report #1 implementing the program · support of the peer tutoring program man. y ... • change...

REPORT #1

Implementing the Program Mary Chipman

Parent, Lord Tennyson Elementary School

Nicole Roy LA teacher, Lord Tennyson Elementary School

Charlie Naylor BCTF Research

Coo«op(Soo7

Contents Preface

Acknowledgments

Introduction

5

5

5

Program Summary 6

Awareness Building and Preparation 6

Budget and Space Requirements 8

Criteria for Selection 9

Organization 11

Training/Rewards 12

In Session (Live session shown in video) 13

Reflections 14

Appendices 15 i. Pamphlet

ii. Letter to Parents iii. 3-Term Schedule iv. Evaluation Sheet and Reading Record V. Tutoring Do's and Don'ts

IMPLEMENTING A SCHOOL-BASED PEER TUTORING PROGRAM

Preface This document contains two reports. The first is written by Mary Chipman and Nicole Roy, from Lord Tennyson Elementary School in Vancouver, with support from Charhe Naylor of BCTF Research. Mary Chipman is a parent volunteer in the peer tutoring program and Nicole Roy is the school's Learning Assistance teacher. Their report documents how they estabhshed a peer tutoring program to support student reading, and what is involved in such a program.

The second report is a UBC faculty research project on the peer tutoring programs at Lord Tennyson. The report is written by Dr. Monique Bournot-Trites and Dr. Ehzabeth Lee, of the Department of Language and Literacy Education, in the Faculty of Education at UBC. This provides an external perspective on the utility of this program to support children's reading. The UBC research is funded by a Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) grant from UBC. Additional support was provided by the Modern Languages Department of the Vancouver School Board.

Acknowledgments We would like to take this opportunity to thank all the teachers and the Principal at Lord Tennyson Elementary School for their support of the peer tutoring program. Many thanks also to all the parents and tutors who volunteered their time and energy to make the program work. Thanks also to Conrad Good, a Grade 7 student at Lord Tennyson, for his illustration of the peer tutoring program on the cover of this report.

Funding for this publication is provided by BCTF Research.

Introduction As our society moves towards the knowledge economy, the importance of literacy has never been greater. Literacy is undoubtedly the most essential and vital aspect of learning, and determines our success and, indeed, happiness in our work and social hves. Increasingly research points to the importance of attaining fluid literacy skills by the end of Grade 3 in order to achieve and sustain a successful education. Nurturing early literacy skills also is key to establishing the positive attitudes towards learning in general. Mastering reading is one essential foundation of educational success.

While the needs of students who are severely challenged by the demands of reading are often met in school by the Learning Assistance Centre, the nearly-independent Primary reader could also greatly benefit from a program aimed at boosting reading skills and instilling a love for language arts. Nearly-independent readers are those who are not strugghng enough to require the intervention of learning assistance, but need additional learning opportunities to attain fluency. This program is aimed at these readers.


Program Summary In September 1998 Lord Tennyson Elementary School in Vancouver, British Columbia, implemented a pilot peer tutoring program to foster the literacy skills of nearly-independent Primary readers in Grades 2 and 3.

The program was developed in partnership with Nicole Roy, the Learning Assistance (LA) teacher and Mary Chipman, parent volunteer. While the program was originally intended for use in a French Immersion environment, the program is easily adaptable in any language in either an immersion or regular school setting.

The tutoring program consists of one-on-one reading sessions whereby older peers from Grades 5, 6 and 7 are matched with readers from Grades 2 and 3. These tutors, who have undergone training specifically for this purpose, meet with their readers during the school day twice a week for 30 minutes at a time. In these tutoring sessions, both tutor and reader select a book at a pre-determined reading level. The tutor then initiates a series of reading activities for his/her student aimed at enhancing decoding skills, fluency and comprehension: predictions of the story by way of pictures; choral reading; comprehension questions; independent reading; flashcards of newly acquired vocabulary, and, finally, a short wrap-up.

The program takes place in a classroom or school library under the guidance of the LA teacher and with the involvement of parent volunteers. They ensure that readers are reading at an appropriate level; that there are no behaviour issues; that no materials are lacking, and perform spot checks to verify the student's progress and understanding of the story. The rest of this report expands on these details and describes how to establish a similar program.

Awareness Building and Preparation a) Developing a core partnership The tutoring program rehes on a core partnership between the LA teacher and a parent volunteer. This collaborative relationship is essential to promote, develop and sustain the program, and most importantly, present the program to teachers, parents, students and administration. This reading program can only succeed with such collaboration and open communication among all interested parties.

The first step in implementation is to establish this core partnership. The LA teacher must first recognize and accept the responsibility of having to be in charge of an extensive program that involves communicating with teachers, parents, students and Principal, all in addition to regular duties. The teacher must identify a parent who is equally committed to the goals of the program, and who has the necessary organizational and communication skills to develop the project. The teacher also must expect discretion on the part of the parent as there is access to information regarding the children's reading abilities and behavioural background.


b) Communicating with the Principal Once this relationship has been established, and an understanding reached as to the responsibilities of each party, the core team can approach the school's Principal to ask permission to implement the project. In doing so, they should provide full information about the proposal, explaining the objectives of the program, the target audience, the breadth of the program and the impact it would have on class schedules and teacher responsibilities. The Principal must weigh the general situation of the school and determine whether the program should have an immediate launch, a later start, or not be launched at all. If the reaction on the part of the Principal is positive, the timing of its implementation must be addressed. A positive reaction from the Principal gives the core team the opportunity to further explore the feasibility of the program with the teaching staff.

c) Communicating with teachers It is advisable that only the teacher member of the core team approach the staff to seek approval to explore the program's viability. In order to alleviate and address the concerns and perspectives of teachers, it is better for teachers to consider the proposal without a parent present, so that the organizational, pedagogical and volunteer issues can be considered in depth.

As with the Principal, the program should be explained to teachers, with more emphasis on the learning benefits for students rather than the school-wide organizational issues, and with a clear communication concerning the role of the teachers in the project. The obvious benefits are increased literacy skills and confidence for the Grade 2 and 3 readers, who also develop a special bond with their tutors that extends beyond the classroom. The Grades 5, 6 and 7 students acquire skills in tutoring, increased self-esteem and a sense of social responsibility and leadership by helping others.

The key teacher role in the project involves selecting the tutors and readers in cooperation with the core team teacher. A time for the program to operate its 30-minute peer reading session should be chosen that would be the least inconvenient for the teaching staff The tutors and the readers must feel comfortable leaving their classrooms and should not miss instructional time. For this to occur, teachers of both readers and tutors should adjust their lesson plans on certain days of the week, requiring some flexibility on their part. This is an essential aspect of the program for the teachers to consider. At first glance it seems that a half-hour delay of instruction twice weekly would not be cumbersome, but in practice it is often somewhat more onerous than expected on the classroom teacher, especially at the Intermediate level. Suggested activities for this time period could include silent reading, journal writing and finishing projects.

We recommend a thorough discussion between the core team leader and the other teachers before a decision is made. In some situations the whole school may endorse and join such a program, while in other schools a more limited number of teachers may wish to participate. A minimum of one Intermediate class and one Primary class is required to launch the program. If there is willingness to pursue the project, the recommended practice would be to start it as a pilot project of three months' duration. This would allow the staff to re-evaluate the pros and cons of the program after its initial phase and decide on its continuation. Any modifications or refinements to the program can be made at this point.

If the teachers decide to implement the program, it helps to agree on a convenient start-up time. The next steps would be to develop a budget and approach the parent body, not only for their general support, but for funds to purchase the necessary materials, as well as to seek out committed volunteers to help run the program.


The checklist below is a reminder of the key points when introducing the program to teachers: • 30-minute program, twice a week • Grade 5/6/7 tutors • Grade 2/3 readers • benefits to readers and tutors—academic

and social • change lesson plans so tutors and readers

are not missing content—silent reading time?

• classroom teacher's role in choosing readers and tutors

• agreement by the whole school or selected classes

• start-up time • thank the teachers for their consideration

of the proposal

d) Communication with parents Either one or both members of the core team can approach parents via the Parent Advisory Council (PAC) of the school. The approach is to provide information to the PAC, to gain its approval, and to request funding for the tutoring program, either at the executive or at the general level, depending on the decision-making practices of the particular PAC. The team can make a presentation similar to those ones made to the Principal and the staff, emphasizing the academic and personal-development advantages of the program for both readers and tutors. Generally speaking, because of the keen interest in developing literacy skills, especially in the immersion environment, this type of program is not difficult to "sell". Acceptance on the part of parents is relatively easy; whether funds are immediately available to fulfill the needs of the budget is another question, depending on the budgetary priorities targeted by the PAC.

If the PAC is able to finance the tutoring program, a further request to parents would be a call for volunteers to help with administration and management, and to participate in the tutoring sessions. For an immersion program, it is advisable to have bilingual parents involved in the sessions

themselves. This way the tutoring sessions support the immersion experience, as well as assisting both readers and the occasional tutor with language assistance such as pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary explanations. If seeking out volunteers in a public setting such as a PAC general meeting proves difficult, it is often helpful for the core team parent to actively set out and contact likely candidates. The other advantage of this direct approach is that the core team parent can select volunteers whose personalities and level of commitment mesh with those of the core team.

The checkhst below is a reminder of the key points when introducing the program to the PAC: • provide an overview of the program • emphasize academic and social

development • state the program has Principal and

teacher approval • request financial support, and have a

proposed budget ready • consider how to find parent volunteers

to assist in the program • thank them for their consideration of

the proposal

Budget and Space Requirements a) Budget A budget allows for the purchase of books, charts, tools such as pencils, stickers, boxes, duotangs, booklets, and for any other expenses incurred in the program.

This budget is flexible and depends on the number of students involved, the resources already in the school in terms of books and materials, as well as the location. The budget could range from $500.00 to $1,000.00. Money could come from diff"erent sources: PAC funds, school funds, special fund-raisers such as Spell-A-Thons, raffles, special sales, book fairs, etc.


SAMPLE BUDGET

Books $500.00 Pencils, stickers, charts, etc. 50.00 Boxes for materials 50.00 Presents, lunches, rewards, etc. 100.00 Boxes/rolling stands 500.00 TOTAL $1,200.00

b) Space requirement One room is recommended. The size is variable depending on the number of students and parents participating in any one session. A maximum of 7 tutors, 7 readers, 2 parents, and one supervising teacher is suggested. The library is the ideal venue, as its atmosphere is conducive to literacy. A room, other than the hbrary, should have adequate space, and enough tables and chairs. If a room is not available, using the halls may be an alternative; we then recommend to budget for boxes and rolling stands to carry materials, folding chairs and tables if needed.

Criteria for Selection a) Tutors Before implementation of the program can actually take place, likely tutoring candidates (from Grade 7, as a start) should be identified by the teacher in collaboration with the core team, and asked whether they have the interest and the motivation to become tutors for several 8-10 week sessions.

Some students initially express a keen interest in becoming tutors, although they may be unclear as to what their actual role and their responsibilities would be. For this reason, it pays to explain in some detail what the position would entail, to ensure that the candidates are truly motivated and committed, and minimize the possible attrition rate.

The classroom teacher finalizes the selection of tutors, in co-operation with the LA teacher, using the criteria listed below as guidelines. A composite of different qualities such as responsibihty, empathy, communication and organization is key to developing the relationship between tutors and readers, and best support the readers' progress. We suggest that the tutors do not necessarily have to be "A" students. Our experience shows us that even students who have had learning difficulties in reading can be excellent candidates, as long as they are able to keep up with their school work. Once the program is well under way, the supervising teacher and the parent volunteers could have some input as to the quality of the tutors selected. It is important to maintain open communication at all times between those involved in the program.

Tutors must be committed to participate fully in each session. This means they must be punctual, motivated, faithful to the pedagogical goals of the program, and considerate and understanding of their students. In addition, the tutors should have the respect and consideration of the parent volunteers and the LA teacher. Two things work well to maintain the tutors' interest and to make sure the program is meeting its goals: these are a training session before a new session begins, and a feedback session at its end. The refresher session is an opportunity for the LA teacher and the parent volunteers to reinforce tutoring skills and to brainstorm together with tutors on different methods and approaches. This ensures that the program remains robust as far as achieving its academic goals.


The feedback session with the LA teacher, parent volunteers and tutors, also serves to build skills and share innovative ideas from the actual tutoring process to the running of the program. It also provides an opportunity for program organizers and tutors to have a dialogue on what administrative and organizational details can be improved. Tutors have an excellent understanding of what works well in the program and what needs improvement, and their opinions and suggestions are always helpful and valuable.

Criteria for tutors: • interest in program, commitment to the

8- or 10-week sessions, twice a week • regular attendance; punctuality • independent • organized, with homework and projects

completed on time • good work habits • patient • good with younger children • leadership qualities • mature • able to handle discipline issues • empathetic

b) Readers Readers are selected by their teachers and by the LA teacher. Before the program begins, it is beneficial to have either one or both members of the core team show the tutoring room to the younger students in

Grade 2 and take the opportunity to explain to them the way the program works. Younger students are often nervous about unfamiliar routines and benefit from knowing in advance what is expected of them. They should be reassured that this program will be fun and the atmosphere relaxed.

Criteria for readers: • nearly-independent readers, with no

major decoding difficulties • could have had previous LAC but will

not receive tutoring and LAC support at the same time

• regular attendance; punctuality • eager to learn • comfortable being taught by older

students • good work habits • positive attitude • teacher believes that this program could

help the student become a fluent reader

The selection of students is conducted by the classroom teacher(s) in collaboration with the Learning Assistance teacher (LAT) through assessments, and later on with the input of parents' observations and evaluations. It is important to offer this program to students that are nearly-independent readers.

Diff'erent ways are suggested to conduct assessments for the selection of readers: • teachers' informal reading inventories

and annotations • LA teacher's phonics or curriculum-

based assessments • parent volunteers spot-checks and

observations during reading sessions (for on-going participation)

After the readers have been selected, it is important to place them at their approximate reading abilities within the diferent-leveled series. In other words, it is important to match them with books that they wiU have success with while being tutored. This can be done in collaboration with the LAT and the parents at the beginning of the program; the tutors could be involved later on.

10 IMPLEMENTING A SCHOOL-BASED PEER TUTORING PROGRAM

c) Parents The parents of both tutors and readers should be apprised of the nature of the program through a document or pamphlet (Appendix i) describing the program, and through letters explaining the involvement of their child (Appendix ii).

For an immersion program, it is best to have bilingual parents as volunteers, but it is not crucial. Some of the following qualities are important for the volunteers: • be warm with kids • not be too directive • communicate well • suggest new strategies • help solve problems while being discreet • have some organizational and analytical

skills

Organization a) Materials • boxes for books, pencils, felt pens, flash-

cards, half-booklets for phonics/spelhng/ games, booklets for writing/drawing, stickers, card or sticker sheets

• duotangs or folders for lesson plans • lesson plan and evaluation sheets • charts for books read • stands for books clearly identified by

colours which reflect reading levels • boxes for books

b) Schedules (See Appendix iii for 3-Term Schedule)

• 3 terms: October to December (8 weeks), January to March (8 weeks), April to June (10 weeks)'

• sessions: 2 per week, half-hour sessions, approximately 8:45 to 9:15 a.m. (This may vary with each school. We also encourage teachers not to introduce or teach new concepts during this period. If it can't be done, the tutors need to agree to make up the work they miss.)

• names of readers/grades/divisions matching with names of tutors/grades/divisions, days of sessions, parents supervisors/days

• schedules are posted in all classes involved

' Initially we had programs of 12 weeks, but in our experience we believe that 12 weeks is too long, and so we shortened it to periods of 8 or 10 weeks.

IMPLEMENTING A SCHOOL-BASED PEER TUTORING PROGRAM 11

• two or 3 students are chosen as captains, and are responsible to gather the tutors and readers

• parent volunteers organize materials • ensure open communication with all

parties through oral and written messages when scheduling, to avoid scheduhng conflicts

c) Record-keeping (see Appendix iv)

• files about readers and tutors (consent forms, tests, completed lesson plans, etc.)

• evaluation sheets for readers • attendance sheets • running record

Training/Rewards a) Tutors/parent volunteers are trained by the LA teacher, in conjunction with experienced parents • In September, training is offered by the

LA teacher, for tutors and parents. • This first training session is as follows:

brainstorming the reading steps and strategies, then prioritize, review lesson plans, and discuss.

• The second training occurs about two weeks after the first, using a peer tutoring video that has been developed.^

• As an alternative to the video, experienced parents can put on skits, role-playing the Do's and Don'ts of tutoring situations, thus reinforcing appropriate behaviours and strategies. The audience can also be involved in debating, discussing these skits, and sharing their own experiences.

• In December, we schedule a review meeting to receive feedback from tutors and parent volunteers. We brainstorm and share what has been successful, as well as what needs to improve. Solutions are debated and selected for implemention in the next session. Review meetings may be held at the end of each term if necessary.

• Lesson plans, materials, sticker system, etc., are briefly reviewed. This training session is interactive, with all parties contributing their ideas.

b) Rewards It is very important from time to time to thank and reward tutors and parents. Rewards for tutors maintain motivation, and parent volunteers also appreciate acknowledgment. Here are different ways to reward participants: • Christmas lunch for tutors and parents;

presents/cards for parent volunteers and captains

• treats such as chocolate for Easter, slurpies/ice cream for June

• in June, special lunch put on by parents of readers for all involved

• certificates and recognition at the year-end assembly or throughout the year

• in June, presents and cards signed by AO/teachers/core team/tutors/readers

• different rewards donated by merchants or parents such as gift certificates for books, bookmarks, tickets for sport events, etc.

This video is available from BCTF Lesson Aids, LA9110.


In Session (Live session shown in video)

The Schedule • 8:45 captains gather tutors • 8:50 captains gather readers • 8:55 tutors/readers pair, the session starts • book selection, lesson plan (predictions,

choral reading, individual reading, retelling, comprehension questions, vocabulary, phonics, different games. See Description of Strategies, below.)

• 9:15 wrap up (sticker on chart, stickers as rewards, socialize)

• 9:20 back to class for tutors/readers • 9:20 parents' debriefing/consulting/

organizing

Description of Strategies ^

i. Predictions The reader, with the help of the tutor, reads the book title and examines the pictures. After reading the title together, the tutor initiates a question such as, "What do you think is going to happen in this story?" Then they would talk about each picture, trying to put together the possible sequence of the story. This strategy generates ideas from the reader's prior knowledge which then helps the reader understand the story.

ii. Choral and interactive reading Together, tutor and reader read the story. The tutor makes sure that his/her speed is slightly slower than the reader, to give the reader a chance to decipher words, and to make sure the reader is actually reading. While reading chorally, the tutor will stop frequently to interact with the reader, reviewing the earlier predictions and relating the story to the reader's experience.

iii. Vocabulary During or after the choral and interactive reading, the tutor might select certain words that may appear unclear to the reader. A few strategies could be used to help define the meaning of these words:

• reading before and after the word often helps the reader understand the word because of its context.

• looking at the pictures • looking for a small word in a big word

iv. Retelling/Comprehension questions In his or her own words, the reader will retell the story in sequence. The tutor may need to help in some ways by asking pertinent questions such as: • Who are the characters? • Where does the story take place and

When? • What is the problem? • What happened next? • Was the problem resolved? How?

Later, the tutor may ask more general questions about the book, such as: • What did (or didn't) you like about this

book? Why? • Which character or part did you like best?

Why? • Has something hke that happened to you?

What was it?

V. Individual reading, and keeping a running record After the retelling/questioning period, the reader attempts to read, with the tutor assisting with difficult words or passages. During this activity, the tutor takes notes of reading fluency, decoding difficulties, etc., in the running record. The tutor completes a running record sheet for each book read. See Appendix iv (b).

vi. Flashcards During the reading, the tutor can write difficult words (whether for meaning or decoding) on flashcards, which are reviewed after each session. Games such as Hangman could be played using the f lashcard word list, but only for the last few minutes of a session.

This page could be laminated and made available for parents as a ready reference.


Reflections The Peer Tutoring Program is an extremely successful program at Lord Tennyson Elementary. It offers multiple benefits by improving the leadership skills of tutors, and the literacy and self-confidence of readers. In addition, the program often succeeds in changing the attitudes of readers towards reading, emphasizing it as a fun activity, rather than an onerous one. Once this level is reached, reading fluency can be more easily achieved, as readers will more readily practise on their own and maintain a steady rate of progress.

Communication is the key for the efficient running of the program. The core team should communicate program details at every step with all partners involved: administration, staff, parents, tutors and readers. The program requires a significant amount of co-ordination by the two core team members. Since the key partners are constantly changing from session to session, i.e., readers and tutors, certain essential elements are frequently repeated during the academic year: explaining the program to parents, providing tutor training and feedback, rescheduling sessions and issuing permission letters. However, with procedures in place as outlined in this manual, the running of the program is streamlined and efficient.

The benefits of this program are considerable. For all involved in the program, there is no greater satisfaction than to see a previously reluctant reader become a fluent, confident reader. And best of all, a reader who enjoys reading!


S m Z H

Z

> n I O o r-> in

30 H C H

o z :» O

>

SELECTION OF STUDENTS

The classroom teacher selects the tutors, in co-operation with the L A teacher, using the following criteria as gmdelines:

• Interest in program, commitment to the 8 or 10 week sessions, twice a week for 30 minutes a time

• Regiilar attendance, punctual

• Independent; good work habits

• Organized, with homework and projects completed on time

• Leadership qualities; patient; mature

• Able to handle discipline issixes; empathetic, outgoing

Readers are selected by their teachers and by the L A teacher. Criteria for readers:

• Nearly independent readers, with no major decoding difficulties

• Regular attendance, punctual

• Eager to leam; good work habits

• Comfortable being taught by older children; positive attitude

• Teacher believes the program could help the student become a fluent reader

® (XraUGHr2CXDl,>icoleRDy&Maiyai5)nun

F O R M O R E I N F O R M A T I O N C O N S U L T T H E F O L L O W I N G :

IMPLEMENTING AND EVALUA TING A SCHOOL-BASED PEER TUTORING PROGRAM, available from the British G l̂umbia Teachers' Federation (BCTF). Tel: (604) 871-2251 or toll free 1-800-663-9163, local 2251.

RELATED RESOURCE

EXPLORING LITERACY: How teachers and parents can collaborate to support early literacy. A Teacher and Parent Research Project. Available from BCTF Lesson Aids Service (LA8096; $15.00). Tel: (604) 871-2181 toll free 1-800-663-9163, local 2181.

PEER TUTORING READING PROGRAM

TUTORS: GRADES 5,6,7

READERS: GRADES 2, 3

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:

BRITISH COLUMBIA TEACHERS' FEDERATION

VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

> •a 3 Q .

3; T3 I—

m m Z

Z

> n X o o r-I

ss > m

O 30

z TJ

O O 33 >

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The tutoring program consists of one-on-one readily sessions whereby older peers from Grades 5,6 and 7 are matched with readers from Grades 2 and 3. Trained tutors meet with their readers during the school day twice a week for 30 minutes at a time. This takes place during silent reading times, so no classroom instruction is missed. Tutoring occurs in a spare classrc)om or in the school library under the guidance of the LA teacher and with parent volunteers who ensure the students' progress and maintain materials. There are three sessions ysaAy. October-December, January-March and April-June.

PROGRAM RATIONALE Literacy is the most essential aspect of learning and its importance has never been greater as we move towards a kno'w^dge economy. In September 1998 Lord Tennyson Elementary School in Vancouver, British Columbia, implemented a pilot peer tutoring program to foster the literacy skills of neariy independent primary readers in Grades 2 aiid 3. Neariy independent readen are those who are not struggling enough to require the intervention of learning assistance, but need additional learning opportunities to attain fluency.

The program was developed in partnership with Nicole Roy, the Learning Assistance teacher, and Mary Chipman, parent volunteer. The program is easily adaptable in any language in either a tegular or immersion school settij^.

BENEFITS STRATEGIES The Peer Tutoring Program offers multiple benefits by improving the leadership skills of tutors, and the literacy and self-confidence of readers. It often succeeds in changing the attitudes of readers towards readily, emphasizir^ it as a fun activity, rather than an onerous one. Reading fluency can be more easily achieved, as readers will more readily practice on their own and maintain a steady rate of progress.

A SESSION A typical session looks like this:

• 8:45 Tutors report to reading room

• 8:50 Selected tutors gather readers

• 8:55 tutors/readers pair, session starts

• book selection, lesson plan followed

• 9:15 Wrap-up (stickers as rewards, socializir^

• 9:20 Return to class for tutors/readers

• 9:20 Parents'debriefir^organizing

•> Predictions: The reader, with the tutor's help, reads the book title and examines the pictures, putting together a possible sequence of the story.

• Choral Reading: Tutor and reader both read together. The mtor reads at a slower pace, giving the reader a chance to decipher words.

• Vocabulary: During or after choral reading, the tutor points out certain words that appear unclear to the reader.

• Retelling: The reader will retell the story in sequence in his or her own words. The tutor may help byaskbg pertinent questions.

<* Individual reading and lurming record: The reader reads alone, with the tutor assisting with difficult words or passages. Tutors take note of readir^ fluency and decoding difficulties. The tutor completes a running record for each book read.

• Flashcards: Difficult words for meaning or decoding are written on flashcards and are reviewed each time.

> -a •a m Q .

o o 3' c

LETTER TO PARENTS Appendix ii

Dat(> LORD TENNYSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1936 WEST 10th AVENUE VANCOUVER, BC V6J 2B2 TELEPHONE: (604) 713-5426

Dear Parents/Guardians,

Your child , has been selected by his/her teacher to participate in the Peer Tutoring Program of Lord Tennyson School as a: tutor • back -up tutor [_l reader Q

The purpose of the Peer Tutoring Program is to have Grade 5 and/or 6 students help, encourage and support Grade 2 and/or 3 readers to become fluent in their reading skills.

Your child , has been seh^cted by his/her teacher to participate in the Taped Book Program of Lord Tennyson School as a: reader Q monitor

The purpose of the Taped Book Program is to have Grade 2 and/or 3 readers listen to taped stories, and then tape themselves reading one or two pages of th(̂ same story.

The next session of this program will commence on the week of and run until the week of . It will be a 10-week session. To participate in this program, your child will be absent from the classroom for 30 minutes, twice a week, during the silent reading segment of his/her class. Regular attendance and punctuality are prerequisites in order to continue for the next term in the program.

For further information, please contact or

Would you kindly sign this letter and return it to your child's home room teacher by

Yours truly.

_ (teacher)

(parent)

I agree to the participation of in the program described above.

Parent(s)/guardian(s) signature(s) Date


Appendix iii

3-TERM SCHEDULE

STRUCTURE TERM 1 TERM 2 TERM 3

TIME: For the 3 terms, twice a week per group, 8:45--9:15 a.m.

DATES: 8 weeks 4th week October /2nd week December

8 weeks 4th week January /2nd week March

10 weeks 2nd week April /2nd week June

READERS: (No L.A.C.)

Grade 3 Fr./Eng. 1 group or 2 7/8 readers

Grade 2/3 Fr./Eng. 2 groups 14/16 readers

Grade 2 Fr./Eng. 1 group 7/8 readers

TUTORS: {+ Back-ups)

Grade 6/7 10/12 tutors

Grade 5/6 18/20 tutors

Grade 5 10/12 tutors

PARENTS: 2-3 parents 4-5 parents 2-3 parents


Appendix iv (a)

Reader,

Date

EVALUATION

Evaluator_

Book Title

1. Decoding (indicate error occurrence in the table below)

Repetitions Insertions Substitutions Omissions Pronunciation

Fluency

Hesitations • Numerous ^ Some Q Few or none

Intonation / Punctuation

Speed

3. Comprehension

Summary of the book

Comprehension questions

Vocabulary (new words)

4. Notes

• weak

• Slow

Q Fair

Q Fair

• Weak • With some help

• Weak • With some help

• More than 10 • Between 5 and 10

• Good

Q Normfvl

• Independent

• Independent

• Less than 5


Appendix iv (b)

Tutor name

Book title

READING RECORD

Date

1. Predictions

2. Choir Reading

3. Comprehension Questions / Dialogue

4. Reading Alone

Vocabulary to be practised

• weak

• Weak

• Weak

• weak

• Fair

• Fair

• Fair

• Fair

• Good

• Good

• Good

• Good

Hard-to-Pronounce Words New Words

Post-reading games & activities

• Flashcards • Hangman • Drawing/Sentences •Other .

Notes 1. Predictions

Good: The reader was able to guess what the story is about by looking at the title and the pictures.

Fair: The reader managed to guess a few things but has to read the book to find out what the story is all about.

Weak: The reader could not guess what the story is about, or the reader is too shy and doesn't want to talk.

2. Choir reading (reading together) Good: The reader read clearly and made only

a few pronunciation mistakes. Fair: The reader had some problems pro

nouncing certain words; write them down in the table.

Weak: The reader found it very difficult to read out loud and made many pronunciation mistakes.

3. Comprehension questions Good: The reader understood the whole story

and could summarize it without looking at the book.

Fair: The reader understood almost everything, except for one or two difficult passages.

Weak: The reader didn't understand the story; this book is too difficult.

4. Reading alone Good: Very few words were mispronounced. Fair: I had to help him/her with a few difficult

words. Weak: A lot of words were mispronounced;

I had to help him/her a lot.


Appendix v

TUTORING DO'S & DON'TS

What doesn't work

Parent volunteers picking up tutors for tutoring In our experience with running several tutoring groups per week, getting tutors to come to their scheduled session promptly has heen a sticky point. Often, classroom teachers and tutors combined forget which days are slotted for tutoring. Having parent volunteers pick up the tutors delays the start of the tutoring session. With only 30 minutes available to tutoring, time is precious and easily wasted on gathering tutors, getting them to organize their materials, and only then picking up the readers.

TIPS: 1. Be sure to hand out easily-legible sched

ules to the teachers of both tutors and readers, highlighting tutoring days, times and students involved. These can be posted in the classroom for easy reference.

2. Identify a tutor who is organized, rehable and on-task, and designate him/her as "captain" of the tutors. Delegate captains with the added responsibility of collecting the other tutors promptly. Keep their motivation up by rewarding them with small prizes, such as book gift certificates on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. Change the captains every so often to avoid burnout and to give others the opportunity to show their leadership and social responsibility skills. The tutors will quickly show you that they are up to the task!

3. Expect a 5-minute loss in any case, as students settle down in the tutoring room.

Chronic lateness Being late often is an organizational nightmare and unfair to reading partners and volunteers alike. Late tutors leave parent volunteers with the dilemma of whether to summon a back-up tutor. With the reader waiting alone, parent volunteers often end up starting the reading session themselves, which leaves the other tutors and readers without the benefit of their support.

Late readers are unfair to the tutors who patiently wait for their partners, when they could be doing their own work in class.

TIPS: 1. Tutors should only be expected to wait 15

minutes. Parent volunteers should let them return to class at this mid-way mark. If readers arrive afterwards, explain to them that their session is scrubbed because they were late. Take the opportunity to tell them that it is important to be punctual for this reason.

2. If tutors are late, back-ups should be summoned after 10 minutes of waiting. In the meantime, parent volunteers can initiate the session by helping the reader select a book and start the predictions.

3. It's important for both tutors and readers to understand that being punctual is essential to achieving the program's goals, as well as displaying common courtesy to their reading partners. If either party is chronically late, it is challenging to establish the needed bond between partners for the program to be successful.

4. Being punctual is a requirement for eligibility for the next session. Don't hesitate to drop either a reader or tutor for this reason.


Appendix V (continued)


Not adhering to the criteria for selection of students For a variety of reasons, it's often tempting to go beyond the set criteria for selecting tutors and readers. More often than not, program organizers stray from the original goals of the program in their well-intentioned attempt to address other educational or social issues. This commonly happens when the program's success becomes apparent to teachers and volunteers, who then decide to expand on the program's original intent.

TIPS: 1. In the case of tutors, the tendency is to

include students whose language skills are not necessarily strong, but would especially benefit from the leadership opportunity that tutoring represents. While increasing self-esteem is of merit, avoid selecting tutors primarily on that basis. Remember who you're trying to help in this program: the Primary reader. A struggling tutor is not going to help the reader's literacy skills, and, in fact, may turn the reader off the program. Focus instead on those students who are strong readers and, most importantly, are motivated to help younger children with their reading.

2. In the case of readers, the desire to improve literacy skills is so attractive that program organizers may want to include readers who are in LAC or are particularly needy. Remember that your tutors are still children and not professionals. It is a rare tutor who can handle readers with learning disabilities. More often than not, it is a source of great frustration for tutors who want to help, but don't have the skills to do so. Don't overburden your tutors! It's also worth noting that LAC students or those with outside tutoring may find participation in this program an added strain.

3. Stick to the selection criteria set out in this manual!

Tutors job-sharing Tutors may request to tutor only once a week, and have a partner to do the other session. This situation occurs most often with older tutors in Grades 6 and 7 for the following possible reasons: • They feel they are missing too much class

time, but want to participate in the program. Job-sharing is a compromise.

• They have been tutoring for some time and are starting to tire of it, but are still attached to the program.

• They feel obliged or under pressure to continue with the program, and this is a way to scale down.

TIPS: 1. Job-sharing doesn't work! The readers are

young children who need to connect with one tutor, not an array of new, unknown faces, techniques and styles. Younger students can he quite shy and nervous at the prospect of working with an older student who, although a peer in adults' eyes, is an older person to them, and, consequently, shghtly intimidating. It is asking a lot of them to he flexible enough to accept two tutors and possibly a third in the form of a back-up tutor in the case of absence. Readers cannot easily form the essential bonds with multiple tutors. They may act their frustration out, or become passive and withdrawn. The result: job-sharing may backfire and turn readers off the program.

2. Job-sharing tutors are less committed to their reader, and never fully develop as tutors.


Appendix V (continued)


Make it clear to the tutors that this is a twice-a-week commitment. Students under consideration for tutoring have to ask themselves whether they have the interest and want the responsibility to participate energetically for the duration of the session.

Check with the tutors' classroom teachers to ensure that there is no or httle instruction taking place during tutoring sessions.

Give tutors the option to sit out a session to "recharge their batteries" and resume tutoring at the next session if they are newly invigorated.

Let tutors have a graceful way to opt out of the program if it is a burden to them in any way. Tutors shouldn't feel obliged or pressured by teachers, parents, or volunteers to continue as tutors.

What works...

Parent volunteer interaction with tutors and readers Active parent volunteer involvement during a session benefits both tutors and readers, and makes the program more robust.

TIP: 1. Tutors often develop their own style during

the course of a session. As is absolutely natural, they may sometimes forget or overlook one of the important steps of the lesson plan. Parent volunteers should circulate throughout the room and spend some time with each pair. First, volunteers should simply observe the reading partners to ensure that the tutor is covering all points of the lesson plan. They should also verify that the reader has an appropriate book for his/her level. Secondly, volunteers can actively participate, by asking the

reader comprehension questions, or tying the story to the reader's own experience. This way, volunteers can spot any difficulties in comprehension or vocabulary. Such questioning also helps to encourage the readers' oral skills: it draws the readers out, estabhshing a rapport between volunteer-reader-tutor. It also serves as role-modehng for the tutors, who often find the comprehension questions and getting past the yes/no answers challenging.

Interesting books It seems obvious, but this is the key to sustaining reader interest.

TIPS: 1. Choose books that are different from what

readers are apt to see in the classroom or library. Readers enjoy titles that are colourful, humorous, and even absurd. Boys particularly enjoy information-based books. Anything that gets kids to read is a good book. If that means supplying books filled with hockey stats and facts, or everything you want to know about bugs, so be it. They'll love it and will be eager to come to the sessions for a chance to dig into these books.

2. Colour code books into levels. This way there is no stigma attached if, for example, a Grade 3 reader is reading a Grade 2 hook.

3. Make sure there's lots of material in the first few, or lower, levels. Readers tend to spend more time in these preliminary levels before moving on to more challenging books.

4. If readers find lots of new vocabulary in a book, ensure that the tutors focus on going over relevant terminology. There is no point in emphasizing words or phrases (especially technical) that are rarely going to he seen by Primary readers.


REPORT #2

Evaluating the Program Dr. Monique Bournot-Trites

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Department of Language and Literacy Education

University of British Columbia

Contents

Introduction 5

Section 1: Theoretical Framework and Purpose of the Study 5

Section 2: Methods 7

Section 3: Results 10

Section 4: Discussion and Conclusion 13

References 15

Introduction As you have read in the report by Roy, Chipman & Naylor, the tutoring program consists of one-on-one reading sessions whereby older peers from Grade 5, 6, and 7 are matched with readers from Grade 2 and 3. These tutors, who have undergone training specifically for this purpose, meet with their readers during the school day twice a week for 30 minutes at a time.

As the peer-tutoring project in reading started, the school invited a team of researchers from UBC to evaluate the project formally. A study was then conducted to examine the effect of the cross-age tutoring intervention on Grade 2 and Grade 3 students' reading proficiency. In this part of the document we will first describe the main points found in literature research on peer tutoring. Then we will explain how the evaluation of the peer-tutoring project occurred, and we will finally describe the results.

SECTION 1: Theoretical Framework and Purpose of the Study a) Reading in French Immersion In their first years of school, French Immersion children face the simultaneous task of learning a new language as well as learning to read in a second language. In British Columbia, where the study takes place, children are likely to encounter the second language only in the classroom, the surrounding community being multilingual, with English being the dominant language. Furthermore, in comparison to English, there are fewer books available in French outside of the classroom. Stern's study (1991) demonstrated that, at the elementary level, poor literacy skills are the main reason for transferring children out of

French Immersion. For a variety of other reasons (e.g., lack of electives, mini-schools, transportation), approximately 20% of the students enroUing in French Immersion programs stay in French Immersion until the end of Grade 12. An intervention that improves reading fluency could help to reduce the number of children who transfer out of French Immersion. Thus, a reading program should include the variables that contribute to fluent reading and provide French Immersion children with the most support possible.

b) Variables contributing to fluent reading Several variables are known to contribute to fluent reading. Stanovitch (1986) has demonstrated that a major contributor to children's success in learning to read fluently is the amount of time spent reading. In other words, "practise makes perfect". Research in non-immersion settings (Kreuger & Braun, 1998; Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, & Linn, 1994; Tizard, Schofield, & Hewison, 1982; Topping, 1986; Topping, 1989; Topping & Wolfendale, 1985) has demonstrated the impact of parental assistance and additional practise upon children's reading skills. However, in French Immersion, students frequently lack the opportunity to practise reading in French outside of the classroom, as parents may find it difficult to help their children in a language that they often do not speak. Nevertheless, various studies show that the involvement of the parents in their children's hteracy development is extremely important (Purcell-Gates, 1995; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Taylor, 1983; Taylor & Dorsey Gaines, 1988). Even if the parents cannot read in French, it is important that they show interest in reading by reading themselves, reading to their children in their first language, and showing their support for school literacy initiatives by helping in the organization or supervision of these activities.

EVALUATING A SCHOOL-BASED PEER TUTORING PROGRAM

c) Research on the effectiveness of peer tutoring In cross-age peer tutoring, older students are trained to provide strategic support to younger students. This approach to teaching and learning is not new. The idea was first noted 400 years ago and was very popular in England in the 1800s. In the 1960s the United States showed a renewed interest in peer tutoring, a trend which also appeared in the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Many of these peer-tutoring initiatives have been evaluated and the benefits of peer and cross-age tutoring to readers and tutors are well documented. The first review of research which conformed to generally accepted 'academic standards' was published in 1976 (Feldman, Devin-Sheehan, & Allen, 1976) in a book edited by Allen. Already at that time, the authors who reviewed several studies in the field had found that tutoring was benefiting readers. What was surprising was that tutoring benefited tutors as well. Several studies had found that low achievers in reading made significant gains in reading abihty following their tutoring of younger children. Since then, other reviews of research in peer and cross-age tutoring have confirmed these general findings. The most thorough were those written by Sharpley and Sharpley (1981) and a meta-analysis produced by Cohen, KuHk, & Kulik (1982). In the domain of reading, Labbo and Teale (1990) described the benefits of peer tutoring. More recently, Kreuger and Braun (1998) described the effectiveness of cross-age tutoring with Enghsh as a Second Language students who were francophone for the most part. The author says, "The success was greater than either teacher had envisioned at the outset. The children not only taught one another, but also taught the teachers how children learn to read" (p. 413). Topping concludes his chapter on what he terms effectiveness research by saying, "There seems to be remarkable consistency in the findings of positive effects from peer tutoring in all the reviews studied" (Topping, 1988, p. 84).

Although the majority of peer-tutoring-effectiveness studies show a positive effect on the readers, not all studies show a positive effect. For example, the metaanalysis conducted by Cohen et al (1982) found that in 45 out of 52 studies, tutored students out-performed control students, while in six studies control students did better and in one study there was no difference. Effects can be a function of the characteristics of the tutors and the readers, the length of the project, the domain of tutoring, and the measures used to evaluate progress. Studies which reported larger effects involved tutor training, structured tutoring, cross-age tutoring, short-term projects, tutoring in mathematics, readers of low ability, and locally developed tests (Topping, 1988, p. 83).

In terms of the impact on the tutors and readers, reviewers report that more research is needed but that "a very broad range of students could benefit from the tutoring experience" (Topping, 1988, p. 78). It appears from the studies that children prefer to work with a partner of the same sex, although mixed-sex matching does not result in poorer cognitive gains. Another important question in choosing tutors is tutor achievement level. This question could be of importance in French Immersion, where students have an unequal level of proficiency in French. Teachers responsible for a peer-tutoring project might consider whether the level of proficiency in French should be a criterion for choosing tutors. Studies that have controlled for these variables found that the relative difference in ability between the tutor and the reader could be of greater significance than the ability of the tutor compared to his/her own age group.

In summary, some variables are very important to determine the impact of peer tutoring and there is still considerable uncertainty about whether the characteristics of tutors and readers impact on the results of such projects. Topping (1988, p. 95) caufions his


readers in his chapter about evaluating a peer-tutoring project:

"Peer tutoring projects are like life itself— none of them are ever entirely predictable. It is thus almost inevitable some of your objectives will not be met, but that you will find teasingly vague evidence of serendipitous gains in areas where you least expected it. Don't worry, it's the same for everyone."

d) Purpose of the study Although most studies show a positive effect of peer tutoring on cognitive and reading achievement, evaluation of a new project is crucial to finding out whether or not it has a positive impact. Besides, it is necessary to find out how the effectiveness of a project can be improved in future years. Furthermore, peer tutoring has not been widely implemented in French Immersion settings, and to our knowledge, no peer tutoring evaluation study has been conducted and published concerning French Immersion programs. As noted earher, the characteristics of the tutors are different in French Immersion; notably, tutors still have not achieved an advanced proficiency level in French when they tutor their younger reading partners.

The purpose of this study was to examine if a peer-tutoring program could contribute to better results in reading and improve students' attitudes towards reading for almost-independent readers in Grade 2 and 3.

SECTION 2: Methods a) Participants and study design The study was conducted over two years and data were collected during year 1 and year 2 for the Grade 2 students (the first year being the pilot year) and only during year 2 for Grade 3 students (see Table 1 for design). In total, there were 16 students in Grade 2 and 19 students in Grade 3 in the experimental schools. Students in the experimental schools where the peer tutoring took place were matched with students in control schools. Grade 2 students in the experimental school were matched with one control school during year 1 and year 2. Although Grade 3 students were also involved in the study during year 1, no data were collected to compare their results to the control school. During the second year of the study, two schools implemented the peer tutoring approach for Grade 3, and there was one control school.

TABLE 1 Design of the peer tutoring study in Grade 2 and 3

Experimental Group Control Group

GRADE 2 Year 1 Year 2

School A (n=7) School A (n=9)

School B (n=7) School B (n=9)

Total 16 16

GRADE 3 (Year 2 only) School A(n=12) School B (n=7) School C (n=19)

Total 19 19


b) Selection of tutors and readers Tutors and readers were chosen according to the criteria described in the first part of the document (Tutors, p. 9 and Readers p. 10). Mainly, tutors were from Grades 5 to 7 and committed to participate fully in the program. It is important to note that tutors were not necessarily excellent readers. They were chosen for the following qualities: good work habits, punctuality and regular attendance, sense of organization, patience and understanding with young children, ability to handle disciphne issues, leadership qualities, and for their ability to work independently. Some of the tutors had experienced difficulties themselves in earlier grades with reading, but all demonstrated a high motivation for participating in the project. In fact, they turned out to be excellent tutors with a high level of empathy for readers' difficulties.

Readers were nearly-independent readers chosen by the Learning Assistance teachers and the classroom teachers. These students could have had previous learning assistance but were not receiving learning assistance and tutoring at the same time. Readers were comfortable being taught by older students and were motivated to learn. Four of the Grade 3 readers received peer tutoring in Grade 2, during the pilot year.

c) Training of the tutors Tutors were trained to participate in the project (how to choose books and take notes during reading by the reader, and completing a running record sheet for each book read) and about strategies to use during the tutoring sessions. The strategies taught to the tutors were predictions, choral and interactive reading, word identification using context and decoding, comprehension, and developing vocabulary with the use of flashcards. This is described in the first report by Roy, Chipman and Naylor (see In Session, p. 13). During the second year, a video was made of the training session, and

is available from the BCTF'. Many parents were involved during the study to help supervise the tutoring sessions and participate in the training and debriefing sessions with the students and the LA teacher.

d) Measures i . Curriculum-based assessment phonics, levels 2 and 3 The phonics-based measure used was locally developed by Roy and Morissette (1996). The instrument is normally used by the Learning Assistance Centre (LAC) teachers as a diagnostic tool. In this study. Level 2 of the instrument was used for Grade 2 and Level 3 for Grade 3. The test consists of a list of words for the children to read. The list includes words of increasing difficulty according to the different French phonemes. The Grade 2 list is composed of 160 words, utihzing the sounds that are taught in Grades 1 and 2, such as the [a] sound found in "dans" and "enfant". Each sound is represented by four to eight words on the hst, grouped together on one line in the test instrument. The child is asked to read the words. The Grade 3 list is similar, but contains all the sounds and 180 words.

Examples: [a] dans enfant mange orange [k] ecole sac canard carotte kilo moustique kangourou masque

The number of correct words, number of repetitions, and the time taken to read the word Hst are recorded. On the basis of the assessment and in consultation with parents and classroom teachers, the LA teacher assigns children to one of two conditions for receiving additional academic support: LAC support or tutoring. The weakest 5% of children in both schools received Learning

' BCTF Lesson Aids catalogue item LA9110. Contact BCTF Lesson Aids to order Telephone (604) 871-2181.


Assistance. In school A, the experimental school, the next-highest scoring group of students was assigned to Tutoring. The remaining children were not considered to be having reading difficulties and did not receive any additional support outside of classroom instruction.

i i . A reading comprehension test In addition to the first measure described above, the Grade 3 students were administered the Barik test, a reading comprehension test (Barik, Swain, & Schloss, 1979). This test is composed of short paragraphs followed by multiple-choice questions. In the test manual, the authors indicate that "the tests do not differentiate well in pupil performance at the upper level. Since a score of 15 out of 19 is required on the Grade 2 test to reach the 50th percentile and a score of 21 or 22 out of 28 on the Grade 3 test, there can be little score-spread among students scoring in the upper 50 percentiles. Caution should therefore be exercised in using the norms for these two levels" (Barik et a l , 1979, p. 3). Nevertheless, this test was chosen because it was normed using French Immersion students and was the only standardized group reading test available. The raw scores were used to compare the groups.

e) Data collection In order to match students from the experimental schools with students of equivalent reading level in the control schools, all the Grade 2 and Grade 3 students at the participating schools were assessed. The intervention timing was staggered to make the program more manageable. Grade 3 students started in September and finished in March, while Grade 2 students started in January and ended their program in May. All students were assessed at the beginning and end of the intervention. During the first year of the intervention, the Learning Assistance teachers administered and scored the test. During the second year, graduate students independent of the school administered and scored the test.

f) Matching of the students Students from the experimental and control schools were matched on locally-developed measures of reading speed and accuracy, which are described above, to provide a basis for comparison. It is of interest to note that it was difficult to match the Grade 2s at the experimental school with counterparts at the control school, since Grade 2 students in the control school were achieving at a higher level than those in the experimental school on the reading measures administered (see Table 2, below, for comparison of means for all Grade 2s by school). Generally, students are placed in Learning Assistance relative to the number of students needing support. Therefore, in a school with a generally higher level of achievement, students eligible for Learning Assistance may have a higher level of achievement than students in a school with a generally lower level of achievement. When the team tried to match students on their reading measures results, in many cases a student who had graduated from LAC in the experimental school had a match with a student in the control school who was currently attending LAC. Thus, the two students could not be matched for the purposes of this study. And the closest one was chosen, often achieving at a higher level. To compound this situation, during the first year, the experimental school had several children in the group of readers who were later diagnosed with serious learning difficulties or disabilities. Several of them transferred to an English school at the end of the year or in the following year. The above information reflects how difficult accurate matching can be in research projects with small numbers and different populations.

g) Intervention After the tutor training described above, peer tutoring took place over 16 weeks, twice a week for 30 minutes each time, as described in the first part of this document. The books used were narratives and texts at the Grade 2/3 level, which the LA


teachers had graded by level of difficulty. Parents were involved in the supervision and organization of the tutoring and training sessions. After a tutor/reader pair had read five books, an informational assessment was done by the LA teacher or a parent volunteer to decide if the child could go on to read at the next level.

SECTION 3: Results

a) Comparison of results between experimental and control schools of all Grade 2 and Grade 3 students First, we analyzed the results by school to compare the population of the experimental schools and the control schools. In Grade 2, the experimental school scores much lower than the control school and the relative difference increased between year 1 and year 2 of the study (see Table 2). In Grade 3, the situation is opposite and the difference appears larger between the experimental and the control school.

b) Descriptive statistics for Grade 2 and Grade 3 Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for the Grade 2 readers and their matching counterparts in the control school. Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics for Grade 3 readers and their matching counterparts in the control school. Although we observe the same trend as for the entire population of the schools, the differences are not so large, since the groups have been matched on the pre-test achievement scores. In Grade 2, the students from the control group score generally higher than the readers in the experimental school except for reading speed (see Table 4). In Grade 3, the students from the control group score generally lower than the readers in the experimental schools except for number of words read correctly (see Table 5).

c) Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Since the groups were different at the start, a covariate was used in the analysis to equate the two groups statistically, to reduce the initial difference between the groups. However, it is important to note that this study is a quasi-experiment. This means that the subjects were not randomly assigned to treatment, but were taken as they occurred "naturally". The ANCOVA analysis does not give the results the same degree of credibihty that would be provided by a randomized experiment, but it reduces bias by equating the groups on a general academic level (Glass & Hopkins, 1984, p. 492). For comparing each variable, the pre-test value was selected as covariate, although no covariate could completely equate two groups in a quasi-experimental study.

Tables 6 and 7 show the results of the ANCOVA analysis. For example, in Table 6, the number of words read correctly is the first variable compared. The column of raw means show that the control group correctly read 127.06 words, on average, whereas the experimental group correctly read 123.06 words, on average. Because there were differences between the two groups at the beginning of the experiment, the groups were equated using a covariate as explained earlier. In this case, the control group was scoring higher than the experimental group at pre-test (see Table 4). Therefore the covariate proportionally lowered the result of the control group and increased the result of the experimental group for the post-test. The result of this operation changes the means to be compared into what is called an estimated marginal mean. In this case, the estimated marginal mean for the control group is 125.74 and the estimated marginal mean for the experimental group is 124.39. The analysis of covariance tests the hypothesis that the two means belong to the same population—in other words, that there are no significant differences between the two groups on this variable. The result of the analysis is a statistic called "F". The probability of obtaining such an F value is given

10 EVALUATING A SCHOOL-BASED PEER TUTORING PROGRAM

TABLE 2 Raw means on pre-tests by type of school (experimental and control) and by year for all Grade 2 students: Total Words Read Correctly, Reading Speed,

and Composite Variable of Speed and Words Read Correctly

Measures Experimental year 1 (n=41)

Control year 1 (n=38)

Experimental year 2 (n=39)

Control year 2 (n=42)

Words read correctly

Mean SO Mean SO Mean SD Mean SD Words read correctly 103.05 47.51 117.16 42.07 97.38 46.77 117.48 39.69

Reading speed 23.09 17.34 24.63 14.36 17.84 12.47 27.97 19.05

Words correct per minute 18.51 19.13 20.78 15.11 13.85 13.28 24.08 19.71

TABLE 3 Raw means on pre-tests by type of school (experimental and control) and by

year for all Grade 3 students: Barik Reading Test, Total Words Read Correctly, Reading Speed, and Composite Variable of Speed and Words Read Correctly

Measures Experimental schools (n=70)

Control school (n=26)

Mean SD Mean SD

Words read correctly 123.55 48.73 113.08 40.29

Reading speed 24.45 14.15 15.71 11.72

Barik reading test 15.77 6.77 12.96 7.71

TABLE 4 Raw means for matched Grade 2 groups (year 1 and 2, experimental and control)

of pre- and post-tests: Total Words Read Correctly, Reading Speed, and Composite Variable of Speed and Words Read Correctly

Tests Experimental (n=16)

Control (n=16)

Total (n=32)

Total Words Read Correctly pre-test Words Read Correctly post-test

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Total Words Read Correctly pre-test Words Read Correctly post-test

88.06 30.36 123.06 22.59

93.06 13.44 127.06 19.83

90.56 23.23 125.06 21.01

Reading Speed pre-test

Reading Speed post-test

14.52 13.10 22.64 14.05

12.24 2.69

23.39 8.28

13.38 9.37 23.02 11.35

Words Correct per Minute pre-test Words Correct per Minute post-test

9.55 14.06

18.81 14.55

7.12 1.86 19.00 8.09

8.34 9.94 18.91 11.58

EVALUATING A SCHOOL-BASED PEER TUTORING PROGRAM 11

TABLE 5 Raw means for matched Grade 3 groups (year 2, experimental and control)

of pre- and post-tests: Reading Comprehension (Barik test). Total Words Read Correctly, Reading Speed, and Composite Variable of Speed and Words Read Correctly

Tests Experimental (n=19)

Control (n=19)

Total (n=38)

Words Read Correctly pre-test

Words Read Correctly post-test

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Words Read Correctly pre-test

Words Read Correctly post-test

91.05 54.86 126.53 43.96

92.89 51.21

120.32 44.91

91.97 52.35

123.42 43.95

Reading Speed pre-test

Reading Speed post-test

14.83 8.53

26.58 12.48

13.33 9.08

24.10 11.63

14.08 8.72

25.34 11.96 Words Correct per Minute pre-test

Words Correct per Minute post-test

9.45 8.88

21.21 12.98 9.03 8.47

18.95 11.90

9.24 8.56

20.08 12.33 Barik pre-test Barik post-test

11.26 4.19

15.89 5.68

10.16 7.40

15.53 6.08

10.71 5.96

15.71 5.80

TABLE 6 Matched Grade 2 groups (year 1 and 2):

Group Differences on Post-tests for Total Words Read Correctly, Reading Speed, and Composite Variable of Speed and Words Read Correctly

Measures Raw Means Estimated Marginal Means

ANCOVA

Number of Words Read Correctly Experimental Group (n=16) Control Group (n=16)

Mean SD Mean SE F(2,29) Sig. Number of Words Read Correctly Experimental Group (n=16) Control Group (n=16)

123.06 22.59 127.06 19.83

124.39 4.39 125.74 4.39 7.78 .002*

Reading Speed (words/minutes) Experimental Group (n=16) Control Group (n=16)

22.65 14.05 23.39 8.28

21.45 1.49 24.59 1.49 42.04 .000*

Composite Variable (speed & correction) Experimental Group (n=16) Control Group (n=16)

18.81 14.55

19.00 8.09 17.55 1.39

20.27 1.39

20

.000*

•̂p < .05.


in the column "sig" (for significance). The result obtained is .002. This means that if we were doing this experiment a thousand times, the means would be shown to belong to the same population only twice. Therefore the probability that there is no difference between the two means is extremely small. If the probability was higher than .05 (p < .05), we would say that there is no significant difference between the two groups on the number of words read correctly. In the present case because .002 is much smaller than .05, our cut-off point, we can say that there is a significant difference between the two groups. This means that the mean of the control group is significantly higher than the mean of the experimental group. All the other results of Tables 6 and 7 can be read this way. The asterisk shows that there is a significant difference. The group that did better is the group with the highest estimated marginal mean. In summary, the results of the analyses of co-variance show that in Grade 2, the control group did significantly better than the experimental group on all the variables (see Table 6). However, the experimental group did better than the control group in Grade 3, except for the reading comprehension test (see Table 7). Several explanations could be offered for these divergent results, and this is discussed in Section 4.

SECTION 4: Discussion and Conclusion In conclusion, the program was positive from many points of view, and some explanations can be offered for the negative results obtained for reading comprehension in Grade 3 and for the Grade 2 group, which was not a typical group of readers, as described earlier.

There was a significantly positive effect for the Grade 3 group evaluated during the second year of the program, except for the test of reading comprehension. This

negative result for reading comprehension can be explained by the poor vahdity of the Barik test for Grade 3 at the upper level. As explained by the test authors, the test has a low validity for Grades 2 and 3 at the upper levels. Furthermore, the reading test used is a standardized test and Topping (1988, p. 83) noted that, generally, effects were better with locally-developed tests than with nationally-standardized tests. Except for reading comprehension, the results of the Grade 3 group are unequivocally positive.

In Grade 2 the results are significantly negative for the experimental group. This result seems strange, since all the participants, parents, teachers and students, found the program effective. Various explanations could be offered for this result. First, the Grade 2 group includes students who were in the peer-tutoring program during year 1, the pilot year. The program was reviewed after the first year and improved as a result of parents', teachers' and students' feedback. Another major explanation can be found in the difference of population between the experimental school and the control school. As we noticed earlier, there was a greater variability in the experimental group than in the control group. This is indicated by the value of the standard deviation (SD). For example, in Table 4 the standard deviation for Total Words Read Correctly at pre-test is 30.36 for the experimental group and 13.44 for the control group. This indicates a much greater variation in the results of the experimental group than in the results of the control group for this variable. Notice that all the standard deviations in that table are larger for the experimental group than for the control group. The LA teacher confirmed that the group included several students with serious difficulties and disabilities; therefore, there would be less potential for reading development for these readers, even if they had been matched with students with equivalent results on the pre-tests. Those students who were included


TABLE 7 Matched Grade 3 Groups (year 2):

Group Differences on Post-tests for Reading Comprehension, Total Words Read Correctly, Reading Speed, and Composite Variable of Speed and Words Read Correctly

Measures Raw Means Estimated Marginal Means

ANCOVA

Number of Words Read Correctly

Experimental Group (n=19)

Control Group (n=19)

Mean SD Mean SE F(2,35) Sig. Number of Words Read Correctly



126.53 43.96 120.32 44.91

127.22 4.48 119.62 4.48 76.29 .000*

Reading Speed (words/minutes)



26.57 12.48

24.10 11.64

25.72 1.53

24.96 1.53 42.35 .000*

Composite Variable (speed & correction) Experimental Group (n=19) Control Group (n=19)

21.21 12.98

18.95 11.90

20.94 1.17

19.23 1.17 91.37 .000*

Reading Comprehension (Barik test) Experimental Group (n=19) Control Group (n=19)

15.89 5.68 15.53 6.08

15.52 .98

15.91 .98 17.06 .000*

*p < .05.

in that group went to an Enghsh school after Grade 2 or 3. A covariate analysis was done to attempt to equate the groups at the beginning; however, this statistical technique does not equate for differential potential. Even though students were matched as well as possible according to their achievement at pre-test time, in reaUty students with learning disabilities usually do not progress at the same rate as students who score low but have a high potential. Finally, the negative result in Grade 2 could be explained by a teacher effect or population effect, and this is supported by the comparison of results by school for all the Grade 2 students (see Table 2). As we have shown in Table 2, the results of the Grade 2 population in the experimental school are

consistently lower than in the control school, and the relative difference becomes larger during the second year of the project. This could indicate that the two schools attract a very different population.

It could also be that the pedagogical effect is greater than the tutor effect. In other words, the control school may have emphasized phonics more than the experimental school. However, we do not beheve that this is a strong explanation for the results, since we equated the groups at the beginning for initial differences. The two explanations— inclusion of the pilot year in the Grade 2 data, and the experimental Grade 2 group being atypical—seem to be the most plausible and valid explanations for the surprising


results. The fact that the Grade 2 group was atypical makes us believe that if the evaluation of peer tutoring were done again in a new Grade 2 class of typical students, positive results would be obtained.

Although we did not measure systematically the change of students' and parents' attitude during the project, several indicators show that peer tutoring had a beneficial impact on readers' attitudes towards reading and increased their motivation for reading. Not surprisingly, it also had a beneficial impact on tutors' attitudes toward reading. Focus groups of parents and students at the end of the second year indicated that the tutoring program also had a beneficial effect upon the self-confidence of the tutors. They mentioned that peer tutoring improved the attitude of the readers towards reading in terms of general willingness to receive help in reading. In addition, the peer-tutoring intervention did have a positive impact upon the reading performance of strugghng readers, and provides a model for other schools, some of which have started a tutoring program in their school. The successful program made the news during National Literacy Week on CBC. From the schools' perspective, the results of the peer-tutoring project were positive and the schools have recommended the continuance of the program.

In summary, we beheve that this study provides evidence that cross-age tutoring in elementary French Immersion is an effective method for improving the reading performance of almost-independent, but still-struggling readers.

References Barik. H., Swain, M., & Schloss, B. (1979). Tests

de lecture: French reading comprehension tests for Grade 2 to 6. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

Cohen, P. A.. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik. C. L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Research Journal. 19. 237-248.

Feldman, R. S., Devin-Sheehan, L., & Allen, V. L.

(1976). Children tutoring children: A critical review of research. In V. I,. Allen (Ed.), Children as teachers: Theory and research on tutoring. New York: Academic Press.

Glass, G. v., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology (second edition ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kreuger, E., & Braun, B. (1998). Books & buddies: Peers tutoring peers. The Reading Teacher. 52(4). 410-414.

Labbo, L., & Teale, W. (1990). Cross-age reading: A strategy for helping poor readers. The Reading Teacher. 43. 362-369.

Meyer, L., Wardrop, J., Stahl, S., & Linn, R. (1994). Effects of reading storybooks aloud to children. Journal of educational research. 88. 69-85.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other peoples' words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons and the TV Guide: Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly. 31. 406-428.

Roy, N. & Morissette, N. (1996). Evaluation du decodage. level 2 and level 3. Unpublished reading assessement instrument. Vancouver, B.C.

Sharpley, A. M. . & Sharpley, C. F. (1981). Peer tutoring: A review of the literature (Vol. CORE 5, 3, 7 - C l l (fiche 7 and 8) ). Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Carfax Publishing Company.

Stanovitch, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly. 21. 360-407.

Stern, M. (1991). The French Immersion transfer process: An investigation of children transferring from the French Immersion program into the regular English program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto.

Taylor, D. (1983). Family hteracy. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Taylor, D., & Dorsey Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Tizard, J., Schofield, W. N. , & Hewison, J. (1982). Collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children's reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 52. 1-15.

Topping, K. J. (1986). W.H.l.C.H. Parental involvement in reading scheme? Reading. 20(3). 148-156.

Topping, K. J. (1988). The peer tutoring handbook: Promoting co-operative learning. London; Cambridge, MA: Croom Helm; Brookline Books.

Topping, K. J. (1989). Parents as reading tutors for children with special needs. In N. Jones (Ed.), Special Educational Needs Review (Vol. 1, ). London: Falmer Press.

Topping, K. J., & Wolfendale, S. (1985). Parental involvement in children's reading. London; Cambridge, MA: Croom Helm.


Published by BCTF Research British Columbia Teachers' Federation

100-550 West 6th Avenue Vancouver, BC V5Z 4P2 ^53 RTOl-0023

report #1 implementing the program · support of the peer tutoring program man. y ... • change...

Documents