoringandpeercounsellingbothshowedgoodcost-effectiveness,
Lawson
remedialprogrammes
whiletraditional
provedverycost-ineffective.
19
in
identified
as
(1989) surveyed collegesanduniversities Canada
having
comto
be
more
was
found
Peer
assisted
learning
programmes.
tutoring
peer
of goals,selection,training,
monthanpeercounselling.Detaileddescriptions
aregiven,butlittlehard
logisticsandmethodsforevaluationof programmes
Peerassistedlearneffectivenessandcost-effectiveness.
dataon comparative
medical
schools
were
in
United
States
surveyed
by Mooreing programmes
Westet al. (1990).Of 127collegesin anassociation,62 replied,andof these
and
while40 had'advisingprogrammes'
47 hadpeertutoringprogrammes,
13 had 'peerassessmentprogrammes'.
Cross-year small-group tutoring
In this review of the more recent substantiveliteratureon differentforms of
peer tutoring,the format most like surrogateprofessional teaching will be
consideredfirst.This is whereupperyear undergraduates(or post-graduates)
act as tutors to lower year undergraduates,each tutor dealing with a small
group of tutees simultaneously.The literaturesearch revealed 18 studies of
note (Bobko 1984, MeredithandSchmitz 1986, Cone 1988, Moust, De Voider and Nuy 1989, Button, Sims and White 1990, House and Wohlt 1990,
Lidren, Meier and Brigham 1991, Longuevanand Shoemaker 1991, Moust
and Schmidt 1992, 1994b, Johansen,Martensonand Bircher 1992, Ameman
and Prosser 1993, Johnston1993, AmericanRiverCollege 1993, McDonnell
1994, Moody and McCrae 1994, Mallatrat1994 and Schmidt, Arend, Kokx
and Boon 1994.) Many of these gatheredonly subjectivefeedback outcome
data. Of eleven studies doing this, nine reportedvery positiye outcomes, one
noted outcomes as good as those from teaching by professionalfaculty, and
one reportedless good outcomes than for professional faculty. Three studies reportedreduceddropoutin association with such tutoring.Five studies
reportedimprovedacademicachievement,anotherfour reportedacademic
achievement as good as that from professional teaching and one reported
achievementslightlybutsignificantlyworsethanthat.Muchof the research
is not of the highest quality, but good quality studies (e.g. Lidren 1991 and
American River College 1993) do clearly demonstrateimprovedacademic
achievement.
328
InBobko's(1984)study,thepeertutorshadgroupsof 25 tuteesfor12hours
overprevious
perweek.Coursegradesdidnotshowa significantimprovement
have
been
not
with
Interviews
but
comparable.
years, previousgroupsmay
tuteesyieldedmanyreportsof increasedconfidenceandless anxiety,while
in theirknowledgeandabilityto communicate.
tutorsreportedimprovements
Meredithand Schmitz(1986) reporteda studyinvolvingmanysubjective
ratings,andalthoughsomefavouredpeertutoringcomparedto facultytutoring, othersindicatedthe opposite,and a greatmanywere not significantly
different.A mixedmethodprojectreportedby Cone(1988)involvedrotating
recitationandtestingbetweensame-yearpeerswithcoachingandtestingby
cross-yearpeerteachingassistants.Tutoringobjectivesand materialswere
Outcomesontestweremarkedly
higherthannormalexpechighlystructured.
tations,butthe lackof propercontrolgroupsandtheabsenceof information
aboutassignationto groupslimitsthe conclusionsthatmightbe drawn.
A comparativestudyby Moustet al. (1989)in law includedprocessmeasures which indicatedthat studenttutorbehaviourswere very similarto
those of professionalfaculty.Nevertheless,on outcometest scoresthe faculty tutoredstudentsscoredhigherthanthose tutoredby peers.Buttonet
al. (1990) reportedcross-yeartutoring(whichtheytermed'proctoring')in
mechanicalengineeringandcomputingin relationto specificdesignprojects.
The subjectivefeedbackfromthevastmajorityof tutorsandtuteeswas very
outcomeson Grade
positive.HouseandWohlt(1990)comparedachievement
PointAveragesfor peertutoredandnon-tutored
students.Malepeertutored
butfemaletuteesdid not.
studentsachievedhigherGPA'sthannon-tutored,
Thesubjectswereself selectedintogroupsandtheoutcomemeasurewasvery
effects.Student
generalandprobablyinsensitiveto smallscaleintervention
A
also
better
Lidren
et
al. (1991) used
qualitystudyby
drop-out improved.
randomizedcontrolgroupsandcomparedoutcomesfor peertutoredgroups
of six with groupsof twenty.Both groupsperformedbetteracademically
in termsof examinationresultsand positivesubjectivefeedbackthannontutoredstudents.The smallerpeer tutoredgroupsyieldedbetteroutcomes
thanthe largerones.
LonguevanandShoemaker(1991)deployedupperyearstudentsandclerical staffas volunteertutors.Thetutorswererequiredto attendthesamelecturesas thetuteespriorto givingtutorialassistance.Thistutoringprogramme
in the institutionparchargeda fee to tuteesand 10-15%of undergraduates
ticipated.Therewas someevidencethatlargeramountsof tutoringresulted
in higherGradePointAverages,althoughthe size of differencewas small
and its significancenot easy to establish.Johansenet al. (1992) reported
subjectivefeedback,with tuteesmostlysatisfiedbut tutorsratheranxious.
AmemanandProsser(1993) studiedpeertutoringin dentistryin Australia.
329
Subjectivefeedback indicatedconfidencegains in tutorsand tutees.Johnston
(1993) deployed traineeteachersas tutorsfor economics studentsin 'microlearning groups' of four. Although subjective feedback was very positive,
the examinationand test resultsof participantsand non-participantswere not
very different.
American River College (1993) deployed twenty-four paid 'learning
assistants' for three hours per week with groupsof two to six tutees. Tutees'
subjective feedback was very positive, and tutors felt their own knowledge
of their subject improved.Most strikinglyhowever,althoughtutees had lower general Grade Point Averages than non-tutoredstudents, they scored as
well or betterthan them in tutoredsubjects. In the areaof computerscience,
McDonnell (1994) researchedtutoringby thirdyear studentsof small groups
of up to four second year students,and reportedvery positive subjectivefeedback.Moody and McCrae(1994) reportedon cross-yeartutoringin groupsof
six to fourteenin law. Subjectivefeedbackfromtutorswas positive.Mallatratt
(1994) targetedreduceddrop out rate for a peer tutoringproject in computing. Half the studentsutilisedthe scheme, a quarterregularly.Tuteesreported
findingthe experiencesupportiveand achievedimprovedgradescomparedto
previous cohorts of students.Seven studentsreportedthat peer tutoringhad
been the critical factorin preventingthem from leaving the course, and other
subjectivefeedback was positive.
Moust and Schmidt (1992, 1994b) found studenttutoredand staff tutored
groups gained equally in achievementduring an eight-week problem-based
law course. Schmidt et al. (1994) compared the achievement of 334 peer
tutoredand 400 faculty tutoredgroups in a problem-basedhealth sciences
course. Overall, the latterachieved slightly but significantlybetter,but peer
tutoringwas equally beneficial in the firstyear of the course.
The Personalised System of Instruction
Fred Keller is credited with the 'invention' of the Personalised System of
Instruction,which is also called the 'Keller system'. In 1968 he described
the procedure,which is based upon programmedlearningmaterial,through
which each studentproceedsattheirown pace with the goal of masteringeach
step. The peer tutor'sinvolvementis largely as a checker,testerand recorder,
to ensure tutee mastery.In 1977 Robin and Heselton comparedtrainingPSI
tutors interactively with training by a written handbook only. The direct
trainingproducedhigherqualitytutoringbehaviour,butno differencein tutee
outcomes. Davis (1978) discussed the components of the tutoring role in
PSI, and queriedwhetherthe tutorsbenefitedmore thanthe tutees. The most
substantialreview of the effectiveness of PSI was producedby Kulik, Kulik
330
75 controlledstudies.Of 61 studies
andCohen(1979), who meta-analysed
evaluatingin termsof class marks,48 foundPSIto give superiorresults.Of
in the targetgroup,18found
20 studiesscrutinisingvariationin achievement
PSIwasassociatedwithreducedvariability.
final
Sixtyonestudiesconsidered
and57 of thesefoundPSItuteessuperior.
examinationperformance
Elevenstudiesalsoconsideredstudentsubjectiveratingof teachingquality,
ten of these findingthatPSI studentsgave morefavourableratings.Eight
studiesalso measureddelayedretentionof the materiallearnt,andall found
PSI studentssuperior.PSI was foundto be effectiveacrossthe wholeability
range.It raisedthe finalexaminationscoreof a typicalstudentin a typical
class fromthe fiftiethto the seventiethpercentile.Effectswereeven more
andthesedifferencesweremorepronounced
strikingon delayedexamination
on essay than on multiplechoice examinations.PSI effects were evident
in studieswith bothgood andless goodresearchdesigns.Despitethis very
convincingevidence,Sherman(1992)notedthatPSIusereacheda plateauand
speculatedthatcomputeraidedlearningmaybe currentlymorefashionable
to teachers.
becauseit is less threatening
SupplementalInstruction
Instruction
aimsto reduce
Anotherwell known'brandname',Supplemental
risk
courses
rather
than
rate
and
highriskstuusuallytargetshigh
drop-out
dents.It is often used in courseswithnew anddifficultcontent,a predominanceof lecturesandlow ratesof interactive
teaching,andwhereassessment
It operateson a cross-agebasiswith
andmonitoringarerelativelyinfrequent.
attheUniversityof Misone 'leader'workingwithseveraltutees.Originated
souriat KansasCity (UMKC)in 1975, it has come to be offeredto almost
Over300 institutions
have
halfof thefirstyearstudentsin its hostinstitution.
beentrainedto use SI in the USA andmorethan15 institutionsnowuse SI
or somevariantthereofin the UK.Leadersaretrainedto 'model,adviseand
content.Theyhavealways
facilitate'ratherthandirectlyaddresscurriculum
as
the
same
course
the
tutee,andusuallyagainattend
previouslycompleted
thetutees'lectures.
MartinandArendale(1990)reporta controlledstudyof SI at UMKC.The
drop-outrate halved,the averagecoursegradewas 0.5 to 1.0 higherand
graduationoutcomeswere 12.4%higher.The NationalCentrefor SupplementalInstruction
(1994) reviewedevidencefortheeffectivenessof SI from
UMKCandotheruniversitiesin theUSA.In UMKCdatafrom14 successive
academicyears,involving295 coursesand 11,855SI participants,
indicated statisticallysignificantdifferencesin gradesfor participants
comparedto
initial
even
when
academic
wascon(pre-SI)
performance
non-participants,
331
trolled.Therewas widespreadevidenceof effectivenessacrossthe whole
was also associatedwithhigherre-enrolment
abilityrange.SI participation
rates.Similardatawerereportedfrom 146 otherinstiratesandgraduation
(see also Martin,
tutions,involving2875coursesand298,629SI participants
BlancandDeBuhr1983,MartinandArendale1992).
coursKenneyandKallison(1994)reporttwostudiesof SI inMathematics
and
One
es, usingcomparable
participant non-participant
groups. studyfound
significantdifferencesfavouringthe SI group,theotherfoundno difference.
In bothstudiestherewasevidenceof low abilitystudentsresponding
disproa
and
used
to
well
SI.
(1992)
regression
Bridgham Scarborough
portionately
modelto predictmedicalstudents'expectedfinaloutcomesfromtheirentry
for SI
level, findinga subsequentstatisticallysignificant'over-achievement'
one
half
of a
between
one
third
SI
effect
and
size
was
Average
participants.
deviationin finaltestscores.
standard
Researchin the UK was reportedby Rye, WallaceandBidgood(1993),
Wallace(1993), Rust(1993), Rustand Wallace(1994), Healy(1994) and
Bidgood(1994). Wallace(1993) reportedthat levels of attendanceat SI
sessions werecorrelatedwith finalcoursemarks.However,furtherdetails
werelacking.Rust(1993) reportedthatthe courseworkmarksof SI tutees
wereon average5%higherif theyhadattended2 or moresessions,although
was
the SI tutees were far frombeing modelstudents.This improvement
modestandagaindetailswerelacking.
inannualexamination
results
performance
Healy(1994)reportedimproved
of SI studentsas well as reductionsin dropoutrates,coupledwithenhanced
of the
skillsanda deeperunderstanding
andothertransferable
communication
as
area
in
the
of
curriculum
the
However,
(engineering).
question
principles
no
control
was
and
were
self
doubtful,
selected,
group
comparability
groups
wasused.Healy(1994)notedtheneedforlongertermfollowupof SIeffects.
and
thatend-of-yearcoursework
Morepersuasively,
Bidgood(1994)reported
examinationmarksin two successiveyearsof a computersciencecourseat
KingstonUniversitywerestatisticallysignificantlybetterfor SI participants
andstart-of-year
withequivalent
thanfornon-participants
entryqualifications
marks.SI studentsdidnotfigurein failureor resitlists.
It has been claimedthatSI in the UK has also demonstrated
improved
as well as gainsin self
gradesfor SI leaderscomparedto non-participants,
confidenceand communication
skills, but detailsof the data are difficult
to find. In the USA SI leadersare usuallypaid,whereasthis is muchless
frequent in the UK. A relateddevelopment is the establishmentof faculty-
widecross-yearsmall-group'StudentSupported
Learning',withmanyof the
featuresof SI butmuchmorefocuson gainsforthetutors,whoareunpaidbut
332
transferschemefortheirparticipation
receivecreditsin a courseaccreditation
Hill
and
1996).
Thompson,
Simpson,
(Topping,
Same-yeardyadicfixed-roletutoring
Moreinnovative(andperhapseasierto organise)is tutoringbetweenpairs
(dyads)in the sameyearof study,i.e. at the samepointin the course,where
Sevenstudies,someof conone memberretainsthe roleof tutorthroughout.
siderableage,havefocusedon achievement
gainsresultingfromthispractice.
The classic studiesby Annis(1983) andBenwareandDeci (1984) referred
to earlierwereexamplesof this format.Rosen,PowellandSchubot(1977)
workedwithsamegenderpairsin whichthe tutorswereeithermore,less or
roleswere
equallycompetentthanthetutees.Also,forhalfof theparticipants,
halfwaythroughtheproject.Subjectsreceivedonly 20 minutes
reciprocated
of trainingand48 out 90 pairsdid not supplyfull data.Outcomemeasures
included20 item pre- andpost-testsand satisfactionquestionnaires.
There
was some evidencethe changingrole from tutee to tutorwas associated
withan improvement
in achievement.
Therewasalsoan indicationthatpairof
someone
or
with
greater equalabilitywas associatedwith a greater
ing
achievement.
FremouwandFeindler(1978) studiedthe effectivenessof dyadicsameyear tutoringin contrastwith thatof tutorialsin groupsof nine led by a
professionalfacultymember.The peer tutorswere given some additional
contenttraining.Two controlgroupswere used, one given equalattention
of a differentsortandanothera non-participant
waitinglist group.Thepeer
tutoredgroupachievedoutcomesas goodas theprofessionally
tutoredgroup.
A studyin Esperantoteachingwasreportedby McKellar(1986).Tutorswere
trainedin newmaterialandstudyguideswereprovidedto supportthetutoring.
High accountabilitywas inbuilt,since post-testtutorandtuteescoreswere
combinedas a performanceindicator.The researchers
foundthatthe more
tutorsgave information,the higherwas the tutorscoreandcombinedtutor
andtutee score.High scoreswerealso associatedwith the tuteeaskingfor
clarificationandaskingfor the mainpointsto recall.However,wheretutors
gave wronginformation,this was associatedwith reducedscoresfor both
tutorand tutee. The tutorsimply askingif the tuteeunderstoodwas also
associatedwithpoorerscores.
Two studiesin Edinburghare reportedby Falchikov(1990). One study
allocatedparticipants
andstudyaloneconditions,but
randomlyto tutor/tutee
foundno significantdifferencesin achievementbetweenthese conditions.
Althoughsome tutorsreportedsubjectiveperceptionsthatthey hadgained
morefromtutoringthantheywouldhavedonefromindependent
study,some
333
tutees reported lacking confidence in their tutors. As in the Rosen (1977)
study, it appearsthat randomallocationcan create its own problems. In the
second study,following tutoringsome participantsbecametutees again while
some became tutors.Althoughthere was less global satisfactionat role repetition, some tutees expressedmoreconfidence in theirtutors.No significant
differences in achievement were found as a function of role repetition or
non-repetition,but attritionat post-testwas high.
In summary,most of the studiesof dyadicsame-yearfixed-rolepeer tutoring
have not comparedthe procedureto an alternativeprocedure,but considered
organisationalvariationswithin the procedureand their relationshipto outcomes. However,one study(FremouwandFeindler 1978) showed this format
of peer tutoringto be as effective as small group tutoringby a professional,
two studies that it was more effective than independentstudy, but one study
found no difference. The literaturedemonstratesthe side-effects of random
allocation to conditions and the potential problem of 'the blind leading the
blind.'
Same-yeardyadicreciprocalpeer tutoring
Although this format might be consideredeven more innovativethan sameyear dyadic fixed-role tutoring,the first relevant study dates back to 1976.
Although there is relatively little work in the area, some is of high quality.
Goldschmid and Goldschmid(1976) used dyadic reciprocalpeer tutoringin
an undergraduatepsychology course of 250 students. They compared outcomes for three groups:one involvedin a seminarwith faculty,one pursuing
independentstudy,and the thirdinvolved in peer tutoring.The peer tutoring
groupdid the best of the threeon an unexpectedpost-testand they ratedtheir
learningexperiences more positively.
More recently,John Fantuzzoand his colleagues have reporteda series of
high quality studies of reciprocalpeer tutoring(RPT), consistently showing
that it results in greater achievement, greater satisfaction and less feeling
of stress in comparison to other treatmentand control groups. Fantuzzo,
Dimeff and Fox (1989) allocated psychology students randomly to three
conditions: reciprocalpeer tutoring,questioning only, and placebo control.
The RPT group reciprocatedroles within each session, creating tests for
each other before the session, administeringthem to each other, scoring
them, discussing the outcome and coaching their partneras necessary. The
questions only group created the tests alone but never administeredthem they studiedto give the test. Thisgroupalso saw the questionsgeneratedby the
RPT pairs. In the placebo condition, studentsmet and watched instructional
videos with the same curricularcontent and answered the questions on the
334
videos.Onexamination
scores,allthreegroupsgained,buttheRPTgroupdid
significantlybetterthanthe othertwo groups,whichwerenot significantly
differentfromeachother.Studentsatisfactionwassignificantly
improvedand
distressindicatorssignificantlyreducedfortheRPTbutnottheothergroups.
Subsequently,Fantuzzo,Riggio,ConnellyandDimeff (1989) conducted
a componentanalysisto attemptto determinewhatelementsof RPTwere
implicatedin its effectiveness.One hundredandtwentyfive studentswere
allocatedto five conditions:a dyadicpeertutoringgroupwith a structured
contactgroupinvolvinggeneral
interactionprocess,a dyadicunstructured
discussionrelatedto upcomingexam topics, an independentunstructured
conditionin which individualshad to submita shortessay on up-coming
structuredlearningconditionsimilarto
examinationtopics,an independent
the 'questionsonly condition'in the previousstudy,and a no treatment
foundthatdyadicinteractionwas associated
controlgroup.The researchers
withgainsin achievementon pre-posttests,anda higherdegreeof structure
was also associatedwith betteroutcomes.They also foundthatstructured
methodswere associatedwith betterscores on studentstress inventories.
Theirconclusionwas thatit was not merelypairingbutstructured
exchange
whichwaseffective.
Riggio, Fantuzzo,Connellyand Dimeff (1991) soughtto replicatethe
studybut with morediversestudentsin a differentsetting.The RPTgroup
showedsignificantlyhigherachievementscoresthanthe othergroups,and
therewas generallya significantmaineffect for dyadicconditions,butnot
for structure.However,structuredid yield betterscoreson two out of three
stressinventories.Satisfactionratingsfor the RPTgroupweresignificantly
higherthanthoseof the othergroups.Thuscomparedto thepreviousstudy,
factorsless impact
dyadicfactorsshowedless impacton stressandstructure
on achievement.Riggio et al. (1991) note that the subjectswere from a
'commuter'college whowerenotalreadywell socialisedwitheachother.
In the UK, all 45 studentsin a year-longundergraduate
calculusclass
were involvedin same-yeardyadicpeer tutoring(Topping,Watson,Jarvis
andHill 1996),the 12 one-hourpeersessionssubstituting
fortraditional
lectures.Degreeexamination
resultsin calculusweresignificantly
betterforthe
experimentalgroupthanfor the previous(comparison)year,especiallyfor
studentswhowerenotmathsmajors,buttheyearcohortswerenon-equivalent
in some respects.Structured
subjectivefeedbackfromthe studentssuggested thatpeer tutoringhad improvedtheirtransferable
skills in a numberof
areas.Similarly,a projectwith 125 undergraduates
in a year-longclass in
mathematical
economicswas reportedby Topping,Hill, McKaig,Rogers,
RushiandYoung(1996).Finaldegreeassessmentresultsfortheexperimental groupwere in generalnot statisticallysignificantlydifferentfromthose
335
of the previous (comparison)year. However, subjective feedback from the
students indicated that peer tutoringhad improved their transferableskills
in a numberof areas. Furthermore,studentswho regularlyattendedthe peer
tutoring sessions obtained significantlybetterdegree assessment outcomes,
and gave significantly better feedback about improved transferableskills,
thanthose who did not. Additionally,studentdrop-outrateswere lower in the
experimentalthan in the comparisonyear.
Dyadiccross-yearfixed-rolepeer tutoring
This formatis reportedin fourstudies,threefromAustralia.Schaffer,Wile
and Griggs (1990) analysed the exam results of a cohort of students, some
of whom had participatedin a peer tutoringprogramme.There was a positive relationshipbetween degree of participationin tutoringand examination results. However, no control groups were used and no demonstration
of causality is evident. A study by Black (1993) focuses on ethnic minority
group tutees in nursing and midwifery, and claims 'higher than expected'
pass rates, but lacks sufficientdetail to enable this to be verified.Loh (1993)
deployed paid peer tutorsin a course for Anatomyfor Nurses with a previous
high failure rate. Subsequentlythe peer tutoringparticipantfailure rate was
less than the non-participantrate,but no informationwas given aboutassignment to groups. Subjective feedback was positive however,tutees reporting
feeling more confident.Quintrelland Westwood(1994) pairednewly arrived
internationalstudents with host national students,expecting twice monthly
contact during the year. Tutees showed more positive attitudesthan a comparison group matched for course of enrolment,but not significantlybetter
academic performance.Manyof these studiesappearto sufferfromproblems
of self-selection to groupsand consequentnon-comparability.
Same-year group tutoring
Fourstudies have consideredsame-yeargrouptutoring,often in the formatof
rotatingpresentationsby individualstudentsto the peergroup.Unfortunately,
only one of these reportedachievementoutcomes. Autonomousstudentstudy
groups were establishedby Beach (1960), who measuredachievementgains
with pre- and post-tests. Results indicatedthat extrovertsdid better in peer
tutoringthan did introverts,the introvertsgaining equally in traditionallectures.The study raisedquestionsregardinginteractionsbetween teachingand
learning methodologies and studentpersonalityor learning style. Fineman
(1981) reportedon rotationalpresentationsto the peer group by members
336
behaviour.Peerassessment
of a groupof twelve studentsof organisational
criteriawas included.Thesubjectiveevaluationby the
on peerbrainstormed
was
participants positive.
Similarly,Hendelmanand Boss (1986) found rotatingpresentationsto
groupsto yield positivesubjectivefeedbackfromthe students.The tutees
reportedthatpeertutoringwas as effectiveas facultytutoring,andthetutors
thatpeertutoringwasmoreeffectivethanfacultytutoring.A coursein ComputerAided EngineeringDesign was the focus of a studyby Maginand
Churches(1993), occasionedin partby a lack of sufficientaccess to hardware.Thosestudentswhohadhadaccessto machinestutoredthosewhohad
not hadsuchaccess,overa fourweekperiod.Subjectivefeedbackindicated
the tuteesfoundthetutoringas or moreeffectivethantutoringby faculty.
Peer assistedwriting
Withinthe traditionalhighereducationsystem,writtenoutputis oftenused
as a vehiclefor assessmentof the individual,andcollaborativewritingcan
be problematicto assess. However,in recentyearstherehas been greater
interestin writingas a devicefor improvinglearningandthinking,coupled
with the advocacyof 'writingacrossthe curriculum','writingcentres'and
'collaborative
writing'(Olson1984,Gere1987).Rizzolo(1982)describedthe
useof peertutorsin a writingcentre,alsostaffedbyEnglishfaculty.Thetutors
It wasnotedthattutoringin writing
werepaidandtrainedthroughinternship.
Thetuteesratedtheirpeertutors
hadto be morethanmerelyproof-reading.
feedback.
on
therole
Similarly,Bell (1983)emphasised
veryhighly subjective
of peertutorsin a writingcentrein promotingconfidenceandencouraging
new studentsto view writingmoreas a processandless as a product.More
substantialdatawereofferedby O'Donnell,Dansereau,Rocklin,Lambiotte,
HytheckerandLarson(1985),whocomparedrandomlyassignedco-operative
writingand writingalone conditions.The writingof the 36 studentswas
assessedfor communicative
quality.The co-operativewritersdid betteron
to a furtherindividualwritingtask.
the initialpost-testandon transference
on
Holladay(1989, 1990) reported the use of peer tutorsin a 'writing
at MonroeCommunityCollege.Seventy
acrossthe curriculum'programme
six percentof tuteesfoundtheirtutorshelpfulor veryhelpful,facultyfeltthe
classes,and
qualityof papersimprovedin tutoredclassesversusnon-tutored
all the tutorsfelt theirownwritinghadimprovedas a resultof tutoring.This
programmecontinuedin subsequentyearswitheven betterresults.A study
by Levine(1990) also yieldedverypositivesubjectivefeedback.Theexperimentalclass improvedin meetingdeadlinesandthefailureratereducedfrom
35%to 3%.However,gradesandexamresultswereverysimilarfor exper-
337
is unclear.Students
imentalandcomparisongroups,althoughcomparability
who hadtutoringin writingfromfacultyandpeerswerecomparedby Oley
(1992) with thosewho hadtutoringfrompeersonly or facultyonly.Many
had been identifiedas weakwriters,andsome received
of the participants
helpvoluntarilyandsomeon a compulsorybasis.Assignationto conditions
was random.Thosewho receivedpeertutoringsubsequently
attainedhigher
did
who
not.
those
than
grades
Louthand MacAllister(1990) assignedfreshmancompositionstudents
randomlyto threeconditions:somestudentswroteina traditional
independent
manner,otherswrote(partially)interactively
althoughproducingindividual
writtenproducts,whilea thirdgroupwrotewhollyinteractively
producinga
writinggroup,whichscoredhigherthanthe
joint product.The independent
othertwo groupsat pre-test,did not improveduringthe project,while both
conditionsimprovedtheirperformance,
collaborative
althoughthe statistical
significanceof this was debatable.The use of mixedabilitywritinggroups
of fourstudentsin geographywasreportedby Hay(1993),who emphasised
skillwhichis vocationallyvalued.
of writingas a transferable
theimportance
their
the
students
reviewed
In groups,
essay assignments,readeach others'
writingandmadewrittenreviewsof eachothers'work,witha rotatingchair
person.Haynotedthatit waspossibleto do thereadingactuallyin thegroup
sessionsto avoidanypossibilityof plagiarism.Twogroupsgave subjective
feedback:in one65%werepositiveandin theother80%.Problemsincluded
criticalandthaterrorswerenotalwaysdetected.
thatpeerswereinsufficiently
the
felt
that
writinggroupshouldcontinue.Theco-operative
Ninetypercent
writingdid not necessarilysavefacultytimeon marking,as monitoringthe
groupprocessoccupiedsometime.
In summary,of nine studieson peerassistedwriting,five give only subjectivefeedback,butthisis generallyverypositive.Fourstudiesgivedataon
gainsin writingcompetenceandof these,twogoodqualitystudiesshowtutee
gains,oneshowsno statisticallysignificantdifferenceanda thirdshowssome
includeraiseddeadline
tuteegainsof equivocalstatus.Otherimprovements
attainment
rates,reducedfailurerates,andself reportof improvedwritingin
thetutors.
Peer assisted distance learning
In distancelearningfeedbackandsupportfromany peer groupis problematic.
Attemptsto build this in by way of occasionalsummer-schoolsare little more
than a token gesture, and the loneliness of the long-distance learner is a
widespreadphenomenon.Distance learningis also fundamentallydifficultto
research,and the quantityand qualityof evidence on the role of peer support
338
in this processlimited.Amundsenand Barnard(1989) workedwith bank
One set metin
employeesstudyingaccountingandbusinessadministration.
had
a
second
and
also distance
peer supportgroups
peer supportgroups,
while
a
both
of
third
had
these
on
a nominated
and
also
learning studyskills,
A fourthgroupwas
mentorwho was a previousgraduateof the programme.
a controlcondition.Outcomemeasuresincludedassignmentgrades,final
examscores,finaldegreegradesandsubjectiveself-assessments.
However,
the studygroupswere formedinevitablyon a geographicbasis, and were
thusself selectedandof doubtfulcomparability.
the degreeof
Furthermore,
to
intended
was
in
the
doubt
and
some
conformity
process
subjectswere
no
from
the
excluded
analysis.Virtually significantdifferenceswerefound
betweenthe groups.However,the authorsareto be commendedfor a brave
effortin a difficultarea.
A programme
as a partof continuingeducation
foraudio-teleconferencing
for nurseswasdevelopedin Australiaby Hart(1990).Thetopicsvariedfrom
week to week andwere suggestedby the participants.
Eachtele-conference
involvedbetween6 and 12 nurses.Themajorityof participants
werewomen
andthe authordiscusseswhetherfemalesneedor seek groupsupportmore
was reported,butthe
thanmales.Subjectivefeedbackfromthe participants
This
does
rate
was
34%.
a good discussion
include
only
paper
response
of practicalproblemsinvolved.In summary,althoughthereis some weak
in distance
evidencethatbuildingin peercontactis likedby someparticipants
evidence
little
there
seems
to
be
it
that
increases
student
satisfactory
learning,
achievement.However,furtherresearchin thisareais certainlyneeded.
Summaryand conclusion
Peer tutoringis alreadywidely used in furtherand highereducation,in a
varietyof differentforms.Surveyssuggestseveralhundredinstitutions
deploy
this interactivemethodof teachingandlearning.Of course,the existenceof
one smallpilot projectat one timein an institutiondoes not constitutepeer
tutoringon a largescale acrossthe curriculumwhichis qualitycontrolled
andembeddedwithintheorganizational
culture.Of thedifferentformatsand
andSupplemental
Instruction
methods,thePersonalisedSystemof Instruction
thelatterscenario.
havemostnearlyapproached
A considerableamountis alreadyknownaboutthe effectivenessof peer
tutoringin furtherand highereducation.Cross-yearsmall-grouptutoring,
theformatleastdisparatefromtraditional
methods,canworkwell. Studiesof
achievementgainsalmostall indicateoutcomesasgoodas orbetterthangroup
tutoringby faculty,andstudentsubjectivefeedbackis generallyverypositive.
hasbeen widelyusedandevaluated
The PersonalisedSystemof Instruction
339
in the US. Two thirds of studies found PSI involvement associated with
higherclass marksand 93% of studiesfoundPSI associatedwith higherfinal
examination performance,comparedto control groups. PSI also improved
longer term retentionof the materiallearnt.SupplementalInstructionadopts
a very differentmodel of operationand has become morepopularoutside the
USA than PSI. There is very substantialand persuasiveevidence from the
USA of impact on course grades, graduationoutcomes and drop-out rates.
Research in the UK is improvingin quality and also demonstratingpositive
outcomes.
Same-yeardyadic fixed-roletutoringhas been the subjectof severalstudies
over the years, researchof mixed quality yielding mixed results. However,
two good qualitystudiesfound improvedachievementfromthis format,while
three othersfound achievementthe same as with faculty teaching.
Five out of 6 studies of same-yeardyadic reciprocaltutoringhave demonstratedincreasedattainment.Therewas also evidenceof reducedstudentstress
and improvedtransferableskills. The degree of structurein the programme
was positively relatedto outcomes. Dyadic cross-yearfixed-roletutoringhas
been the subjectof threestudiesof poorquality.Same-yeargrouptutoringhas
yielded positive subjective feedback in four studies, but no harderevidence
on achievementoutcomes.
Nine studies of peer assisted writing have shown generally favourable
outcomes in termsof subjectivefeedback.Gains in writingcompetence were
shown in two or threeof the four studies examiningthis, despite the inherent
difficultyof this kind of research.There is little evidence thatpeer assistance
in distance learning improves achievementoutcomes, but this area is even
more difficultto research.
In summary,three methodsof peer tutoringin furtherand highereducation
have alreadybeen widely used, have been demonstratedto be effective, and
merit wider use in practice- these are Cross-yearSmall-groupTutoring,the
PersonalisedSystem of Instructionand SupplementalInstruction.Same-year
dyadic reciprocaltutoringhas been demonstratedto be effective, buthas been
little used, and merits much wider deployment.Same-yeardyadic fixed-role
tutoringandpeerassisted writinghave shownconsiderablebutnot necessarily
consistentpromiseand shouldbe the focus of continuingexperimentationand
more researchof betterquality.In threeareasthereare barelythe beginnings
of a satisfactory body of evaluationresearch:dyadic cross-year fixed-role
tutoring,same-yeargrouptutoringand peer assisted distance learning.
It is essential that subsequentresearchstrives to achieve adequatequality
in design and execution, preferablyincluding control groups or comparison
groupswhich are trulycomparable,and addressesissues of achievementgain
and parametersof successful course completion as well as subjective par-
340
thatgo beyond
ticipantfeedback.If achievementgainscan be demonstrated
the narrowconfinesof the institutional
assessmentsystemandendurein the
longerterm,so muchthebetter.Thisimpliesthatimpactuponwidercognitive
skills shouldalso be measured.
abilitiesandtransferable
However,peertutoringis usuallya relativelysmallcomponentof a wide
rangeof teachingand learningstrategiesdeployedin highereducation,so
theextentto whichit is realisticto expectassociatedgainsto be measurable,
andgeneralisedis debatable.
widespread,maintained
Acknowledgement
The supportof the ScottishHigherEducationFundingCouncilis gratefully
acknowledged.
References
American River College (1993). A.R.C. Beacon Project: Student Catalyst Program - Peer
Assisted Learning; First Semester SummaryReport. SacramentoCA: American River
College (ED355995).
Amundsen, C.L. and Bernard,R.M. (1989). 'Institutionalsupportfor peer contact in distance
education:an empiricalinvestigation',Distance Education 10(1), 7-23.
Annis, L.F. (1983). 'The processes andeffects of peer tutoring',HumanLearning2(1), 39-47.
Arneman K. and Prosser M. (1993). 'The developmentof two peer tutoringprogrammesin
the Faculty of Dentistry,University of Sydney', in Proceedings of Conferenceon Peer
Tutoring at University of Auckland 19-21 August 1993. Auckland: Higher Education
ResearchOffice and Universityof Auckland.
Ashman, A.F. and Elkins, J. (1990). 'Co-operativelearningamong special students',in Foot,
H.C., Morgan,M.J. and Shute, R.H. (eds.), ChildrenHelping Children.Londonand New
York:John Wiley.
Bargh,J.A. andSchul, Y.(1980). 'On the cognitivebenefitsof teaching',Journalof Educational
Psychology 72(5), 593-604.
Barnett,R. (1992). ImprovingHigher Education.Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
Beach, L. R. (1960). 'Sociability and academic achievement in various types of learning
situations', Journal of EducationalPsychology 51(4), 208-212.
Bell, E. (1983). 'The peer tutor:the writingcenter'smost valuableresource', TeachingEnglish
in the Two-YearCollege 9(2), 141-144.
Benware, C.A. and Deci, E.L. (1984). 'Quality of learning with an active versus passive
motivationalset', AmericanEducationalResearchJournal21(4), 755-65.
Bidgood, P. (1994). 'The success of supplementalinstruction:the statistical evidence', in
Rust, C. and Wallace,J. (eds.), Helping Studentsto LearnfromEach Other:Supplemental
Instruction.Birmingham:Staff and EducationalDevelopmentAssociation.
Black, J. (1993). 'Peer tutor support in nursing and midwifery at Otago Polytechnic', in
Proceedings of Conference on Peer Tutoringat Universityof Auckland 19-21 August
1993. Auckland:HigherEducationResearchOffice and Universityof Auckland.
Bobko, E. (1984). 'The effective use of undergraduatesas tutorsfor college science students',
Journal of College Science Teaching 14, 60-62.
Bridgham, R.G. and Scarborough,S. (1992). 'Effects of supplementalinstructionin selected
medical school science courses', AcademicMedicine 67(10), 569-571.
341
Brookfield, S. (1983). Adult Learners,Adult Education and the Community.Buckingham:
Open UniversityPress.
Button, B.L., Sims, R. and White, L. (1990). 'Experience of proctoringover three years at
NottinghamPolytechnic',in Goodlad,S. andHirst,B. (eds.), Explorationsin Peer Tutoring.
Oxford:Blackwell.
Cohen. P.A., Kulik, J.A. and Kulik, C-L.C. (1982). 'Educationaloutcomes of tutoring: a
meta-analysisof findings',AmericanEducationalResearchJournal 19(2), 237-48.
Cone, A.L. (1988). 'Low tech/high touch criterion-basedlearning', Psychological Reports
63(1), 203-207.
Cornwall,M.G. (1979). Studentsas Teachers:Peer Teachingin HigherEducation.Amsterdam:
C.O.W.O.,Universityof Amsterdam.
Davis, C.S. (1978). 'Peertutors:theirutility and trainingin the personalisedsystem of instruction', EducationalTechnology18, 23-26.
Doise, W. and Mugny,G. (1984). TheSocial Developmentof the Intellect.Oxford:Pergamon
Press.
Durling, R. and Schick, C. (1976). 'Conceptattainmentby pairsand individualsas a function
of vocalization', Journalof EducationalPsychology 68(1), 83-91.
Ellis, R. (1993). Quality Assurancefor UniversityTeaching.Buckingham:Open University
Press.
Entwistle, N.J. and Ramsden,P. (1983). UnderstandingStudentLearning.Beckenham:Croom
Helm.
Entwistle, N. (1992). The Impactof Teachingand LearningOutcomesin Higher Education:
A LiteratureReview. Sheffield:Universitiesand Colleges Staff DevelopmentUnit, CVCP.
Falchikov, N. (1990). 'An experimentin same-age peer tutoringin higher education: some
observationsconcerningthe repeatedexperienceof tutoringor being tutored',in Goodlad,
S. and Hirst,B. (eds.), Explorationsin Peer Tutoring.Oxford:Blackwell.
Fantuzzo, J.W., Dimeff, L.A. and Fox, S.L. (1989). 'Reciprocal peer tutoring:a multimodal
assessmentof effectivenesswith college students',Teachingof Psychology 16(3), 133-135.
Fantuzzo,J.W., Riggio, R.W.,Connelly, S. and Dimeff, L. (1989). 'Effects of reciprocalpeer
tutoringon academic achievementand psychological adjustment:a componentanalysis',
Journalof EducationalPsychology 81(2), 173-177.
Fineman, S. (1981). 'Reflections on peer teaching and peer assessment: an undergraduate
experience', Assessmentand Evaluationin Higher Education6(1), 82-93.
Foot, H.C., Shute, R.H., Morgan, M.J. and Barron, A. (1990). 'Theoreticalissues in peer
tutoring',in Foot, H.C., Morgan,M.J. and Shute, R.H. (eds.), ChildrenHelping Children.
London and New York:JohnWiley.
Forman,E. (1994). 'Peercollaborationas situatedactivity:examplesfromresearchon scientific
problem solving', in Foot, H.C., Howe, C.J., Anderson, A., Tolmie, A.K. and Warden,
D.A. (eds.), Group and InteractiveLearning. Southamptonand Boston: Computational
Mechanics.
Freemouw,W.J. and Feindler,E.L. (1978). 'Peer versus professionalmodels for study skills
training',Journal of CounselingPsychology 25(6), 576-580.
Gartner,S., Kohler,M. and Riessman(1971). ChildrenTeachChildren:Learningby Teaching.
New York:Harperand Row.
Gere, A.R. (1987). WritingGroups:History,Theoryand Implications.CarbondaleIL:Southern
Illinois UniversityPress.
Gibbs, G. (1981). TeachingStudentsToLearn. Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
Goldschmid, B. and Goldschmid,M.L. (1976). 'Peer teaching in highereducation:a review',
Higher Education5, 9-33.
Greenwood,C.R., Carta,J.J. and Kamps,D. (1990). 'Teacher-mediatedversus peer-mediated
instruction:a reviewof educationaladvantagesanddisadvantages',in Foot, H.C., Morgan,
M.J. and Shute, R.H. (eds.), ChildrenHelping Children.London and New York: John
Wiley.
342
in continuing
education
Hart,G. (1990).'Peerlearningandsupportviaaudio-teleconferencing
for nurses', Distance Education 11(2), 308-319.
H.J.(1990). 'Factorsaffectingthetutoringprocess',Journalof Educational
DevelHartman,
opment14(2),2-6.
Hay, I. (1993). 'Writinggroupsin geography',in Proceedingsof Conferenceon Peer Tutoring
at University of Auckland 19-21 August 1993. Auckland: Higher Education Research
OfficeandUniversityof Auckland.
instruction:
a modelfor supportingstudentlearning',in
Healy,C.E. (1994). 'Supplemental
Foot,H.C.,Howe,C.J.,Anderson,A., Tolmie,A.K.andWarden,D.A. (eds.),Groupand
andBoston:Computational
Interactive
Mechanics.
Learning.Southampton
W.J.andBoss, M. (1986). 'Reciprocal
Hendelman,
peerteachingby medicalstudentsin the
gross anatomy laboratory',Journal of Medical Education61(8), 674-80.
Holladay, J. (1989). Monroe County CommunityCollege WritingAcross the Curriculum:
AnnualReport1988-9. Michigan:MonroeCountyCommunity
College(ED310820).
Holladay, J. M. (1990). WritingAcross the Curriculum:Annual Report 1989-90. Michigan:
MonroeCountyCommunity
College(ED326260).
on the perHouse,J.D. andWohlt,V. (1990). 'Theeffectof tutoringprogramparticipation
formanceof academicallyunderprepared
collegefreshmen',Journalof CollegeStudent
Development31, 365-370.
D.F.andBircher,J. (1992).'Studentsas tutorsin problem-based
Johansen,M.L.,Martenson,
learning:does it work?',MedicalEducation26(2), 163-165.
Johnston,C. (1993). 'The integrationof traineeteachersin an undergraduate
peertutoring
projectat the Universityof Melbourne',in Proceedingsof Conferenceon Peer Tutoringat
Universityof Auckland19-21 August 1993. Auckland:HigherEducationResearchOffice
andUniversityof Auckland.
Keller, F.S. (1968). 'Goodbye, teacher.. .', Journalof AppliedBehaviorAnalysis 1(1), 79-89.
studiesontheeffectivenessof supplemental
Kenney,P.A.andKallison,J.M.(1994).'Research
instruction in mathematics', New Directions for Teaching and Learning 60(4), 75-82
Instruction).
(specialissueon Supplemental
of outcomestudiesof
Kulik,J.A., Kulik,C.C. and Cohen,P.A. (1979). 'A meta-analysis
AmericanPsychologist34(4),307-318.
Keller'spersonalised
systemof instruction',
D. (1993).Rethinking
Laurillard,
University
Teaching.
Buckingham:
OpenUniversityPress.
Lawson,D. (1989). 'Peerhelpingprogramsin the collegesanduniversitiesof Quebecand
Ontario', Canadian Journalof Counselling 23(1), 41-56.
Lee, R.E. (1988). 'Assessingretentionprogramholdingpowereffectivenessacrosssmaller
community colleges', Journalof College StudentDevelopment29(3), 255-262.
Levine,J.R.(1990).'Usinga peertutorto improvewritingin a psychologyclass:one instructor's experience', Teachingof Psychology 17(1), 57-58.
Levine,H.M.,Glass,G.V.andMeister,G.R.(1987).'Acost-effectiveness
analysisof computerEvaluationReview11(1),50-72.
assistedinstruction',
Lidren,D.M.,Meier,S.E. andBrigham,T.A. (1991). 'Theeffectsof minimalandmaximal
of collegestudents',Psychological
peertutoringsystemson the academicperformance
Record41(1), 69-77.
Loh,H. (1993).'Peerassistedstudysessionsin anatomyfornursingstudents',in Proceedings
of Conferenceon Peer Tutoringat Universityof Auckland19-21 August 1883. Auckland:
HigherFlication ResearchOfficeandUniversityof Auckland.
J.(1991).'Usingmultipleregression
C. andShoemaker,
toevaluatea peertutoring
Longuevan,
programfor undergraduates',Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the California
EducationalResearch Association, San Diego CA, November 14-15 (ED341717).
Louth,R., McAllister,C. andMcAllister,H.A.(1993). 'Theeffectsof collaborative
writing
Fducation61(3),
techniqueson freshmanwritingandattitudes',Journalof Experimental
215-224.
Lovell,R.B. (1980).AdultLearning.London:Routledge.
343
McDonnell, J.T. (1994). 'Peer tutoring:a pilot scheme among computerscience undergraduates', Mentoringand Tutoring2(2), 3-10.
McKellar,N.A. (1986). 'Behaviorsused in peer tutoring',Journal of ExperimentalEducation
54(3), 163-167.
Magin, D. and Churches,A. (1993). 'Studentproctoring:who learns what?', Proceedings of
Conference on Peer Tutoringat Universityof Auckland19-21 August 1993. Auckland:
Higher EducationResearchOffice and Universityof Auckland.
Mallatrat,J. (1994). 'Learningaboutthe learners- the impact of a peer tutoringscheme', in
Foot, H.C., Howe, C.J., Anderson,A., Tolmie, A.K. and Warden,D.A. (eds.), Groupand
InteractiveLearning.Southamptonand Boston: ComputationalMechanics.
Martin,D.C. and Arendale,D.R. (1990). SupplementalInstruction:ImprovingStudentPerformance, IncreasingStudentPersistence.KansasCity MO: Universityof Missouri.
Martin,D.C. and Arendale,D.R. (1992). 'Supplementalinstruction:improvingfirst-yearstudent success in high-riskcourses', The FreshmanYearExperience:MonographSeries No.
7. ColumbiaSC: South CarolinaUniversity(ED354839).
Martin,D.C., Blanc, R.A. and DeBuhr,L. (1983). 'Breakingthe attritioncycle: the effects of
supplementalinstructionon undergraduateperformanceand attrition',Journal of Higher
Education54(1), 80-89.
Marton,E, Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (1984). The Experienceof Learning. Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press.
Maxwell, M. (1990). 'Does tutoringhelp? a look at the literature',Review of Research in
DevelopmentalEducation7(4), 3-7.
Meredith, G.M. and Schmitz, E.D. (1986). 'Student-taughtand faculty-taughtseminars in
undergraduateeducation:anotherlook', Perceptualand Motor Skills 62(2), 593-594.
Merriam,R. and Caffarella,R.S. (1991). Learningin Adulthood.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Moody, S. and McCrae, J. (1994). 'Cross year peer tutoring with law undergraduates',in
Foot, H.C., Howe, C.J., Anderson,A., Tolmie, A.K. and Warden,D.A. (eds.), Groupand
InteractiveLearning. Southamptonand Boston: ComputationalMechanics.
Moore-West,M., Hennessy, A., Meilman,P.W.and O'Donnell, J.F. (1990). 'The presence of
student-basedpeer advising, peer tutoringand performanceevaluationprogramsamong
U.S. medical schools', AcademicMedicine65(10), 660-661.
Moust, J.H.C., De Volder,M.L., andNuy, H.J.P.(1989).'Peerteachingand higherlevel cognitive learningoutcomes in problem-basedlearning',Higher Education 18(6), 737-742.
studentsas tutors:aretheyas effective as
Moust,J.C. andSchmidt,H.G. (1992). 'Undergraduate
facultyin conductingsmall-grouptutorials?',Paperpresentedat theAmericanEducational
Research Association Symposiumon RewardingTeachingat Research Universities, San
FranciscoCA, April 23 (ED 346774).
Moust, J.H.C.and Schmidt,H.G. (1994a). 'Facilitatingsmall-grouplearning:a comparisonof
studentand staff tutors' behavior',InstructionalScience 22, 287-301.
Moust, J.H.C. and Schmidt, H.G. (1994b). 'Effects of staff and student tutors on student
achievement',Higher Education28, 471-482.
National Center for SupplementalInstruction(1994). Review of Research Concerning the
Effectivenessof SI. KansasCity MO: NCSI, Universityof Missouriat KansasCity.
O'Donnell, A.M., Dansereau,D.F., Rocklin,T., Lambiotte,J.G., Hythecker,V.I. and Larson,
C.O. (1985). 'Co-operativewriting:direct effects and transfer', WrittenCommunication
2(3), 307-315.
Oley, N. (1992). 'Extracreditandpeertutoring:impacton the qualityof writingin introductory
psychology in an OA college', Teachingof Psychology 19(2), 78-81.
Olson, G.A. (ed.) (1984). Writing Centers: Theory and Administration.Illinois: National
Council of Teachersof English.
Quintrell, N. and Westwood, M. (1994). 'The influence of a peer-pairingprogramon international students' first year experience and use of student services', Higher Education
Researchand Development13(1), 49-57.
Ramsden,P. (ed.) (1986). ImprovingLearning.London:KoganPage.
344
J.T.,Eysenck,M.W.andPiper,D.W.(eds.)(1987).StudentLearning:Research
Richardson,
in Educationand CognitivePsychology. Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
Riggio,R.E.,Fantuzzo,J.W.,Connelly,S. andDimeff,L.A.(1991).'Reciprocal
peertutoring:
a classroomstrategyfor promotingacademicand social integrationin undergraduate
students', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality6(2), 387-396.
Rizzolo,P.(1982).'Peertutorsmakegoodteachers:a successfulwritingprogram',Improving
College and UniversityTeaching30(3), 115-119.
Robin,A.L. andHeselton,P. (1977). 'Proctortraining:the effectsof a manualversusdirect
training',Journal of Personalised Instruction2, 19-24.
OpenUniversityPress.
Rogers,J. (1977).AdultsLearning(secondedition).Buckingham:
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeshipin Thinking:Cognitive Developmentin Social Context.
OxfordandNew York:OxfordUniversityPress.
outcomesasinfluenced
Rosen,S., Powell,E.R.andSchubot,D.B.(1977).'Peer-tutoring
bythe
Journalof Educational
Psychology69(3),244-252.
equityandtypeof roleassignment',
atOxfordBrookesUniversity',
instruction
Rust,C. (1993).'Supplemental
Papergivenat Peer
TutoringConsortiumConference,Universityof Glamorgan,23 June 1993.
Rust, C. and Wallace, J. (eds.) (1994). Helping Studentsto Learnfrom Each Other: Supple-
StaffandEducational
mentalInstruction.
Association.
Birmingham:
Development
J.
and
P. (1993). 'Instruction
in learningskills:an integrated
P.D.,
Wallace,
Bidgood,
Rye,
approach',Medical Education27, 470-473.
Schaffer,J.L., Wile, M.Z. andGriggs,R.C. (1990). 'Studentsteachingstudents:a medical
schoolpeertutorialprogramme',
MedicalEducation24(4),336-343.
Schmidt,H., Arend,A.V.D.,Kokx,I. and Boon, L. (1994). 'Peerversusstaff tutoringin
Science22, 279-285.
learning',Instructional
problem-based
Schunk,D.H. (1987). 'Self-efficacyandmotivatedlearning',in Hastings,N. andSchwieso,
J. (eds.), New Directions in Educational Psychology: Behaviour and Motivationin the
Classroom.LondonandNew York:FalmerPress.
Schunk, D.H. and Zimmermann,B.J. (eds.) (1994). Self-Regulationof Learning and Perfor-
mance.New York:LawrenceErlbaum.
withinspecialeducation
R.T.(1986). 'Tutoringinterventions
Scruggs,T.E.andOsguthorpe,
settings:a comparisonof cross-ageandpeertutoring',Psychologyin theSchools23(2),
187-193.
C.F.(1981).'Peertutoring:a reviewof theliterature',
Collected
Sharpley,A.M.andSharpley,
Original Resources in Education5(3), 7-C11 (fiche 7 and 8).
Sherman,J.G.(1992). 'Reflectionson PSI:goodnewsandbad',Journalof AppliedBehavior
Analysis 25(1), 59-64.
andNew York:Cambridge
Press.
Stemberg,R.J.(1985).BeyondI.Q.Cambridge
University
P.(ed.)(1996).AdultLearning:A Reader.London:KoganPage(in press).
Sutherland,
Tight, M. (ed.) (1983). Adult Learningand Education.London:Routledge.
anoverview',ThePsychologist
Topping,K.J.(1992).'Co-operative
learningandpeertutoring:
5, 151-161.
Topping,K.J., Hill, S., McKaig,A., Rogers,C., Rushi,N. andYoung,D. (1996). 'Paired
forpublication).
economics',(submitted
reciprocalpeertutoringin undergraduate
of faculty-wide
Topping,K.J.,Simpson,G., Thompson,L. andHill, S. (1996). 'Evaluation
studentsupportedlearningat theUniversityof CentralLancashire',
forpubli(submitted
cation).
Topping,K.J.,Watson,G.A.,Jarvis,R.J.andHill,S. (1996).'Same-year
pairedpeertutoring
in undergraduate
forpublication).
mathematics',
(submitted
of higherpsychological
Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).'Mindin society:thedevelopment
processes',
MA:
V.,Scribner,S. andSouberman,
(editedby Cole, M., John-Steiner,
E.). Cambridge
MITPress.
instructionat KingstonUniversity',Papergivenat Peer
Wallace,J. (1993). 'Supplemental
TutoringConsortiumConference,Universityof Glamorgan,23 June 1993.
345
Webb, N.M. (1982). 'Peer interactionand learningin co-operativesmall groups', Journal of
Educational Psychology 5(74), 642-655.
Whitman, N.A. (1988). Peer Teaching:To Teach Is To Learn Twice (ASHE-ERIC Higher
EducationReport).WashingtonDC: ERICClearinghouseon Higher Education.