Sign up

A review of the effects of peer tutoring on students with mild disabilities in secondary settings.
Abstract:
Researchers reviewed 20 articles on peer tutoring research in secondary settings and addressed demographics of tutors and tutees, content areas in which peer tutors were employed, tutor training required for implementing effective tutoring programs, and the effects of peer tutoring on tutee performance. Generally, peer tutoring in secondary settings results in improved academic performance of students with mild disabilities and could be classified as an evidence-based practice. It appears that training tutors on how to implement instruction produces a large effect on tutee outcomes. Additional research is needed, however, to explore several factors regarding peer tutoring in general education classes and with secondary students with culturally diverse backgrounds.

Article Type:
Table
Subject:
Disabled students (Demographic aspects)
Peer-group tutoring of students (Demographic aspects)
Peer-group tutoring of students (Usage)
Peer-group tutoring of students (Influence)
Tutors and tutoring (Demographic aspects)
Tutors and tutoring (Training)
Tutors and tutoring (Influence)
Authors:
Stenhoff, Donald M.
Lignugaris/Kraft, Benjamin
Pub Date:
09/22/2007
Publication:
Name: Exceptional Children Publisher: Council for Exceptional Children Audience: Academic; Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Education; Family and marriage Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2007 Council for Exceptional Children ISSN: 0014-4029
Issue:
Date: Fall, 2007 Source Volume: 74 Source Issue: 1
Topic:
Event Code: 280 Personnel administration
Geographic:
Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Accession Number:
168055172
Full Text:
Seventh-grade through 12th-grade students are expected to obtain knowledge and skills through various activities, such as teacher lectures and reading textbooks independently (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Spencer, & Fontana, 2003). Researchers recommend that teachers use these activities within a teaching cycle that has three interrelated phases (Hofmeister & Lubke, 1990; Hudson, Lignugaris/Kraft, & Miller, 1993; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). The first phase includes review or learning-set activities. During this phase, teachers review material that students successfully practiced previously or confirm that students have the prerequisite skills that are critical to the day's lesson. The second phase includes presenting new material and providing structured practice on the new content. The final phase is independent practice, during which students practice the targeted knowledge and skills, develop fluency, and apply the knowledge and skills to broader instructional situations (Hudson et al., 1993). Researchers (e.g., Brophy & Evertson, 1974; Brophy & Good, 1986; Cotton, 1995; Madsen & Geringer, 1989; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Starlings, 1980) indicate that, within the teaching cycle, teachers should engage in a variety of teaching behaviors to effectively increase student learning. These include providing frequent opportunities to respond with feedback (praise for correct responses and error corrections for incorrect responses), accurately presenting subject matter, and monitoring student work.

Three basic instructional arrangements can be employed during the teaching cycle: whole class, small group, and individual work (Hofmeister & Lubke, 1990). Teachers often use a whole-class instructional arrangement during the new material and guided practice phase of the teaching cycle where teachers present new material and question students about material learned previously. The advantages of a whole-class teaching arrangement are that teachers can easily provide extensive amounts of feedback for student responses and apply an entire teaching cycle. In a whole-class instructional arrangement, however, it is difficult to individualize content to meet each student's needs. In small-group arrangements, teachers might use cooperative learning groups or work with each small group individually. An advantage of small-group arrangements is that it is easier to individualize content to meet each student's needs than in whole-class instruction. The disadvantage of Small group arrangements is that managing multiple groups can be difficult for teachers, and it is more difficult than whole-class instruction or small-group arrangements to provide the full teaching cycle. In individual work arrangements, students work independently on previously introduced knowledge and skills. During individual seatwork it is easy for teachers to tailor content for each student in the class (e.g., students with varying math skills can practice specific skills that correspond with their needs). In individual seatwork, however, it is difficult for teachers to provide the full teaching cycle for each student, and opportunities to provide feedback are more limited. Moreover, maintaining high levels of task engagement often is more difficult during individual work than during whole-class or small-group instruction. Stallings (1980) reported that students who have more engaged time have higher achievement than students who have less engaged time.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004 (IDEA 2004) require teachers to use research-based practices and instructional arrangements in their classrooms (Odom et al., 2005). This is especially important when teaching students with disabilities at the secondary level. These students typically have poor reading skills, poor note-taking skills, and poor organizational skills (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Marchand-Martella, Martella, Orlob, & Ebey, 2000). Thus, students with disabilities often cannot access content-area knowledge (e.g., social studies, math, health, science) using the strategies typically employed by secondary teachers (e.g., lecture and independent reading). Additionally, as students enter secondary settings, the curriculum demands increase as the classroom settings and teacher demands vary (Haisley, Tell, & Andrews, 1981). This fact amplifies the need for teachers to use teaching practices and instructional arrangements that help reduce the skill disparity between students with mild disabilities and students without disabilities.

Peer tutoring is one instructional arrangement that has been used extensively to increase students' engaged time in elementary settings (e.g., Delquadri, Greenwood, Stretton, & Hall, 1983; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; Greenwood et al., 1987; Johnson & Johnson, 1984; Maheady & Harper, 1987; Nelson, Johnson, & Marchand-Martella, 1996) and secondary settings (e.g., Allsopp, 1997; Bell, Young, Salzberg, & West, 1991; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Kazdan, 1999; Maheady, Harper, & Sacca, 1988a; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1988; Marchand-Marteila et al., 2000; Mastropieri et al. 2001; Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb, Meyers, & Duncan, 1983). Hudson et al. (1993) suggest that peer tutoring might be used during the independent-practice phase of the instructional cycle to build fluency and apply content information.

In peer tutoring, peers serve as the instructional agent for other students (tutees; Harper, Maheady, & Mallette, 1994). There are several variations of peer tutoring including (a) heterogeneous grouping in which tutees are taught by tutors in the same grade level with a higher level of knowledge or skill, (b) homogeneous grouping in which tutees are taught by tutors with similar skills, (c) cross-age tutoring in which a tutor teaches a younger tutee, and (d) reverse-role tutoring in which students with disabilities tutor other students with or without disabilities (Utley, Mortweet, & Greenwood, 1997). By using peer tutors, teachers can individualize content and provide extensive opportunities to respond with feedback during the independent-practice phase of the instructional cycle (Greenwood, Carta, & Kamps, 1990). Greenwood et al. (1987) suggest that opportunities for individual responding are more frequent during peer tutoring than during teacher instruction. Moreover, peer tutoring might Be used to increase students' engaged time during independent practice when managing students is often difficult.

This literature review examines peer-tutoring research conducted in academic settings in the secondary grade levels with students with mild disabilities. The literature was examined to determine (a) the demographics of tutors and tutees, (b) the content and skill areas where peer tutoring with students with mild disabilities are employed, (c) the tutor training needed for an effective tutoring program, and (d) the effect of tutoring on tutee and tutor performance. Finally, studies are assessed to determine whether practices employed by the researchers are identified as evidence-based practices.

METHODS

Peer-tutoring studies were identified through the ERIC, Exceptional Child Education Resources, ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses electronic databases using the descriptors peer teaching, peer tutoring, peer tutor, disabilities, special education, adolescents, middle school, high school, and junior high. Studies were included if (a) tutee outcomes were included as a primary dependent variable; (b) the sample of participants included students with mild disabilities such as learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit or hyperactivity disorder (ADD or ADHD), or behavior disorder (BD); (c) the tutees in the study were enrolled in the 7th through 12th grades; and the studies provided data to compute effect sizes for group design studies or percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) for single-subject studies. The reference sections of articles that met these criteria were reviewed for additional studies. Initially, 26 studies were identified; 6 were eliminated because they did not provide data to compute effect sizes or PND, thus 20 studies were reviewed.

The study characteristics coded in the review are (a) study setting; (b) tutor and tutee characteristics; (c) skill and content domains (e.g., reading, mathematics, social skills, history) and dependent variables; (d) type of peer tutoring used; (e) peer-tutor training and whether the tutors were matched to tutees prior to peer tutoring; (f) whether there was monitoring of tutor behavior and evidence of treatment fidelity; and (g) whether teachers problem solved with tutors after peer tutoring sessions.

The literature analysis is divided into three sections: (1) a synthesis of the studies' demographics, including the peer-tutoring setting, tutor and tutee characteristics, skill, and content domains in which tutoring was employed; (2) a summary of study outcomes; and (3) conclusions.

PEER TUTORING

DEMOGRAPHICS

STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

Study Setting. Peer-tutoring research has been conducted in a broad range of classroom settings, including general education classrooms, remedial special education classrooms, and resource and self-contained special education classrooms (Table 1). Five of the 20 studies (25%) were conducted in a general education setting and 13 of the 20 studies (65%) were conducted in a remedial classroom, resource classroom, or self-contained special education classroom. One study was conducted in a resource classroom and general education classroom (Hogan & Prater, 1993). Another study was conducted in a correctional-facility school (Kane & Alley, 1980). The type of tutoring used also varied across studies. Most researchers used heterogeneous peer tutoring (n = 9). The second most-used tutoring type was reverse-role tutoring (n = 8), and homogeneous peer tutoring was used in only 2 studies, and cross-age peer tutoring was used in 1 study.

Tutor and Tutee Characteristics. The tutor and tutee characteristics included the participant's age and grade, whether they were from the same class or recruited from different classes (origin), and whether they had a disability (Table 1). It was noted whether the tutors also served as tutees, and whether the authors reported the disability category in each of the studies.

Tutors were in 7th to 12th grades and their reported ages ranged from 10 to 21 years (Table 1). Tutors overwhelmingly were recruited from the tutees' class (n = 16). In one study, tutors were recruited from a peer buddy class (Presley & Hughes, 2000). In three studies the tutors' origin was not indicated (Bell et al., 1991; Blake, Wang, Cartledge, & Gardner, 2000; Hogan & Prater, 1993).

In most studies the tutors included students with disabilities (learning disabilities, behavior disorders, mental retardation [mild mental retardation, educable mentally retarded, intellectual disability], other health impairment). In 8 of the studies, tutors did not have a disability (Bell et al., 1991; Kane & Alley, 1980; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1987; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1988; Nobel, 2005; Presley & Hughes, 2000; Smith, Young, Nelson, & West, 1992; Stevens, 1998). In 11 of the studies, the tutors also served as the tutees.

Tutees were in 7th to 12th grade and their ages ranged from 12 to 21 years. Tutees' disabilities included behavior disorders (35%), learning disabilities (65%), and mental retardation (27%). The total number of tutees across all studies was 298 (M = 15; range = 1-58).

Skill and Content Domains. Peer tutoring was examined as an instructional strategy to increase tutees' proficiency in skill areas or to teach content knowledge. In 60% of the studies, tutees' basic reading, vocabulary, spelling, math, and social skills were addressed. Improving basic academic and social skills often is critical for improving students' ability to comprehend content independently, respond to questions in content-area texts, and enable greater levels of participation and interaction with teachers and peers (Marchand-Martella et al., 2000; Prater, Serna, & Nakamura, 1999; Presley & Hughes, 2000; Smith et al., 1992). There were only a few studies (n = 6) in which peer tutoring was used to help tutees in content areas (e.g., social studies, science, driver's education).

The primary dependent variable in 18 studies was correct responding (e.g., reading rate, rate of correct responses per minute on paper-and-pencil driving procedure tests, percentage of correct math problems, content chapter test scores, providing feedback to peers, anger management steps completed correctly) and the primary dependent variable in 2 studies was on-task behavior. In the majority of the studies, researchers used curriculum-based assessments (CBAs) to measure tutee outcomes (e.g., rate of responding, percentage of correct responding, tutee statements, tutees' grades). Fuchs et al. (1999) conducted the only study that used a standardized assessment to evaluate student improvement as a result of their heterogeneous peer tutoring program (Tables 2 and 3).

PEER-TUTORING OUTCOMES

DATA ANALYSIS

The outcomes for tutees with mild or moderate disabilities who participated in peer tutoring was analyzed by calculating an effect size for the primary dependent variable in group design studies (n = 6), or the percentage of nonoverlapping data points for the primary dependent variable in single-subject design studies (n = 14). Unbiased-mean standardized-difference effect sizes were computed for group studies. This effect size was used because it tends to minimize the upward bias in smaller sample sizes as standardized mean difference effect sizes do (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Next, effect sizes for each study's primary dependent variable(s) were averaged into a weighted mean effect size to report 1 effect size per study (Table 2; Lipsey & Wilson). All effect sizes reflect outcomes for students with disabilities except for 1 study (Roach et al., 1983). The effect size for this study includes students in a remedial mathematics course who qualified for special education or for remedial services in math. Finally, an over all weighted-mean effect size was calculated. For this review, an effect size ranging from 0.20 to 0:49 was considered small, an effect size ranging from 0.50 to 0.79 was considered medium, and an effect size of 0.80 or greater was considered large (Howell, 2002). The homogeneity of the overall weighted-mean effect size distribution was assessed using the Q statistic (Lipsey & Wilson).

For each participant in single-subject studies, the PND was computed by dividing the number of data points exceeding the highest (in studies in which an increase in the dependent variable was expected) or lowest baseline data point (in studies in which a decrease in the dependent variable was expected) in the expected direction by the total number of data points in the intervention phase (Table 3; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2001). The PND for each participant then was averaged across participants to yield a mean PND for each study. For this review, mean PND scores greater than 90% indicate that the intervention was very effective, scores falling between 70% and 89% indicate that the intervention was effective, scores falling between 50% and 69% indicate that the intervention was minimally effective, and scores falling below 50% indicated that the intervention was ineffective (Graham & Harris, 2003).

Gersten and colleagues (2005) and Horner and colleagues (2005) describe criteria used to assess whether practices are supported as being evidence based. When evaluating group research, Gersten et al. propose that a practice is evidence based if there are, "at least four acceptable quality studies, or two high quality studies that support the practice" (Gersten et al., p. 162) and the weighted effect size statistically is significantly greater than zero. Gersten et al. also provide study quality indicators for reporting participant information, intervention and comparison conditions, outcome measures, and results (see Gersten et al. for further discussion of the criteria). When evaluating single-subject research, Homer et al. propose the following quality indicators: the practice is clearly and operationally defined, the context and outcomes of the practice are clearly defined, and there is a functional change between the independent variable and dependent variable. For this review, the mean PND score was used to evaluate the strength of the functional change between the independent variable and the primary dependent variable for each study.

Further, Homer and colleagues (2005) suggest that (a) experimental control must be demonstrated across a minimum of five studies published in peer-reviewed journals; (b) the studies must be conducted by at least three different research teams in three different settings; and (c) the five studies must include at least 20 participants (see Homer et al. for further discussion on the criteria). Finally, in both group and single-subject research, Gersten et al. and Homer et al. suggest that documented procedural fidelity is a desirable quality indicator.

All but three studies in the present review were published in peer-reviewed journals. Nobel's (2005) and Stevens's (1998) single-subject studies were dissertations and Terrell and Feldman's (1983) single-subject study was published in a conference proceeding. Only three of six group studies reported effect sizes, an important quality indicator (Gersten et al., 2005). Finally, few studies reported treatment fidelity (group, n = 1; single-subject, n = 6). In one study (Stowitschek Hecimovic, Stowitschek, & Shores, 1982), however, the range was reported and a mean could not be computed. The treatment fidelity in the Fuchs et al. (1999) group study was 86.3%. The mean treatment fidelity across single-subject studies was 99% (n = 5, range = 96% to 100%). Importantly, in studies in which treatment fidelity is included, the data reported are uniformly strong.

The following section reports outcomes for group studies and then for single-subject studies. The studies are categorized by their primary dependent variable (i.e., correct responding or on-task behavior). The studies are separated into these two categories because the measures appeared to be the most relevant for analysis of peer-tutoring effects. For group studies, a mean weighted effect size is reported for the primary dependent variable(s) in each study, and an overall mean weighted effect size represents all the group studies. Based on the recommendation put forth by Gersten et al. (2005), however, the overall mean weighted effect size is reported for categories (e.g., correct responding or on-task dependent measures, type of tutoring employed) in which there are four or more group studies that represent that category.

For single-subject studies, a mean PND is reported for the primary dependent variable(s) in each study and an overall PND is reported for all single-subject studies. Additionally, based on the recommendation in Homer et al. (2005), the overall PND is reported for categories in which there are five or more single-subject studies that represent that category. Finally, suggestions for general practice are discussed following each section, based on criteria for evidence-based practice provided by Gersten et al. (2005) and Homer et al. It is important to approach the outcomes cautiously, given the qualitative aspects of some of the criteria that Gersten et al. and Homer et al. suggest, such as whether the dependent variables or peer-tutoring interventions are "clearly" described; whether "sufficient" information is provided to confirm participants' disabilities, and that treatment fidelity was reported in less than half the studies reviewed.

MAGNITUDE OF OUTCOME

Mean weighted effect sizes were computed for 30% of the studies reviewed (Table 2), and the percentage of nonoverlapping data points was computed for 70% of the studies reviewed (Table 3).

Overall Outcomes for Correct Responding Group Studies. All group studies (n = 6) were categorized in the correct responding category. The 6 effect sizes ranged from 0.18 to 1.15. Two effect sizes were considered small, 1 was considered medium, and 3 considered large. The overall weighted mean effect size across the group studies was 0.46 (CI = 0.41 to 0.71). The homogeneity test was statistically significant (Q = 24.24, p < 0.05). This indicates that the variability of the effect size is larger than is expected from sampling error. Results from the group design studies therefore must be interpreted with caution.

Overall Outcomes for Correct Responding Single-Subject Studies. Of the 12 single-subject studies in which the primary dependent measure was correct responding, 5 mean PND scores were in the minimally effective interval, 5 mean PND scores were in the effective interval, and 2 mean PND scores were in the very effective interval. Overall, the mean PND across studies was in the effective interval (MPND= 74%; range = 50% to 98%).

Overall Outcomes for On-Task Single-Subject Studies. There were only two studies that were categorized in the on-task dependent measure category (Hogan & Prater, 1993; Smith, et al., 1992). A reliable overall PND therefore could not be Computed, and the two studies are not included in subsequent analyses. In one study, the mean PND was in the ineffective interval (PND = 33%), and in the other study a very effective PND was computed (PND = 100%).

General Practice Summary. Both effect sizes and PND effects tended to be dispersed across all levels of effects. Four of the 6 group studies support peer tutoring as an evidence-based practice. Eight of the 12 single-subject studies in Which correct responding was the primary dependent variable were published in peer-reviewed journals, 7 different research groups conducted the studies, and there were 89 participants across the peer-reviewed studies. Additionally, researchers clearly described the study methodology in each of the studies. In both the group and single-subject studies, the researchers generally met the quality and outcome standards for peer tutoring to be considered an evidence-based practice for students in secondary settings.

HOW DOES TUTORING TYPE AFFECT TUTEE OUTCOMES?

Four tutoring types were identified in this review: reverse-role, heterogeneous, homogeneous, and cross-age. Reverse-role tutoring was used in three group studies and in five single-subject studies in which correct responding was the primary dependent variable (Table 1). Heterogeneous peer tutoring was used in two group studies and in five single-subject studies. Homogeneous tutoring was used in one group study and one single-subject study. Cross-age tutoring was used in one single-subject study. Tutoring-type effects are analyzed for single-subject studies only, because there are fewer than four studies in any one tutoring-type category across the group studies.

Tutoring-Type Effects for Correct Responding Single-Subject Studies. In two studies, reverse-role tutoring was considered minimally effective (MPND = 58%, range = 50% to 65%; Table 4). In three reverse-role tutoring studies the effects were considered effective (MPND = 78%, range = 73% to 88%). Overall, the mean PND across studies in which reverse-role peer tutoring was used was in the effective interval (M = 70%; range = 50% to 88%). In studies that used heterogeneous peer tutoring, the PND in one study was considered minimally effective (PND = 65%), the PND in two studies was considered effective (MPND = 79%, range = 74% to 84%), and the PND in two studies was considered very effective (MPND = 98%, range = 97% to 98%). Overall, the mean PND across studies in which heterogeneous peer tutoring was used was in the effective interval (MPND = 84%; range = 65% to 98%). There were not enough studies included to enable computation of a reliable average PND for tutoring-type effects for homogeneous (PND = 53%) and cross-age tutoring (PND = 69%).

General Practice Summary. In general, the single-subject studies support reverse-role peer tutoring as an evidence-based practice. Only three of the five single-subject studies in which reverse-role peer tutoring was used were published in peer-reviewed journals, however, and they all were conducted by one group of researchers. Thus, the single-subject studies do not meet the necessary quality standards (Homer et al., 2005). A heterogeneous peer-tutoring approach was supported as an evidence-based practice in the single-subject studies. Five single-subject studies in which heterogeneous peer tutoring was used were published in peer reviewed journals, five different research groups conducted the studies, and there were 25 participants across studies. Additionally, the researchers clearly specified the study methodology in each of the studies. No recommendation can be made regarding homogeneous and cross-age peer tutoring because these factors were not used in a sufficient number of studies.

In sum, it is clear that peer tutoring at the secondary level qualifies as an evidence-based practice; however, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that some peer-tutoring approaches are effective and other peer-tutoring approaches are ineffective.

HOW DOES TRAINING PEER TUTORS AFFECT TUTEE OUTCOMES?

Utley et al. (1997) report that peer tutors who use specific instructional behaviors are more effective than those tutors who merely are paired with another individual. Carnine (2002) identified important elements of effective tutor training. Teachers should (a) establish expectations with tutors, (b) model instructional-presentation behaviors, (c) provide opportunities for tutors to role-play and practice the presentation behaviors, (d) model and role-play reinforcer delivery, (e) model and role-play corrective feedback techniques, (f) model and role-play performance-monitoring strategies, (g) practice problem-solving scenarios, and (h) match tutors to tutees. Other researchers concur with Carnine's assertions (e.g., Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986; Fulk & King, 2001; Hawkes & Paolucci-Whitcomb, 1980; Kline, 1987; Marchand-Martella et al., 2000; Roach et al., 1983; Utley et al., 1997). For example, Kline (1987) argues that using a highly structured daily lesson format provides tutors with a clear understanding how to conduct lessons, while easing the planning and training demands on the teacher. Additionally, Fulk and King describe implementation guidelines for peer tutoring including matching tutors to tutees, training tutors to provide feedback for correct responses, performing error-correction procedures, and providing time to practice these skills before tutoring.

In 11 of the studies, teachers or researchers taught tutors instructional and management strategies prior to the beginning of the tutoring sessions (Table 5). In 10 of these studies, researchers or teachers modeled instructional-presentation behaviors, and had peer tutors role-play or practice those behaviors. Additionally, researchers or teachers modeled or had peer tutors role-play and practice reinforcer delivery and corrective feedback. Fulk and King (2001) and Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, and Simmons (1996) suggest matching students by initially ranking students from highest achiever to lowest achiever in the peer-tutoring content area. Next, the list is divided in two and the first student on list one is paired with the first student on list two, the second-ranked student on list one is paired with the second-ranked student on list two, and so on. Allsopp (1997) emphasizes the importance of this method of pairing because it allows students with differing abilities to work together while allowing more skilled students to teach students that have lesser skills. Jenkins and Jenkins (1988), however, suggest that the more critical factor in matching tutors and tutees is matching their personal characteristics. For example, Haisley et al. (1981) caution that students who are difficult to manage should be paired with tutors who are more assertive and, conversely, Tournaki and Criscitiello (2003) suggest that tutors and tutees should be paired so tutees are not intimidated by tutors' behavior.

In nine of the studies, tutors and tutees were matched before peer tutoring began (Table 5). In six studies, high-performing students were matched with lower performing students. Maheady et al. (1987), for example, ranked students by math competency level from highest to lowest. Students then were assigned to groups with the highest ranked student joining Group 1, the second highest ranked student joining Group 2, and so on until all students were assigned to a group. Group members remained in the same group for 4 to 6 weeks. Mastropieri et al. (2003) matched tutors and tutees based on who would be more likely to work well together, but did not describe the basis for deciding whether students would work well with each other. Franca, Kerr, Reitz, & Lambert (1990) matched students based on their need to practice the same math tasks, and Prater et al. (1999) randomly assigned tutors and tutees to work together.

The amount of tutor training varied across studies. In general, studies in which researchers provided more-extensive tutor training produced better results than studies in which researchers provided less-extensive training. For example, Stowitschek et al. (1982) provided extensive training for tutors that included establishing expectations with tutors, modeling instructional-presentation behaviors, providing opportunities for the tutor to role-play presentation behaviors and feedback behaviors, and practicing monitoring tutee performance. In contrast, Blake et al. (2000) modeled presentation behaviors and provided opportunities for tutors to practice the presentation behaviors.

Training Effects for Correct-Responding Group Studies. The 4 mean weighted effect sizes ranged from 0.25 to 1.15 (Table 6). One effect size was considered small and 3 were considered large. The mean weighted effect size across the four group studies in which peer tutor training was conducted was 0.91. The mean effect size was large and was statistically significant (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.20). Additionally, the test for homogeneity was not statistically significant (Q = 5.49, p > 0.05). This indicates that the dispersion of effect sizes is no greater than expected from sampling error alone. Thus, it appears that the training of tutors had a great effect on tutee outcomes.

Training Effects for Correct Responding Single-Subject Studies. A similar pattern was observed in single-subject studies in which peer-tutor training was conducted (n = 8; Table 7). In three of the studies, the PND was considered minimally effective (MPND = 61%, range = 53% to 69%). In three studies, the PNDs (MPND = 77%, range = 74% to 84%) were considered effective. Finally, the PND in two studies was considered very effective (MPND = 98%, range = 97% to 98%). Overall, the mean PND across studies that included tutor training was in the effective interval (MPND = 76%, range = 53% to 98%).

General Practice Summary. Clearly, the mean weighted effect size supports a tutor-training component, and there are enough group studies to consider tutor training as an evidence-based practice. Six single-subject studies were published in peer-reviewed journals, six different research groups conducted the studies, and there were 27 participants across studies. Moreover, in all the studies, researchers clearly operationalized their training procedures and peer-tutoring practice, and the overall effect of the peer-tutoring interventions is in the effective PND interval. In sum, the group and single-subject peer-tutoring studies that include a tutor-training component generally meet the quality and outcome standard to be identified as an evidence-based practice.

HOW DOES MONITORING PEER TUTORS AFFECT TUTEE OUTCOMES?

Researchers recommend that teachers monitor tutors' instructional delivery, reinforcement delivery, error corrections, and tutee performance monitoring during instructional sessions (Canine, 2002; Fulk & King, 2001; Maheady, Harper, & Mallette, 1991; Maheady, Harper, & Sacca, 1988a; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1987; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1988). Teachers also should hold regular meetings with tutors after the tutoring sessions to provide general feedback on tutoring and to solve problems that can arise during peer-tutoring sessions (Carnine; Delquadri et al., 1986; Franca et al., 1990; Fulk & King, 2001).

In 15 of 18 studies in which correct responding was the primary dependent measure, the researchers indicated that the teacher or researcher monitored tutors' instructional skills during tutoring sessions or provided feedback to tutors after tutoring (Table 5). However, researchers reported specific tutoring behaviors the teacher or researcher monitored in only 10 of the studies (n = 1 group and 9 single-subject). The behaviors monitored most frequently included tutors' instructional presentation, reinforcement delivery, and corrective feedback. In some studies, teachers also tracked how tutors monitored tutee performance (Bell et al., 1991; Nobel, 2005; Maheady, Harper, & Sacca, 1988a; Stowitschek et al., 1982). Maheady, Harper, and Sacca (1988a), for example, taught teachers in a general-education social studies class to move around the classroom during peer tutoring and to provide points to tutors who were appropriately asking tutees questions, providing praise and error corrections, and recording tutees' scores. The points were totaled weekly, and the team with the most points was recognized in a class bulletin and given a certificate. In several studies, teachers or researchers met with peer tutors after peer-tutoring sessions to provide feedback on their teaching and performance monitoring, or to problem-solve peer tutoring issues. In the Stowitschek et al. (1982) study, the teacher met with tutors to provide feedback on tutoring procedures only. The researchers, however, did not report specific tutoring issues discussed or specific feedback given during sessions, and verification of whether issues were resolved was not provided. Additionally, there were no data provided that indicated whether the discussions influenced tutor behavior during tutoring.

Monitoring Effects for Group Studies. The 5 mean weighted effect sizes ranged from 0.18 to 1.15. One effect size was near 0, 1 was medium, and 3 were large. The mean weighted effect size across the five group studies in which peer tutor monitoring was conducted was 0.47 (Table 8). The mean effect size for the studies in which tutors were monitored was considered small and was statistically significant (p < 0.05, CI = 0.32 to 0.62). Further, the homogeneity test was statistically significant (Q = 23.82, p < 0.05), indicating that the variability of the effect size is greater than expected from sampling error. Therefore, the results from the group design Studies should be interpreted cautiously.

Monitoring Effects for Single-Subject Studies. PNDs were computed for 10 studies in which tutors' instructional skills were monitored (Table 9). In 4 of the studies, the PNDs were considered minimally effective (MPND = 63%, range = 53% to 69%), 5 were considered effective (MPND = 79%; range = 73% to 88%), and 1 was considered very effective (PND = 97%). Overall, the mean PND across studies in which peer tutors were monitored was 74% (range = 53% to 97%) and was considered effective.

General Practice Summary. There is not enough evidence to support peer-tutor monitoring with the group studies alone. Although the effect size was statistically significant the mean effect was small, and the outcome of the homogeneity test indicates that these results should be interpreted with caution. Also, researchers in five studies indicated that they monitored tutor behavior; however, the tutor behaviors that were being monitored was clearly defined in only 1 of the group studies.

Although the group peer-tutoring studies that included a peer-tutor monitoring component lack some quality and outcome standards that are necessary to be identified as evidence based, the single-subject peer tutoring Studies meet the quality and outcome standards to be an evidence-based practice. Eight single-subject studies were published in peer reviewed journals, seven different research groups conducted the studies, and there were 114 participants across studies. Additionally, the researchers clearly defined the specific tutor behaviors in all of the studies. Finally, the overall effect of the peer-tutoring interventions is in the effective PND interval.

CONCLUSIONS

In this review, the demographics of tutors and tutees, the content and skill areas in which peer tutoring was employed, the training needed for peer tutoring to be successful, and the effect of tutoring on tutee and tutor performance are examined. Finally, the studies are analyzed by correct responding studies and on-task behavior studies to determine evidence-based practices for peer tutoring in secondary settings.

GENERAL FINDINGS

Peer tutoring was conducted in several settings (e.g., general education classrooms, resource classrooms, self-contained classrooms), and primarily addressed basic academic and social skills (e.g., reading, vocabulary, spelling, math, feedback to peers, anger management). In the studies reviewed, all weighted effect sizes for primary dependent variables were positive. In single-subject studies, the mean PND across studies for the primary dependent variable was in the effective range. There were noticeably few studies (n = 5) conducted in general education classes. Of those studies, two were implemented in content classrooms (social studies and driver education) and three studies were implemented in basic skills classes (reading, math, social skills).

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES

One goal of this review is identification of the components of peer tutoring--in both group and single-subject studies--that are identified as evidence-based practices in secondary settings. Four evidence-based practices are identified in studies in which correct responding was the primary dependent variable.

1. Peer tutoring, as a general method, is supported as an evidence-based practice in both group and single-subject studies.

2. Heterogeneous peer tutoring is the only type of peer-tutoring method identified as an evidence-based practice. The studies supporting heterogeneous peer tutoring all are single-subject studies.

3. In both group and single-subject studies there is strong support for peer-tutor training prior to the commencement of peer-tutoring sessions.

4. The single-subject studies support monitoring peer tutors during peer tutoring as an evidence-based practice.

WHAT RESEARCH STILL SHOULD BE DONE?

Additional teaching demands are usually experienced when teaching multicultural students or English-language learners who have disabilities. In the studies reviewed, participants' ethnicity and disaggregated data were reported in only 2 of the 11 studies (Blake et al., 2000; Presley & Hughes, 2000). Thus, due to the dearth of evidence, no inferences regarding the efficacy of using peer tutoring with multicultural students or English-language learners with disabilities can be made at the secondary level. Utley and colleagues (1997) noted that peer tutoring has been used effectively with multicultural and bilingual students. Moreover, Saenz, Fuchs, and Fuchs (2005) reported great effects when a peer-tutoring strategy was used in elementary settings (third grade through sixth grade) to increase the reading comprehension of English-language learners with learning disabilities. Additional research is needed to assess the effects of peer tutoring on students from diverse backgrounds with disabilities in secondary settings. It is important to examine whether the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of tutors have differential effects on tutoring and whether the tutoring procedures found in many of the studies reviewed here also are effective with multicultural students and English-language learners with disabilities.

As students enter secondary settings, the academic focus shifts from basic skills to content knowledge (Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 2004). Moreover, IDEA 2004 emphasizes the need to provide students with disabilities access to the general curriculum, and clearly accentuates the need for strategies that support students with disabilities in content-area classes. Peer tutoring provides the structure needed to support basic skill deficits while allowing students to gain content knowledge (Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1988). Maheady, Harper, and Sacca (1988a) used peer tutors to quiz tutees on the factual information read from a world history textbook. There were five studies conducted in general-education classes identified in the current review, but there were no studies that addressed more complex content syntheses or content applications. For example, social studies or history questions that address the relationship between the causes and outcomes of historical wars with current wars or struggles require critical thinking and a deep understanding of factual knowledge. Although factual knowledge clearly is a prerequisite to addressing these kinds of questions, it would be interesting to examine whether peer tutoring is an effective instructional arrangement to develop critical-thinking skills in content areas. This research is necessary to understand the variety of knowledge that teachers might productively use peer tutoring to teach.

Devin-Sheehan, Feldman, and Allen (1976) reported that there is little research that indicates what type of tutor (e.g., cross-age, heterogeneous, homogeneous) is most effective for students at the elementary or secondary levels. Based on this review, it is clear that additional research is needed to determine whether some tutoring approaches are effective and other tutoring approaches are not effective. Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, and Watson Moody (1999) reported positive effects when same-age peers with higher skills were used as tutors, when same-age peers with similar skills were used as tutors, and when reverse-role tutoring was employed. In contrast, they found that cross-age tutoring was not effective for tutees with disabilities. Elbaum et al., however, reported that the majority of participants were in first through sixth grades, but did not delineate the number of participants in secondary settings. Thus, it remains unclear whether the effect of cross-age tutoring is different at the secondary level than it is at the elementary level.

Another potentially important aspect of peer tutoring is the effect it might have on the tutors' performance. In the present review this aspect is not examined due to an insufficient number of studies; however, researchers have reported benefits of tutoring for tutors. It has been reported, for example, that secondary-aged tutors demonstrated academic gains (Maheady, Harper, & Mallette, 1991); reduced school absences (Maheady et al., 1991); increased positive social interactions (Maheady et al., 1991); and increased appropriate classroom behavior (Hogan & Prater, 1993). Elbaum et al. (1999), in a review of studies of elementary-grade peer tutoring, reported positive effects for cross-age tutors that have disabilities who work with students in elementary grades (i.e., first grade through sixth grade), but did not report the ages of cross-age peer tutors. In examining the benefit for peer tutors who were not tutees at the secondary level, it could be necessary to study what types of tutoring (e.g., reverse-role tutoring, cross-age tutoring), what skill or content areas, and what settings could have the greatest benefit for tutors.

One important factor that could influence the outcome of peer tutoring is peer-tutor training. This review supports researchers' (Carnine, 2002; Delquadri et al., 1986; Fulk & King, 2001) assertion that peer-tutor training is an important component of peer tutoring. In fact, the outcomes of this review support tutor training as an evidence-based practice. This finding aligns with the Maheady et al. (1991) report that the most effective peer-tutoring programs are those in which tutors are taught explicit teaching strategies. Generally, tutee outcomes were better when researchers provided more extensive tutor training than when researchers provided less extensive tutor training. Although this difference is evident when comparing studies where tutors are provided large amounts of training (e.g., Stowitschek et al., 1982) with studies where tutors are given less training (Blake et al., 2000), more evidence is needed to gain a clearer understanding of the effect of specific components of tutor training on tutee outcomes. It would be useful to evaluate specific components of tutor training to determine how they contribute to tutee achievement.

Researchers also recommend monitoring tutors during and after tutoring sessions. In most studies in which tutors were trained, researchers monitored tutors' instructional skills during tutoring sessions. This aligns with the suggestions of Maheady et al. (1991) and Jenkins and Jenkins (1988) that teachers should monitor peer tutors' instructional accuracy on an ongoing basis. Jenkins and Jenkins indicate that ongoing monitoring of tutors' instructional behaviors informs teachers regarding where additional tutor training is needed. In the majority of the studies reviewed, researchers monitored tutors' implementation of peer tutoring during the tutoring sessions. Ongoing monitoring is important, but researchers suggest that meeting with tutors after tutoring sessions also is important (Carnine, 2002; Delquadri et al., 1986; Franca et al., 1990; Fulk & King, 2001). Despite this tenet, teachers met with tutors after monitoring tutoring sessions in only 3 studies (Franca et al.; Haisley et al., 1981; Stowitschek et al., 1982). Future research could address what types of post-tutoring session teacher feedback are critical (e.g., opportunities to respond, praise per minute) and the extent to which peer tutors are more likely to maintain those behaviors.

Although there are a number of questions about how best to implement peer tutoring and how to determine the precise amount of training required for effective peer tutoring, it is clear that structured peer tutoring that addresses basic academics, social-skills instruction, and factual knowledge provides improved achievement among students with disabilities in secondary settings. Maheady, Harper, and Sacca (1988b) suggest that preservice teachers should be taught how to use peer-tutoring arrangements in their classrooms. They indicate that peer-tutoring arrangements provide teachers with another option to help students access the general curriculum, and support students with mild disabilities in secondary settings. In fact, the Council for Exceptional Children (2005) contends that highly qualified special education and general education teachers should collaborate to "design appropriate learning and performance accommodations for students with disabilities" in content-area classes. Peer tutoring has been shown to be an effective accommodation for students with disabilities to access the general-education curriculum, though the research is limited (Bell et al., 1991; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1988; Mastropieri et al., 2003, Nobel, 2005; Spencer et al., 2003).

Researchers have shown that peer tutoring is an effective method to assist students with disabilities in accessing curriculum. However, more research is necessary to assess the extent to which peer tutoring can be used to assist students with disabilities access the general-education curriculum in secondary settings. In addition, researchers should examine how peer tutors could teach varying types of content knowledge within general-education settings. Within that context, researchers should report whether tutor training and monitoring was conducted and indicate the specific procedures used to conduct training and monitor peer tutors. Researchers also should attempt to use the quality indicators put forth by Gersten et al. (2005) and Homer et al. (2005) as a guide for producing quality studies so consumers easily can identify evidence-based practices. Finally, teacher preparation programs could consider peer tutoring to be a component of the curriculum that can provide preservice teachers with another research-based accommodation for students with disabilities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Four practices are identified as evidence-based practices in this review. First, and most important, peer tutoring in general is an evidence-based practice. This finding corresponds with the findings of several studies conducted in elementary settings (e.g., Delquadri et al., 1983; Greenwood et al., 1989; Greenwood et al., 1987; Johnson & Johnson, 1984; Maheady & Harper, 1987; Nelson et al., 1996) and of those studies conducted in secondary settings examined in the present review. Teachers seeking to implement evidence-based practices in their classrooms, as prescribed by NCLB, may include peer tutoring as an evidence-based instructional practice. By using peer tutors, teachers can increase individualized instruction for students with disabilities and increase students' engaged time (Greenwood et al., 1987).

In the current review, four peer-tutoring types are identified in the literature: reverse-role, heterogeneous, homogeneous, and cross-age. Only heterogeneous peer tutoring had enough evidence to support its use as an evidence-based practice. In studies in which heterogeneous peer tutoring was employed, the researchers recruited the peer tutors in two general ways: they identified them through a peer buddy course or the tutors were in the same class as the tutees.

Although peer tutoring--especially heterogeneous peer tutoring--is an effective practice, it appears that simply employing peer tutoring is not sufficient to ensure student learning. One of the strongest findings of this review is that training tutors prior to commencement of their peer-tutoring sessions is an important consideration. This seems obvious; however, it is not reported and is not discussed in all the studies reviewed. Teachers should train peer tutors to implement instructional methods (e.g., delivering praise, error corrections, monitoring tutee progress) while tutoring and, in future studies, researchers should report the training provided. In combination with tutor training, teachers should monitor tutors' behaviors while they are tutoring to correct and reinforce the behaviors that were taught to tutors during training.

Overall, peer tutoring is an effective method to teach students with mild disabilities the academic skills that are crucial for their success in secondary settings. Researchers implemented peer tutoring in a variety of settings and including students both with and without disabilities acting as tutors and tutees. Finally, the evidence presented in this review supports peer tutoring as an evidence-based practice.

The authors thank Steve Graham for his extensive feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Manuscript received February 2006; accepted December 2006.

REFERENCES

Allsopp, D. H. (1997). Using classwide peer tutoring to teach beginning algebra problem-solving skills in heterogeneous classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 18(6), 367-379.

Bell, K. E., Young, K. R., Sahberg, C. L., & West, R. R (1991). High school driver education using peer tutors, direct instruction, and precision teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(1), 45-51.

Blake, C., Wang, W., Cartledge, G., & Gardner, R. (2000). Middle school students with serious emotional disturbances serve as social skills trainers and reinforcers for peers with SED. Behavioral Disorders, 24(4), 280-298.

Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. (1974). Process-product correlations in the Texas Teacher Effectiveness Study: Final Report. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED091394)

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-377). New York: Macmillan.

Carnine, D. (2002). Elements of effective reading tutoring programs (A Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis 1995 update. Retrieved March 17, 2004, from the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/scped/esp/esp95.html

Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). IDEA & NCLB special education "highly qualified" requirements. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.cec. sped.org/pdfs/IDEA_Flowchart.pdf

Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Stretton, K., & Hall, R. V. (1983). The peer tutoring spelling game: A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spelling performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 225-239.

Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J. J., & Hall, R. V. (1986). Classwide peer tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52, 535-542.

Devin-Sheehan, L., Feldman, R. S., & Allen, V. L. (1976). Research on children tutoring children: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 355-385.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., Watson Moody, S. (1999). Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399-415.

Franca, V. M., Kerr, M. M., Reitz, A. L., & Lambert, D. (1990). Peer tutoring among behaviorally disordered students: Academic and social benefits to tutor and tutee. Education and Treatment of Children, 13(2), 109-128.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1996). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393269)

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on high school students with serious reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5), 309-318.

Fulk, B. M., & King, K. (2001). Classwide peer tutoring at work. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(2), 40-55.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149-164.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SSRD studies. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: The Guilford Press.

Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Kamps, D. (1990). Teacher-mediated versus peer-mediated instruction: A review of educational advantages and disadvantages. In H. C. Foot, M. M. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 177-205). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 151-160.

Greenwood, C. R., Dinwiddie, G., Bailey, V., Carta, J. J., Dorsey, D., Kohler, E, Nelson, C., Rotholz, D., & Schulte, D. (1987). Field replication of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 521-538.

Haisley, F. B., Tell, C. A., Andrews, J. (1981). Peers as tutors in the mainstream: Trained "teachers" of handicapped adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14(4), 224-226.

Harper, G. F., Maheady, L., & Mallette, B. (1994). The power of peer-mediated instruction: How and why it promotes academic success for all students. In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa, & A. I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers (pp. 229-242). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Hawkes, K. M., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (1980). A consultation model: Helping teachers use peer tutoring. The Pointer, 23(3), 47-55.

Hofmeister, A., & Lubke, M. (1990). Research into practice: Implementing effective teaching strategies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hogan, S., & Prater, M. A. (1993). The effects of peer tutoring and self-management training on on-task, academic, and disruptive behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 18(2), 118-128.

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179.

Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth Group.

Hudson, P., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., & Miller, T. L. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8, 106-127.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. [section] 1400 et seq. (2004).

Jenkins, J., & Jenkins, L. (1988). Peer tutoring in elementary and secondary programs. In E. L. Meyen, G. L. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Effective instructional strategies (pp. 335-354). Denver: Love.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1984). The effects of intergroup cooperation and intergroup competition on ingroup and outgroup cross-handicap relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 85-94.

Kane, B. J., & Alley, G. R. (1980). A peer-tutored, instructional management program in computational mathematics for incarcerated, learning disabled juvenile delinquents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13(3), 39-42.

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279-296.

Kline, F. M. (1987). Procedures to increase the instructional efficiency of secondary resource teachers. The Pointer, 31(3), 25-31.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (1989). The relationship of "on-task" to intensity and effective music teaching. Canadian Journal of Research in Music, 30, 87-94.

Maheady, L., & Harper, G. (1987). A classwide peer tutoring program to improve the spelling test performance of low-income, third- and fourth-grade students. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 177-189.

Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., & Mallette, B. (1991). Peer-mediated instruction: A review of potential applications for special education. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 75-103.

Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., & Sacca, K. (1988a). A classwide peer tutoring system in a secondary, resource room program for the mildly handicapped. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21(3), 76-83.

Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., & Sacca, M. K. (1988b). Peer-mediated instruction: A promising approach to meeting the diverse needs of LD adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 108-113.

Maheady, L., Sacca, M. K., & Harper, G. F. (1987). Classwide student tutoring teams: The effects of peer-mediated instruction on the academic performance of secondary mainstreamed students. The Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 107-121.

Maheady, L., Sacca, M. K., & Harper, G. F. (1988). Classwide peer tutoring with mildly handicapped high school students. Exceptional Children, 55, 52-59.

Marchand-Martella, N., Martella, R., Orlob, M., & Ebey, T. (2000). Conducting action research in a rural high school setting using peers as corrective reading instructors for students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19(2), 20-30.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Spencer, V., Boon, R. T., & Talbott, E. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn anything? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(1), 18-27.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(1), 52-65.

Nelson, J. R., Johnson, A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53-62.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).

Nobel, M. M. (2005). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of science vocabulary words for seventh-grade students with learning disabilities and/or low achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137-148.

Prater, M. A., Serna, L., & Nakamura, K. K. (1999). Impact of peer teaching on the acquisition of social skills by adolescents with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 22(1), 19-35.

Presley, J. A., & Hughes, C. (2000). Peers as teachers of anger management to high school students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 25(2), 114-130.

Roach, J. C., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., Meyers, H. W., & Duncan, D. A. (1983). The comparative effects of peer tutoring in math by and for secondary special needs students. The Pointer, 27(4), 20-24.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), AERA handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.

Saenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231-247.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). How to summarize single-participant research: Ideas and applications. Exceptionality, 9(4), 227-244.

Smith, D. J., Young, K. R., Nelson, J. R., & West, R. P. (1992). The effect of a self-management procedure on the classroom and academic behavior of students with mild handicaps. School Psychology Review, 21 (1), 59-72. Smith, T. E. C., Polloway, E., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy C. A. (2004). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Spencer, V. G., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2003). Content area learning in middle school social studies classrooms and students with emotional or behavioral disorders: A comparison of strategies. Behavioral Disorders, 28(2), 77-93.

Stallings, J. (1980). Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher, 9, 11-16.

Stevens, M. L. (1998). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the classroom behavior and academic performance of students with ADHD. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alfred University, Alfred, NY.

Stowitschek, C. E., Hecimovic, A., Stowitschek, J. J., & Shores, R. E. (1982). Behaviorally disordered adolescents as peer tutors: Immediate and generative effects on instructional performance as spelling achievement. Behavioral Disorders, 7(3), 136-148.

Terrell, C., & Feldman, D. (1983, December). The effects of a systematic study interval peer tutoring, and mutual behavioral contracting on unit spelling accuracy of adolescent learning disabled students. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED232374)

Tournaki, N., & Criscitiello, E. (2003). Using peer tutoring as a successful part of behavior management. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(2), 22-29.

Utley, C. A., Mortweet, S. L., & Greenwood, C. R. (1997). Peer-mediated instruction and interventions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(5), 1-23.

DONALD M. STENHOFF

University of Kentucky

BENJAMIN LIGNUGARISIKRAFT

Utah State University

Address correspondence to Donald M. Stenhoff, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Kentucky, 229 Taylor Education Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0001 (e-mail: Don.Stenhoff@uky.edu).

DONALD M. STENHOFF, Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

BENJAMIN LIGNUGARIS/KRAFT, Professor and Department Head, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Utah State University, Logan.
TABLE 1
Tutor and Tutee Characteristics

                        Setting (a)
                        Content
Study                   Tutoring Type

Bell, Young,            G
Salzberg, & West        Driver education
(1991)                  Cross age

Blake, Wang,            SC
Cartledge, &            Social skills
Gardner (2000)          Heterogeneous

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,    SC
& Lambert (1990)        Math
                        Heterogeneous

Fuchs, Fuchs, &         Rem/SE
Kazdan (1999)           Reading
                        Heterogeneous

Hogan & Prater          R, G
(1993)                  Spelling
                        Vocabulary
                        Heterogeneous

Kane & Alley            CF
(1980)                  Math
                        Heterogeneous

Maheady, Harper,        R
& Sacca (1988a)         Social studies
                        Reverse-role

Maheady, Sacca,         G
& Harper (1987)         Math
                        Reverse-role

Maheady, Sacca,         G
& Harper (1988)         Social studies
                        Reverse-role

Mastropieri, Scruggs,   SE
Mohler, Beranek,        Reading
Spencer, Boon, &        Reverse-role
Talbott (2001)

Mastropieri, Scruggs,   SE
Spencer, & Fontana      Social studies
(2003)                  Reverse-role

Nobel (2005)            Rem
                        Science
                        Reverse-role

Prater, Serna, &        SE
Nakamura (1999)         Social skills
                        Heterogeneous

Presley & Hughes        SC
(2000)                  Social skills
                        Heterogeneous

Roach, Paolucci-        Rem
Whitcomb, Meyers,       Math
& Duncan (1983)         Homogeneous

Smith, Young,           G
Nelson, & West          English
(1992)                  Social skills
                        Heterogeneous

Spencer, Scruggs,       SE
& Mastropieri           Social studies
(2003)                  Reverse-role

Stevens (1998)          G
                        Math
                        Reverse-role

Stowitschek,            SC
Hecimovic,              Spelling
Stowitschek, &          Heterogeneous
Shores (1982)

Terrell & Feldman       R
(1983)                  Spelling
                        Homogeneous

                        Tutor Characteristics

                        Age (A)                           Disability
Study                   Grade (G)        Origin           (b)

Bell, Young,            A: 17 to 18      NI               None
Salzberg, & West
(1991)

Blake, Wang,            A: 10 to 13      NI               BD
Cartledge, &
Gardner (2000)

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,    A: 13 to 16      Same class       BD
& Lambert (1990)

Fuchs, Fuchs, &         A: M = 15        Same class       LD, MMR,
Kazdan (1999)           G: M = 9.67                       other
                                                          disability,
                                                          remedial

Hogan & Prater          A: 15            NI               BD
(1993)

Kane & Alley            A: 15 to 17      Same             None
(1980)                                   institution

Maheady, Harper,        A: 14 to 19      Same class       LD
& Sacca (1988a)         G: 9 and 10,                      BD
                        12                                EMR

Maheady, Sacca,         A: 13 to 19      Same class       None
& Harper (1987)         G: 9 and 10

Maheady, Sacca,         A: 15 to 17      Same class       None
& Harper (1988)         G: 10

Mastropieri, Scruggs,   A: M = 12        Same class       LD
Mohler, Beranek,        (LD); 13 (MR)                     MR
Spencer, Boon, &        G: 7
Talbott (2001)

Mastropieri, Scruggs,   A: M = 15        Same class       LD
Spencer, & Fontana      G: 10, 12                         LD/BD
(2003)

Nobel (2005)            A: 12 to 13      Same class       None
                        G: 7

Prater, Serna, &        G: 7             Same class       LD
Nakamura (1999)

Presley & Hughes        G: 12            Peer buddy       None
(2000)                                   course

Roach, Paolucci-        A: 14 to 21      Same class       NI
Whitcomb, Meyers,       G: High school
& Duncan (1983)

Smith, Young,           G: 10            Same class       None
Nelson, & West
(1992)

Spencer, Scruggs,       G: 7, 8          Same class       BD
& Mastropieri                                             MR
(2003)                                                    OHI

Stevens (1998)          G: 9 to 10       Same class       None

Stowitschek,            A: 14 to 17      Same class       BD
Hecimovic,
Stowitschek, &
Shores (1982)

Terrell & Feldman       G: Junior high   Same class       LD
(1983)

                        Tutee Characteristics

                        Age (A)                           Disability
Study                   Grade (G)        Origin           (b)

Bell, Young,            A: 16            4/2              Learner 1: ID
Salzberg, & West                                          Learners 2
(1991)                                                    & 3: ND
                                                          Learner 4: LD

Blake, Wang,            A: 12 to 13      3/3              BD
Cartledge, &
Gardner (2000)

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,    A: 13 to 16      4/4              BD
& Lambert (1990)

Fuchs, Fuchs, &         Tutors also      52/38            LD = 35
Kazdan (1999)           served as                         MMR = 2
                        tutees                            Other = 1

Hogan & Prater          A: 14            1/1              LD
(1993)

Kane & Alley            A: 12 to 17      21/21            LD
(1980)

Maheady, Harper,        Tutors also      20/20            LD
& Sacca (1988a)         served as                         BD
                        tutees                            EMR

Maheady, Sacca,         A: 15 to 17      91/28            LD
& Harper (1987)         G: 9 and 10                       BD
                        Tutors also
                        served as
                        tutees

Maheady, Sacca,         A: 15 to 17      50/14            LD
& Harper (1988)         G: 10                             BD
                        Tutors also                       (n = 14)
                        served as
                        tutees

Mastropieri, Scruggs,   Tutors also      24/24            LD = 20
Mohler, Beranek,        served as                         MR = 4
Spencer, Boon, &        tutees
Talbott (2001)

Mastropieri, Scruggs,   Tutors also      16/16            LD = 14
Spencer, & Fontana      served as                         LD/ED = 1
(2003)                  tutees                            MMR = 1

Nobel (2005)            Tutors also      14/5             ComD = 2
                        served as                         LD = 3
                        tutees

Prater, Serna, &        G: 7             5/5              LD
Nakamura (1999)

Presley & Hughes        A: 14 to 17      4/4              BD
(2000)                  G: 9 to 11

Roach, Paolucci-        Tutors also      58/31            NI
Whitcomb, Meyers,       served as
& Duncan (1983)         tutees

Smith, Young,           G: 10            8/8              BD = 4
Nelson, & West                                            LD = 4
(1992)

Spencer, Scruggs,       Tutors also      30/30            BD
& Mastropieri           served as                         MR
(2003)                  tutees                            OHI

Stevens (1998)          Tutors also      2/2              LD/ADD
                        served as
                        tutees

Stowitschek,            Tutors also      9/9              BD
Hecimovic,              served as
Stowitschek, &          tutees
Shores (1982)

Terrell & Feldman       A: 13 to 15      6/6              LD
(1983)                  G: 7 to 9

(a) G = General, SC = Self-contained, SE = Special education setting,
Rem = Remedial, R = Resource, CF = Correctional facility.

(b) LD = Learning disability, ID = Intellectual disability, BD =
Behavior disorder, OHI = Other health impairment, MR = Mental
retardation, ComD = Communication disorder, NR = Not reported,
NI = Not indicated, ADD = Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,
MMR = Mild mental retardation, EMR = Educable mentally retarded
ND = Nondisabled, ED = Emotional disabilities.

(c) n = Total number of tutees; nWD = Number of tutees with
disabilities.

TABLE 2
Group Studies' Primary Dependent Variables
and Mean Weighted Effect Sizes

                              Primary Dependent
Study                            Variable(s)        n     ES    nES (a)

Fuchs, Fuchs, &             Comprehensive Reading   38   0.18      2
Kazdan (1999)               Assessment Battery
                            (CRAB) Words read:
                            400-word folktales
                            with readability
                            level of Grade 2.5
                            Comprehension
                            questions: Students
                            read 2 passages for
                            3 min then answer 10
                            comprehension
                            questions; as student
                            reads, examiner marks
                            errors

Kane & Alley (1980)         Math posttest scores    21   0.25      1

Mastropieri et al. (2001)   Percentage correct on   24   1.15      1
                            reading comprehension
                            posttest

Mastropieri, Scruggs,       Number correct on       16   1.15      7
Spencer, & Fontana          world history content
(2003)                      Chapter 1 test
                            Chapter 2 test
                            Chapter 3 test
                            Unit Test 1
                            Unit Test 2
                            Final exam
                            Items NOT from
                            Items from

Roach, Paolucci-            Rate of mathematic      58   0.94      2
Whitcomb, Meyers,           objectives mastered
& Duncan (1983)             weekly
                            Compared to when
                            working alone
                            Compared to when
                            working in pairs

Spencer, Scruggs, &         Percentage correct on   30   0.71      3
Mastropieri (2003)          U.S. history tests
                            Chapter multiple-
                            choice test
                            Chapter open-ended
                            test
                            Number correct on
                            10-item weekly quiz

(a) Number of unbiased mean standardized difference
effect sizes used to compute the mean.

TABLE 3
Single-Subject Studies' Primary Dependent Variables and PND Outcomes

                           Primary Dependent                      nDP
Study                      Variable(s)               n    PND     (a)

Bell, Young, Salzberg,     Rate of correct            2    69%     93
& West (1991)                responses per minute
                           Rate of errors
                             per minute
                           Rate of correct
                             responses on
                             maneuvers test
                             per minute

Blake, Wang, Cartledge,    Communication
& Gardner (2000)           Frequency of positive      3    65%    184
                             statements
                           Frequency of negative
                             statements
                           Game termination
                           Frequency of positive
                             statements
                           Frequency of negative
                             statements

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,       Rate of correct            4    84%    114
& Lambert (1990)             responses on
                             math worksheet
                           Rate of incorrect
                             responses on math
                             worksheets

Hogan & Prater (1993)      Percentage of time         1   100%     15
                             on-task

Maheady Harper,            Percentage correct on     20    88%     21
& Sacca (1988a)              weekly test scores
                           Ninth grade
                           Tenth grade to
                             twelfth grade

Maheady, Sacca,            Ninth grade               28    65%     45
& Harper (1987)            Percentage correct on
                             weekly test scores
                           P/Test scores
                           Tenth grade
                           Percentage correct on
                             weekly test scores
                           P/Test scores

Maheady, Sacca,            Percentage correct        14    73%     41
& Harper (1988)              on 20-item weekly
                             quizzes

Nobel (2005)               Number of science          5    74%    185
                             words learned

Prater, Serna, &           Percentage of skill        5    98%     42
Nakamura (1999)              components performed
                             correctly
                           Giving feedback
                           Contributing to
                             discussion
                           Accepting negative
                             feedback

Presley & Hughes (2000)    Number of anger-           4    97%     33
                             management steps
                             completed correctly

Smith, Young, Nelson,      Percentage of intervals    8    33%     36
& West (1992)                off-task

Stevens (1998)             Number of correct          2    50%      8
                             digits per minute
                             on math assessment

Stowitschek, Hecimovic,    Percentage correct         9    74%    205
Stowitschek, & Shores        on spelling test
(1982)

Terrell & Feldman (1983)   Percentage of words        6    53%     34
                             spelled correctly
                             on spelling test

(a) Number of data points used to compute the mean PND.

TABLE 4
Single-Subject Studies' Tutoring Type, and PND Outcomes
                                                                  nDP
Study                                     Tutoring Type  n   PND  (a)

Bell, Young, Salzberg, & West (1991)      Cross age       2  69%   93
Blake, Wang, Cartledge, & Gardner (2000)  Heterogeneous   3  65%  184
Franca, Kerr, Reitz, & Lambert (1990)     Heterogeneous   4  84%  114
Maheady, Harper, & Sacca (1988a)          Reverse-role   20  88%   21
Maheady, Sacca, & Harper (1987)           Reverse-role   28  65%   45
Maheady, Sacca, & Harper (1988)           Reverse-role   14  73%   41
Nobel (2005)                              Reverse-role    5  74%  185
Prater, Serna, & Nakamura (1999)          Heterogeneous   5  98%   42
Presley & Hughes (2000)                   Heterogeneous   4  97%   33
Stevens (1998)                            Reverse-role    2  50%    8
Stowitschek, Hecimovic,                   Heterogeneous   9  74%  205
  Stowitschek, & Shores (1982)
Terrell & Feldman (1983)                  Homogeneous     6  53%   34

(a) Number of data points used to compute the mean PND.

TABLE 5
Study Outcomes by Tutor Training, Monitoring, and Meeting With Tutors

                                  Tutor Training Before Tutoring

                                              Model      Role Play &/
                                           Instruction    or Practice
                             Establish    Presentation   Presentation
Study                      Expectations     Behaviors      Behaviors

Bell, Young, Salzberg,                          *              *
& West (1991)

Blake, Wang, Cartledge,                         *              *
& Gardner (2000)

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,                            *              *
& Lambert (1990)

Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Kazdan (1999)

Hogan & Prater (1993)                           *              *

Kane & Alley (1980)

Maheady, Harper,
& Sacca (1988a)

Maheady, Sacca,
& Harper (1987)

Maheady, Sacca,
& Harper (1988)

Mastropieri et                   *                             *
al. (2001)

Mastropieri, Scrugg,
Spencer, & Fontana (2003)

Nobel (2005)                                    *              *

Prater, Serna,
& Nakamura (1999)

Presley & Hughes (2000)                         *              *

Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb,                       *              *
Meyers, & Duncan (1983)

Smith, Young, Nelson,                           *              *
& West (1992)

Spencer, Scruggs,
& Mastropieri (2003)

Stevens (1998)                                                 *

Stowitschek, Hecimovic,          *              *              *
Stowitschek, &
Shores (1982)

Terrell & Feldman (1983)

                                  Tutor Training Before Tutoring

                            Model, Role    Model, Role    Model, Role
                             Play, or       Play, or       Play, or
                             Practice       Practice       Practice
                            Reinforces     Corrective     Performing
Study                        Delivery       Feedback      Monitoring

Bell, Young, Salzberg,           *              *
& West (1991)

Blake, Wang, Cartledge,
& Gardner (2000)

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,                            *
& Lambert (1990)

Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Kazdan (1999)

Hogan & Prater (1993)            *              *              *

Kane & Alley (1980)

Maheady, Harper,
& Sacca (1988a)

Maheady, Sacca,
& Harper (1987)

Maheady, Sacca,
& Harper (1988)

Mastropieri et                                  *
al. (2001)

Mastropieri, Scrugg,
Spencer, & Fontana (2003)

Nobel (2005)                     *              *              *

Prater, Serna,
& Nakamura (1999)

Presley & Hughes (2000)

Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb,        *              *              *
Meyers, & Duncan (1983)

Smith, Young, Nelson,                           *
& West (1992)

Spencer, Scruggs,
& Mastropieri (2003)

Stevens (1998)

Stowitschek, Hecimovic,          *              *              *
Stowitschek, &
Shores (1982)

Terrell & Feldman (1983)

                                 Tutor Training
                                 Before Tutoring

                             Practice
                           Instructional     Matches       Indicated
                              Problem        Tutors          Tutor
Study                        Scenarios      to Tutees     Monitoring

Bell, Young, Salzberg,                                         *
& West (1991)

Blake, Wang, Cartledge,                                        *
& Gardner (2000)

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,                            *              *
& Lambert (1990)

Fuchs, Fuchs, &                                 *              *
Kazdan (1999)

Hogan & Prater (1993)

Kane & Alley (1980)                             *

Maheady, Harper,                                               *
& Sacca (1988a)

Maheady, Sacca,                                 *              *
& Harper (1987)

Maheady, Sacca,                                                *
& Harper (1988)

Mastropieri et                                                 *
al. (2001)

Mastropieri, Scrugg,                            *              *
Spencer, & Fontana (2003)

Nobel (2005)                                                   *

Prater, Serna,                                  *
& Nakamura (1999)

Presley & Hughes (2000)                         *              *

Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb,                                      *
Meyers, & Duncan (1983)

Smith, Young, Nelson,
& West (1992)

Spencer, Scruggs,                               *              *
& Mastropieri (2003)

Stevens (1998)

Stowitschek, Hecimovic,                         *              *
Stowitschek, &
Shores (1982)

Terrell & Feldman (1983)                                       *

                               Specific Behaviors
                                   Monitored

                           Instructional  Reinforcement
Study                      Presentation     Delivered

Bell, Young, Salzberg,           *              *
& West (1991)

Blake, Wang, Cartledge,          *
& Gardner (2000)

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,             *              *
& Lambert (1990)

Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Kazdan (1999)

Hogan & Prater (1993)

Kane & Alley (1980)

Maheady, Harper,                 *              *
& Sacca (1988a)

Maheady, Sacca,                  *              *
& Harper (1987)

Maheady, Sacca,                  *              *
& Harper (1988)

Mastropieri et                   *
al. (2001)

Mastropieri, Scrugg,
Spencer, & Fontana (2003)

Nobel (2005)                     *              *

Prater, Serna,
& Nakamura (1999)

Presley & Hughes (2000)          *

Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb,
Meyers, & Duncan (1983)

Smith, Young, Nelson,
& West (1992)

Spencer, Scruggs,
& Mastropieri (2003)

Stevens (1998)

Stowitschek, Hecimovic,          *              *
Stowitschek, &
Shores (1982)

Terrell & Feldman (1983)         *

                              Specific Behaviors
                                  Monitored

                                              Tutee
                            Corrective     Performance
Study                        Feedback      Monitoring

Bell, Young, Salzberg,           *              *
& West (1991)

Blake, Wang, Cartledge,
& Gardner (2000)

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,
& Lambert (1990)

Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Kazdan (1999)

Hogan & Prater (1993)

Kane & Alley (1980)

Maheady, Harper,                 *              *
& Sacca (1988a)

Maheady, Sacca,                  *
& Harper (1987)

Maheady, Sacca,                  *
& Harper (1988)

Mastropieri et                   *
al. (2001)

Mastropieri, Scrugg,
Spencer, & Fontana (2003)

Nobel (2005)                     *              *

Prater, Serna,
& Nakamura (1999)

Presley & Hughes (2000)

Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb,
Meyers, & Duncan (1983)

Smith, Young, Nelson,
& West (1992)

Spencer, Scruggs,
& Mastropieri (2003)

Stevens (1998)

Stowitschek, Hecimovic,          *              *
Stowitschek, &
Shores (1982)

Terrell & Feldman (1983)

                                  Meeting With Tutors After
                                       Tutoring Sessions

                           Holds Regular
                           Meetings with
                             Tutors to
                              Provide
                             Forum for                      Provide
                            Discussion       Provide        Booster
                            and Problem     Feedback       Training
Study                         Solving      on Tutoring     Sessions

Bell, Young, Salzberg,
& West (1991)

Blake, Wang, Cartledge,          *
& Gardner (2000)

Franca, Kerr, Reitz,
& Lambert (1990)

Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Kazdan (1999)

Hogan & Prater (1993)

Kane & Alley (1980)

Maheady, Harper,
& Sacca (1988a)

Maheady, Sacca,
& Harper (1987)

Maheady, Sacca,
& Harper (1988)

Mastropieri et
al. (2001)

Mastropieri, Scrugg,
Spencer, & Fontana (2003)

Nobel (2005)

Prater, Serna,
& Nakamura (1999)

Presley & Hughes (2000)

Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb,
Meyers, & Duncan (1983)

Smith, Young, Nelson,
& West (1992)

Spencer, Scruggs,
& Mastropieri (2003)

Stevens (1998)

Stowitschek, Hecimovic,                                        *
Stowitschek, &
Shores (1982)

Terrell & Feldman (1983)

TABLE 6
Group Studies' With Tutor Training Mean Weighted Effect Sizes

Study                                               n     ES    nES (a)

Kane & Alley (1980)                                 21   0.25      1
Mastropieri et al. (200 1)                          24   1.15      1
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Spencer, & Fontana (2003)     16   1.15      7
Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb, Meyers, & Duncan (1983)   58   0.94      2
Spencer, Scruggs, & Mastropieri (2003)              30   0.71      3

(a) Number of unbiased mean standardized difference
effect sizes used to compute the mean.

TABLE 7
Single-Subject Studies' With Tutor Training PND Outcomes
                                                                  nDP
Study                                                  n   PND    (a)

Bell, Young, Salzberg, & West (199 1)                  2   69%     93
Blake, Wang, Cartledge, & Gardner (2000)               3   65%    184
Franca, Kerr, Reitz, & Lambert (1990)                  4   84%    114
Nobel (2005)                                           5   74%    185
Prater, Serna, & Nakamura (1999)                       5   98%     42
Presley & Hughes (2000)                                4   97%     33
Stevens (1998)                                         2   50%      8
Stowitschek, Hecimovic, Stowitschek, & Shores (1982)   9   74%    205

(a) Number of data points used to compute the mean PND.

TABLE 8
Group Studies' With Tutor Monitoring Mean Weighted Effect Sizes

                                                                   nES
Study                                                  n     ES    (a)

Fuchs, Fuchs, & Kazdan (1999)                          38   0.18    2
Mastropieri et al. (2001)                              24   1.15    1
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Spencer, & Fontana (2003)        16   1.15    7
Roach, Paolucci-Whitcomb, Meyers, & Duncan (1983)      58   0.94    2
Spencer, Scruggs, & Mastropieri (2003)                 30   0.71    3

(a) Number of unbiased mean standardized
difference effect sizes used to compute the mean

TABLE 9
Single-Subject Studies' With Tutor Monitoring PND Outcomes
                                                                   nES
Study                                                  n     ES    (a)

Bell, Young, Salzberg, & West (1991)                    2    69%    93
Blake, Wang, Cartledge, & Gardner (2000)                3    65%   184
Franca, Kerr, Reitz, & Lambert (1990)                   4    84%   114
Maheady, Harper, & Sacca (1988a)                       20    88%    21
Maheady, Sacca, & Harper (1987)                        28    65%    45
Maheady, Sacca, & Harper (1988)                        14    73%    41
Nobel (2005)                                            5    74%   185
Presley & Hughes (2000)                                 4    97%    33
Stowitschek, Hecimovic, Stowitschek, & Shores (1982)    9    74%   205
Terrell & Feldman (1983)                                6    53%    34

(a) Number of data points used to compute the mean PND.
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.